Le Parlement européen demande un impôt minimum sur le numérique et les sociétés -Plus de 100 milliards $, c’est ce que les GAFA n’ont pas payé en impôts – Taxer les GAFA : une priorité au G-20 – Le « pognon de dingue » des GAFA – Juncker s’attaque au gouvernement luxembourgeois à propos de la taxation des GAFA – D’Apple à Starbucks, 7 géants accusés de soustraire des milliards d’impôts … sans oublier UBS et Deutsche Bank

Impôt sur le numérique et les sociétés: le Parlement européen demande un impôt minimum sur les sociétés 

Aujourd’hui, 18/12/19, la plénière du Parlement européen a voté une résolution sur la fiscalité numérique. Parce que les entreprises technologiques telles que Google, Apple et Facebook ne paient pratiquement aucun impôt sur leurs bénéfices, la Commission européenne a présenté une proposition de taxe numérique européenne en 2018. Alors que le Parlement européen a soutenu cette initiative législative, plusieurs gouvernements européens, dont le gouvernement allemand, empêché une décision ambitieuse au Conseil. Jusqu’à la fin de 2020, l’OCDE recherche actuellement une solution au niveau mondial. La résolution adoptée aujourd’hui par le Parlement européen appelle les États membres de l’UE à parler d’une seule voix dans les négociations de l’OCDE. En cas d’échec des négociations de l’OCDE, la Commission européenne devrait présenter une nouvelle proposition législative, idéalement selon la procédure de la majorité qualifiée conformément à l’article 116 du traité sur le fonctionnement de l’UE. Pour la première fois, les députés européens démocrates-chrétiens soutiennent également la demande d’un taux d’imposition minimum pour la fiscalité des entreprises.

L’eurodéputé Sven Giegold , porte-parole de la politique économique et financière du groupe Verts / ALE, a déclaré:

«Il est important que l’Europe parle d’une seule voix dans les négociations de l’OCDE. Les objections des États-Unis montrent qu’un accord au niveau mondial n’est nullement certain. Si les efforts multilatéraux échouent, la Commission européenne doit présenter une nouvelle proposition pour l’Europe selon la procédure majoritaire. Si dix des 28 États membres de l’UE perçoivent leur propre taxe numérique ou envisagent de le faire, cela fausse clairement la concurrence sur le marché intérieur. Nous avons besoin d’une réponse européenne au problème transfrontalier de la taxation faible à nulle de la valeur ajoutée numérique.

Pour la première fois, les chrétiens-démocrates sont également attachés à des impôts minimaux. Il est regrettable que les démocrates-chrétiens, les conservateurs de droite et les libéraux aient rejeté un taux d’imposition concret pour la fiscalité des entreprises, comme l’ont demandé les sociaux-démocrates, la gauche et nous les verts. Mais, l’engagement fondamental de l’ensemble du Parlement européen en faveur des impôts minimaux est un signal important dans la lutte contre l’évasion fiscale. Il est temps que toutes les entreprises de l’UE – grandes et petites – paient leur juste part.

L’Europe montre la voie pour lutter contre l’évasion fiscale et la fraude. Pour qu’il en soit ainsi, les faiblesses de la directive européenne anti-évasion fiscale (ATAD) doivent également être corrigées. Nous sommes heureux que les démocrates-chrétiens, les sociaux-démocrates et la gauche aient soutenu notre appel à un réexamen des échappatoires ATAD. L’Europe ne doit pas rester les bras croisés et indiquer des négociations mondiales car nos nouvelles règles contre le dumping fiscal sont sapées ».

Résolution du Parlement européen déposée pour vote en plénière:

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-9-2019-0238_EN.pdf 

Aperçu des taxes numériques perçues ou prévues dans l’UE:

https://files.taxfoundation.org/20190717162806/DST-Countries-Final-01.png

——————————————————————————————–

Ce que les GAFA n’ont pas payé en impôts sur les dix dernières années …

Tomorrow, 2nd December (“Cyber Monday”) we will release analysis on “The Silicon Six and their $100 billion global tax gap”. This examines the tax conduct of Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google and Microsoft over the last decade.

 

Web link at https://fairtaxmark.net/tax-gap-of-silicon-six-over-100-billion-so-far-this-decade/

PRESS RELEASE (2 Dec 2019)

TAX GAP OF SILICON SIX OVER $100 BILLION SO FAR THIS DECADE

·       – Amazon ranked as the business with the poorest tax conduct, having paid just $3.4bn in income taxes this decade.

·       – Microsoft, by a slim margin, found to have the least aggressive approach to tax avoidance of the Silicon Six.

The Fair Tax Mark has today, 2nd December (Cyber Monday), released the report The Silicon Six and their $100 billion global tax gap, which examines the tax conduct of Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix, Google and Microsoft over the last decade.

 

The report questions whether the companies, collectively referred to as the ‘Silicon Six’, are paying their way on tax. Together they have a combined market capitalization of $4.5 trillion and are worth more than the 1,000 companies listed on the London Stock Exchange.

 

The report finds that there is a significant difference between the cash taxes paid and both the expected headline rate of tax and, more significantly, the reported current tax provisions. It concludes that the corporation tax paid by the Silicon Six is much lower than is commonly understood. Over the period 2010 to 2019:

•      – the gap between the expected headline rates of tax and the cash taxes actually paid was $155.3bn

•      – the gap between the current tax provisions and the cash taxes actually paid was $100.2bn

The report suggests that the bulk of the shortfall almost certainly arose outside the United States, given that the foreign current tax charge was just 8.4% of identified foreign profits over 2010-19.

Profits continue to be shifted to tax havens, especially Bermuda, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

Investors are warned that the collective tax contingencies of the Six have rocketed in recent years, increasing fourfold from $8.9bn at the end of 2010 to $47bn in 2019. They have also accrued a further $5.7bn in connected interest and penalties. In total, the Six have more than $50bn of unrealised net income due to their aggressive tax positions.

In terms of ranking, none of the Six is an exemplar of responsible tax conduct. However, the degree of irresponsibility and the relative tax contribution made does vary. Amazon has paid just $3.4bn in income taxes this decade, whilst Apple has paid $93.8bn and Microsoft has paid $46.9bn. This is a staggering variance, especially as Amazon’s revenue over this period exceeded that of Microsoft’s by almost $80bn.

Chief Executive of the Fair Tax Mark, Paul Monaghan said: “Our analysis of the long-run effective tax rate of the Silicon Valley Six over the decade to date has found that there is a significant difference between the cash taxes paid and both the headline rate of tax and, more significantly, the reported current tax provisions. We conclude that the corporation tax paid has been much lower than is commonly understood.

“The international tide is turning on the acceptability of corporate tax avoidance. The idea of countering the profit-shifting of Big Tech multinationals via the introduction of digital sales taxes has taken root in many countries. Investors need to look afresh at the future impact that this will have on company valuations and income flows. Not least because the OECD is now leading multilateral efforts to address the tax challenges from digitalisation of the economy, and is looking to ensure that profitable multinationals pay tax wherever they have significant consumer-facing activities and generate their profits.”

The report concentrates on the information contained in the Form 10-K annual filings in the United States, where the companies are incorporated. It has also selectively reviewed Form 10-Q quarterly filings and the company accounts of various European and UK subsidiaries, focussing our attention on the cash taxes paid (as opposed to the total tax and / or current tax provisions, which are predominantly the focus of media analysis and policy consideration to date).

Alex Cobham, Chief Executive, Tax Justice Network, said: “This report demonstrates why we need a fundamental reprogramming of the world’s approach to tax, based on a unitary taxation. When multinational corporations abuse their tax responsibilities to society, they weaken the supports that our economies need to work well and create wealth. A unitary approach to tax means we can finally make sure multinational corporations contribute tax based on where they employ workers and do business, not where they rent mailboxes and hide ledgers. By ensuring multinational corporations pay their fair share locally for the wealth created locally by people’s work – based on an agreed formula and supplemented by a minimum effective tax rate – governments can strengthen their economies to run smoothly and make a good life possible for everyone.”

ENDS

For media enquiries and a full copy of the report The Silicon Six and their $100 billion global tax gap.

Please contact: Gill Owen: m 07876246150 e press@fairtaxmark.net or

Paul Monaghan: m 07741988492 e press@fairtaxmark.net

Notes to editors:

Ranking of poor tax conduct

·       1st Amazon. Stands out as the business with the poorest tax conduct, having paid just $3.4bn in income taxes this decade. The cash tax paid was 12.7% of profit over the decade, at a time when the federal headline rate of tax in the United States was 35% for seven of the eight years under examination. The company is growing its market domination across the globe on the back of revenues that are largely untaxed, and can unfairly undercut local businesses that take a more responsible approach. The situation is unlikely to reverse soon given the $9.3bn of operating loss carryforwards available to offset against future profits and taxes.

·       2nd Facebook. The cash tax paid as a percentage of profit was just 10.2% over the period of study (the lowest of any of the Silicon Six) at a time when the federal headline rate of tax in the United States was 35% for seven of the eight years under examination. Has the lowest foreign current tax charge ratio of the Silicon Six over the decade, at just 5% of profits. Reported contingencies for uncertain tax positions have quadrupled over the last six years, and now stand at a significant $7.16bn.

·       3rd Google. In June 2019, sought to put the record straight on their tax conduct and asserted that: “Google’s overall global tax rate has been over 23% for the past 10 years, in line with the 23.7% average statutory rate across the member countries of the OECD.” In fact, the cash tax paid as a percentage of profit was just 15.8%. The trend of low current tax provision in connection with foreign profits continues in 2018, with just $1.25bn booked on $19.1bn of foreign profit, giving a booked current tax rate of just 6.5% – this is less than the company’s already low average for the decade, which is 7.1%.

·       4th Netflix. Proved to be the most difficult to rank. The cash tax paid as a percentage of profit was just 15.8% (the same as Google). Operate thin margins (just 5.3%) and as a result the cash taxes paid as a percentage of revenue are a tiny 0.8% – which is less than a fifth of the ratio generated by Microsoft, Apple and Google. Reported foreign profit margin is even slimmer, at 4.3%.

·       5th Apple. Presents itself as “the world’s largest taxpayer” and it certainly makes the largest tax contribution of the Silicon Six, having paid $93.8bn in income taxes this decade (albeit on profits of $548.7bn and revenue of $1,888.0bn). However, cash tax paid as a percentage of profit over the decade is still a relatively low 17.1%. The trend of low current tax provision in connection with foreign profits continues in 2019, with just $3.9bn booked on $44.3bn of foreign profit, giving a booked current tax rate of just 8.9%.

·       6th Microsoft. Our analysis suggests that Microsoft, by a slim margin, has the least aggressive approach to tax avoidance of the Six. Makes the second largest tax contribution of the Silicon Six, having paid $46.9bn in income taxes this decade (on profits of $278.5bn and revenue of $882.5bn). However, the cash tax paid as a percentage of profit is still a relatively low 16.8%. Microsoft’s tax contingencies continued their annual growth through to 2019, to hit a significant $13.1bn – and were the highest of the Silicon Six for most of the decade.

 

About the Fair Tax Mark

The Fair Tax Mark certification scheme was launched in the UK in 2014, and seeks to encourage and recognise organisations that pay the right amount of corporation tax at the right time and in the right place. Tax contributions are a key part of the wider social and economic contribution made by business, helping the communities in which they operate to deliver valuable public services and build the infrastructure that paves the way for growth. More than fifty businesses have now been certified in the UK, including FTSE-listed PLCs, co-operatives, social enterprises and large private business – which between them have over 7,000 offices and outlets. We operate as a not-for-profit social enterprise and believe that companies paying tax responsibly should be celebrated, and any race to the bottom resisted. To date, the Fair Tax Mark’s activities have been focused on the UK; however, a new suite of international standards is now under development. These would enable the Fair Tax certification of businesses that have their ultimate holding company situated outside of the UK. Further information at www.fairtaxmark.net

 Paul Monaghan

Chief Executive | Fair Tax Mark

Office: (0161) 7690427 | Mobile: (07741) 988492

www.fairtaxmark.net | @FairTaxMark

—————————————————————————

Au G20 Finances, la taxation du numérique est une priorité

08 juin 2019 – L’Echo

(OECD (2019), Programme of Work to Develop a Consensus Solution to the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy, OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS, OECD, Paris,

www.oecd.org/tax/beps/programme-of-work-to-develop-aconsensus-solution-to-the-tax-challenges-arising-from-the-digitalisation-of-the-economy.htm)

Les ministres des Finances du G20 ont approuvé l’idée d’un accord global sur la taxation des entreprises du numérique. Ils tablent sur un accord définitif en 2020.

Les principaux ministres des Finances des pays du G20, réunis ce week-end au Japon, ont convenu de l’urgence de réformer la taxation des géants du numérique (Gafa), comme Google et Facebook.

L’idée: taxer Amazon, Google, Apple et autres multinationales du numérique non plus en fonction de la présence physique (là où se situent leurs bureaux), mais de là où elles enregistrent leurs revenus.

« Nous devons nous dépêcher »

« Nous devons nous dépêcher! », a lancé le ministre français Bruno Le Maire, avant le coup d’envoi officiel des sessions de travail entre grands argentiers à Fukuoka.

 « La réalité, c’est la digitalisation de l’économie et des grandes entreprises du numérique qui font des profits considérables grâce à la valorisation des données », tout en payant leurs impôts dans des pays aux taux plus favorables, a-t-il souligné. Cette volonté de bâtir ensemble « un système fiscal international qui soit plus efficace et plus juste », ses homologues l’ont aussi formulée.

Le système actuel est « perçu par les citoyens comme une grave injustice », a estimé le ministre britannique des Finances, Philip Hammond.

Le secrétaire général de l’OCDE, Angel Gurria, a salué « des progrès significatifs », avec l’adoption la semaine dernière par 129 pays d’une feuille de route ouvrant la voie à la conclusion d’un accord « d’ici à 2020 ».

Fortes divergences

Il existe toutefois de fortes divergences sur les moyens d’application d’une telle taxe« Sur le fait de se dépêcher, je ne suis on ne peut plus d’accord », mais « ce sont des questions compliquées », a réagi le secrétaire américain au Trésor Steven Mnuchin, soucieux de ne pas « discriminer » le secteur technologique.

Il a ainsi manifesté son désaccord vis-à-vis de la décision de la France et de la Grande-Bretagne d’imposer unilatéralement les Gafa sur leur chiffre d’affaires.

Parmi les trois pistes soumises à l’OCDE, celle de Washington se veut beaucoup plus large et ambitieuse et ne se limite pas à l’économie numérique. Elle s’étendrait à tous les groupes qui « ont de la distribution » dans des autres pays, comme les entreprises du luxe françaises aux Etats-Unis, ou les firmes américaines en Europe.

Bruno Le Maire s’est lui dit « ouvert » à l’idée américaine, répétant que la France retirerait ses propres mesures de taxation dès qu’une solution internationale serait trouvée. Il a aussi insisté sur l’importance de mettre en place un taux de taxation minimum sur les multinationales,« pour éviter qu’elles puissent délocaliser leurs profits vers des paradis fiscaux ou des pays où l’imposition sur les sociétés est plus faible ».

Mathilde Ridole, Journaliste                      Source: AFP

https://www.lecho.be/economie-politique/international/economie/au-g20-finances-la-taxation-du-numerique-est-une-priorite/10134907.html

——————————————————————————-

Le « pognon de dingues » des GAFA. A quand les taxer ? Une pétition des citoyens français … et en Belgique ?

http://taxesgafa.ouimob.org/

——————————————————————————–

Juncker qualifie la position luxembourgeoise d’erreur historique :

https://www.wort.lu/fr/economie/imposition-des-geants-de-l-internet-juncker-attaque-le-luxembourg-sur-sa-politique-fiscale-5a0d52abc1097cee25b7757d

—————————————————————————————–

Sous le microscope des administrations européennes sept géants :

7 Corporate Giants Accused of Evading Billions in Taxes

…  sans oublier les bonus des banques d’investissement UBS et Deutsche Bank poursuivis par l’administration fiscale britannique :

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35761706

If you have time – you might like to try to unravel the UBS & Deutsche bankers’ £40M bonuses tax case “complexity” – if you find the machinations too “complex”, ask a ten year old what was really going on:

https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0151-judgment.pdf

The court focused on whether the huge bonuses paid in “shares or securities” were in fact “cash” to be taxed as normal.

I have not read any comments from the court or tax-collectors about the several sham brass-plate tax-haven companies inserted into the centre of these imaginative and creative self-invoicing documents. The transactions to and from these companies (“vehicles”) are entirely sham – and so illegal in the UK. Criminal fraud will have occurred on signing tax-returns, appointment of “arms-length” faux-owners and faux-directors, company minutes and audited balance-sheets.

For such “complex” schemes to work – we all have to pretend and have to applaud the Emperor’s New Clothes. It’s a damned silly and time-wasting way to run the world’s economy. It is time we all grew up.

___________________________________________________

Please note that self-invoicing from brass-plate offshore companies, especially with few or no staff to justify the reality of such invoices, was and is illegal in tax-law across the OECD. Creating such invoices is criminal fraud (in the US it includes the serious crime of “wire fraud” ). The crime occurs when officers sign misleading Balance Sheets and Tax Returns, or claim that faux directors are real directors, or that the self-invoicing transactions are “at arms length”; or on “commercial terms”. The corporate treasurers and bankers commit criminal offences when they approve payment of the self-invoices and transfer the funds. Where several officers and advisors are involved, it is “criminal conspiracy” which carries a long prison sentence – such as the jail term of Al Capone.

Tax collectors are usually satisfied to collect the taxes and rarely bring criminal charges – except in persistent cases such as ENRON – advised by Arthur Andersen. Clients can sue their professional advisors over failed schemes “which are of course all perfectly legal” (they are not legal in the OECD) and the advisors seek to recover their costs from their professional indemnity insurance PII. Even the best advised schemes fail when the detail is closely examined by honest Courts and judges who do not themselves use tax-havens

… et les rulings belges pour 35 grosses sociétés

http://www.cafebabel.fr/bruxelles/article/bruxelles-haro-sur-les-cadeaux-fiscaux.html?utm_source=phplist77&utm_medium=email&utm_content=HTML&utm_campaign=Anticipation+Politique+-+Revue+de+presse+LEAP%2FEurope+2020

Comments

comments