Yesterday Shell published its first CBCR report (called Tax Contribution Report), so they actually did live up to their promise they made earlier this year to be more transparent. The report provides lot of interesting information, for example that Shell didn’t pay any tax in 2018 in the Netherlands and the UK (while it’s a Dutch/British company). For the Netherlands this was the third year in a row (a year ago Shell still denied it doesn’t pay any tax in the Netherlands). The headline in the Financial Times was “Shell reveals it paid no UK corporate income tax in 2018”.

There are a lot of other countries in Europe where Shell doesn’t pay any tax either (or hardly any), while having a substantial amount of activities in the country, like Austria, France, Finland, Spain and Sweden.

According to the Dutch newspaper that had the scoop it shows that Shell doesn’t make very much use of tax havens. We come to another conclusion when we look at the report. Shell has a lot of turnover and profit in Singapore and the Bahamas, but doesn’t pay any tax there. Most of the tax is paid in countries with resources (probably because a lot of the tax paid is actually what they pay for oil and gas).

Best, Arnold Merkies | Coordinator Tax Justice NL

W: http://www.taxjustice.nl| T:@TaxJusticeNL

———————————————————————————

 Classification des investissements durables: Happy End sans greenwashing nucléaire

Défaite historique pour les défenseurs de la transparence et de la justice fiscale : ici la réaction de Sven Giegold (Verts européen)  et d’Eurodad – 28 novembre 2019 : l’Allemagne et les paradis fiscaux, même combat ?! !

EU Ministers fail to take any decisive action on corporate tax transparency  

Yesterday, Eurodad and other NGO representatives and campaign groups stood outside the EU Council, where the Competetiveness Council was meeting for the first public ministerial-level debate on the European Commission’s directive for public country by country reporting (CBCR). Decisive action on corporate tax transparency is urgently needed to prevent corporate tax avoidance, which costs governments globally US$ 500 billion each year in lost tax income. In the end, disputes over the legal basis of the proposal stalled discussions and prevented a vote. In this video, we explain why we need public CBCR.

———————————————————————————

Bitter defeat for tax justice: Germany and tax havens prevent majority for transparency of large companies Link to spread this information on twitter/facebook: https://sven-giegold.de/tax-justice-council-prevents-transparency/ Tax payments by large companies will not become more transparent for the time being. After a long struggle, the EU member states have not yet been able to agree on a common position on public country-by-country reporting. A qualified majority in the EU Council of Ministers could not be reached because 13 member states did not support the compromise of the Finnish Presidency. In response to the scandal surrounding the Panama Papers, the EU Commission had already submitted the corresponding legislative proposal in April 2016. The European Parliament had defined its position in July 2017. Without a common position of the Council of the Member States, however, negotiations on the final legislative text cannot begin. The EU Commission’s legislative proposal thus remains in limbo. Sven Giegold, spokesperson for Bündnis 90/Die Grünen in the European Parliament, commented: « This is a bitter day for tax justice. A blocking minority of Member States prevented more tax justice in Europe and sided with the tax havens. With their blockade, they have slowed down the fight against tax avoidance throughout Europe. With tax transparency for each country, Europe would in fact have put a stop to the transfer of profits to tax havens. One of the most effective instruments against tax avoidance was rejected. It is particularly embossing that Germany was the only large country that did not support tax transparency. The Union is opposed to fair competition between SMEs and large companies. The resistance to tax transparency on the part of large companies undermines the social market economy. European taxpayers lose billions every year through tax avoidance by large companies. With public tax transparency this could have finally stopped. The fight by us Greens and many activists for more tax justice is not over; there is still time under the Finnish Presidency to swing some of today’s blocking member states around. We have to thank and commend the Finnish Presidency for their continued efforts to bring this important file to a positive conclusion. Europe remains our best lever against global tax dumping. » Voting behaviour at today’s meeting of the Competitiveness Council For: Spain, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Romania, Belgium, France, Portugal, Greece, Lithuania, Slovakia, Poland, Bulgaria, Denmark Abstention: Germany Against: Luxembourg, Latvia, Slovenia, Cyprus, Ireland, Estonia, Austria, Sweden, Czech Republic, Hungary, Malta, Croatia

---

Le détail des positions des différents pays :

Three minute interventions from Member States:

• Austria: Austria views article 50 as the wrong legal basis. The Council Legal Service says it should be Article 115. Can I also point out that the G20 and OECD are working on this issue, so it is not a matter of urgency. We cannot support the general approach today.
• Belgium: Belgium fully supports this proposal and dossier and always has. Therefore, we can fully support the compromise today.
• Bulgaria: We support the proposal on the table today. It creates the space for public scrutiny.
• Croatia: Croatia supports the work of the EC and on all initiatives on tax transparency; we support proposals about administration cooperation. However, these measures have been implements in ATAD and therefor Croatia agrees with the CLS opinion and we cannot support the general approach. However, Croatia is ready to continue dialogue during the Finnish presidency to find something legally sustainable.
• Republic of Cyprus: Cyprus believes the TFEU and art. 115 require unanimity in order to protect sovereignty. As we say in the joint statement with Luxembourg and others, this decision is deleterious – the content is fiscal in nature. We are in favour of boosting transparency, but we are not in favour of discussing this in COMPET.
• Czech Republic: We also welcome the fight against tax avoidance. We support the content of the proposal but we belong to the group that believes the file has the wrong legal basis. We will l not support the general approach today.
• Denmark: Denmark supports the proposal and the purpose of a fair tax system. MNCs have the resources to engage in tax avoidance and evasion. As responsible leaders we need to address this issue – we need to strengthen trust between companies and wider society. We need to incentivise responsible conduct. We should have done this A LONG TIME AGO. Therefore, MS should act today. It is now or never. Let us move forward – there is no unanimity to move forward on changing the legal basis. IF you say no, you say no to transparency and the substance. We believe the legal basis is correct. Aggressive tax planning is a global issue and we would prefer that companies are obliged to report for each and every country. However, we support this and the general approach.
• Estonia: We think the substance is very good, but we are convinced by the opinion of the Council Legal Service that this should be considered a tax file adopted by unanimity. We cannot support the general approach and we support the statement forwarded by Luxembourg.
• Finland: See their opening statement above. They want to be a neutral presidency.
• France: We support the latest presidency compromise. We feel this proposal is effective, proportionate and well-balanced. It covers non-cooperative jurisdiction and it provides good incentives. We would have preferred a longer duration or no time period for the safeguard clause – no to circumvent the requirements, but because it will allow companies protect competiveness. We support the current legal basis – if any legal clarifications are made, we will review these.
• Germany: Scrutiny reservation from Germany.
• Greece: You’re quite right that the legal basis. It’s about transparency, proper oversight and showing the truth to citizens. It is the responsibility of companies to follow rules, but it is incumbent on MS to ensure the rules are working. We support the compromise.
• Hungary: We support the objective, but disagree with the means. It considers fiscal matters and should be discussed in ECOFIN. Several MS disagree with the legal basis, in line with the CLS opinion. The proposal creates an undue burden on companies and creates a competiveness disadvantage for EU companies.
• Ireland: We support transparency, but we agree with the joint statement that this is a tax matter that should be discussed in ECOFIN. We also think it deserves tax expertise, so we can consider the confidentiality requirements on automatic exchange of information (AEoI) and we thing tax experts are best placed to deice on this.
• Italy: This is a long discussion and a lot of convincing arguments have been put forward. This discussion risks creating a lack of trust in EU institutions, especially among citizens hit by the economic crisis in the last decade. We support the EC initiative and have supported it since the beginning. Basically, it’s not a problem of legal basis. For some industries like banks, extractives and logging they already have CBCR and they were introduced in exactly the same way. We are in favour and in the spirit of compromise; we believe we should all support the text, even though we believe we should a have a shorter time period. We can add further detail on the integration with competiveness.
• Latvia: Latvia generally supports the main objective – to fight tax avoidance by making multinational make their reports public. BUT, I would like to stress that all our MS have agreed how tax matters are agreed on legal basis at EU. We as a state have cooperated with other MS that this Directive relates to Fiscal matters, and it should be approved as tax agreements are. Due to the decision making procedure, Latvia is unable to support the GA.
• Lithuania: Generally, we can support the text. In our view the reference to the blacklist and EU countries are unnecessary limits and we would very much welcome global disaggregation which we firmly believe would contribute to the fight against tax avoidance.
• Luxembourg: Finance Minister. We need a fair, efficient and growth-friendly tax system. We have defended this in ECOFIN in many times. I feel this is wrong that this is here and not ECOFIN because we decide on this in ECOFIN three years and we already decided against this. We have BEPS Action 13 – it is up to all G20 and OECD countries to decide what we should do. May we also underline that we have never taken so many decisions on tax as we have in the last five year. We have a difficulty with the legal basis – it should be article 115 and the Council legal service has confirmed this repeatedly. The second reason we’re against this is because of international efforts in the OECD and Global Forum. We know the US and Japan totally opposes this transparency and if we did this, we would disturb the confidence of the OECD. We need a consensus there. I do not see the emergency to take a decision here today. With all due respect to the outgoing EC – we have here a Commission coming to the end of its mandate. I really don’t see the urgency. Luxembourg cannot support the compromise of the FI presidency.
• Malta: Malta agrees fully with AEoI and all the good work at international level on the fight against tax evasion. However Malta has concerns about the process and speed of the discussions – we need more discussion. We believe this is a tax dossier and should be discussed in ECOFIN. We believe the legal basis coupled with the wrong choice of Council configuration opens the door for QMV on tax matters and creates a dangerous precedent. We acknowledge the importance of transparency but must consider the blow this would be to EU competition. We are seriously placing our companies at a competive disadvantage. Third countries are forced and EU is giving its competive advantage away to anyone browsing the internet.
• Netherlands: We are pleased to discuss this and we sincerely hope we reach a GA today. We support the current legal basis – this is the correct place to discuss the file. We don’t have unanimity but we need to move forward, We Agree with the FI introduction that this is a proposal to increase transparency. There is an intense and growing public demand for transparency about MNC tax payments due to recent events and scandals inside and outside Europe. They must take their CSR seriously and we must fight aggressive tax avoidance and planning. The EP finished their report two years ago. We agree with the disaggregation for all countries – NL has also proposed to delete the comply-or-explain rule, but you have our full support to reach a compromise.
• Poland: Thank to FI for bringing it to political level, since we have reached a stalemate at technical level. Poland supports CBCR as one of the non-tax tools for addressing base erosion. We support the adoption of the comprise text and general approach.
• Portugal: Portugal is happy to support the GA – we are in favour of any text that supports our internal market and we need transparency for the single market to function. The legal basis is correct. It’s about the transparency for MNEs doing business in the EU – European citizens require this. The legal basis is important, but we don’t want the process to be bogged down. We can support this text. We must show citizens that we support them.
• Romania: Romania supports. Our citizens have a legitimate interest in seeing if our companies are also active in tax havens. This supports assessing corporate governance and preventing corruption. Since this proposal does not discuss changes to taxes, we support the current legal basis. An analysis on this Directive and on ATAD AEoI might be useful. The question of creating a competiveness disadvantage for EU countries should be further assessed. This requires a cautious positioning.
• Slovakia: We support he objective and the general approach.
• Slovenia: We agree with the importance of the file in general. We’re also in favour of having control about having taxes paid where business happens. We agree with the content, but disagree with the legal basis. This should be a fiscal matter and we cannot support the general approach. We are in favour of the common joint statement of Luxembourg and other member States who feel the ECOFIN should be in charge.
• Spain: Spain supports this because it promotes transparency. We are very grateful to FI and pleased it’s on the agenda. This agenda is not the end of the road and we hope the Croatian presidency will continue the excellent work. The change of legal basis would block any potential for progress and we feel the current legal basis is the right one. We also feel the existing rules for the financial sector and extractives are already along similar lines. And the safeguard clause should not have extra flexibility – it would water down the proposal. We support the FI presidency’s proposal. These are measures which are good for the EU and good for the citizens on the EU.
• Sweden: unfortunately, I have to inform you eh Sweden cannot support the general approach for well known reasons. We are of the opinion that this is a tax proposal and that the legal basis should be Art. 115. There should be no decision in COMPET. We cannot support the general approach.
• UK: No participation.

Concluding remarks

Finland: As conclusions, it is clear that is broad support for the objectives. It seems also clear from the interventions, the text would benefit from further work on the question of legal basis. Today it is not possible to have a general approach, but the Finnish Presidency will continue work during our term.

———————————————————————————–

EU states want to water down pCBCR

« The 33-page draft resolution in fact deviates on some points from the Commission’s proposal – in favour of businesses. For example, the Brussels authority wanted to force all companies with an annual turnover of more than 750 million euros to disclose the information. However, according to the common position of the Member States, only firms which exceed this turnover limit for two consecutive years should be affected. If a company normally stays just under the limit, but exceptionally exceeds it in a very good year, it would not have to post data on the Internet.

In addition, the states are demanding a generous exemption clause: If the publication of the profit is damaging to the business, for example because rivals receive valuable information, the company may delay the publication of the data by six years. The changes in the member states address some of the concerns of the business community. For example, Rainer Kirchdörfer, member of the board of the Stiftung Familienunternehmen, complains that the companies will be « decisively weakened if they have to disclose internal profit and tax data in the future ». The foundation represents the interests of family-run companies. »

https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/eu-steuern-steuertricks-unternehmen-1.4699683

(article autotranslatd)

The EU Commission wants to make it more difficult for companies to move profits to countries with low tax rates.
For this directive to become law, the Council of Ministers and Parliament must agree whether and how they want to amend the Commission’s draft. The economic ministers of the EU countries are to adopt a common position on Thursday.
The 33-page draft resolution submitted to the Süddeutsche Zeitung deviates on some points from the Commission’s proposal – in favour of companies.

An EU law against corporate tax tricks is on the verge of an important vote this Thursday – but the proposal has been watered down on important points. Three years ago, the EU Commission presented a draft directive to make it more difficult for companies to transfer profits to countries with low tax rates. A year later, the European Parliament approved the bill with amendments, but the Council of Ministers, the decision-making body of the member states, blocked the project for a long time. On Thursday, the economic ministers could now approve the directive at their meeting in Brussels, albeit with adjustments. And they have it in them.

The legislation stipulates that large companies must report publicly on how much turnover and profit they have in which countries and how high their tax burden is there. So far, only the tax authorities have received such information. If every citizen, journalist or campaign against tax evasion could see the data on the Internet, those companies would come under pressure that are particularly resourceful in shifting their profits to countries with low rates. Companies like Apple and Amazon, for example, have been criticised for booking a large part of their European profits in small tax-favorable countries such as Luxembourg or Ireland.
Investment and finance Germany receives billions in assets reported from abroad
tax avoidance
Germany receives billions in assets reported from abroad

Bank secrecy’s dead, now the data’s flowing: Even notorious tax havens are reporting large assets in Germany’s accounts. But where most of the money lies remains confidential.   By Bastian Brinkmann

For the directive to become law, the Council of Ministers and Parliament must agree whether and how they intend to amend the Commission’s draft. At their meeting, the Economics Ministers are to adopt a common position for these talks. The 33-page draft resolution before the Süddeutsche Zeitung in fact deviates on some points from the Commission’s proposal – in favour of businesses. For example, the Brussels authority wanted to force all companies with an annual turnover of more than 750 million euros to disclose the information. However, according to the common position of the Member States, only firms which exceed this turnover limit for two consecutive years should be affected. If a company normally stays just under the limit, but exceptionally exceeds it in a very good year, it would not have to post data on the Internet.

In addition, the states are demanding a generous exemption clause: If the publication of the profit is damaging to the business, for example because rivals receive valuable information, the company may delay the publication of the data by six years. The changes in the member states address some of the concerns of the business community. For example, Rainer Kirchdörfer, member of the board of the Stiftung Familienunternehmen, complains that the companies will be « decisively weakened if they have to disclose internal profit and tax data in the future ». The foundation represents the interests of family-run companies.

The directive was discussed for a long time in working groups of the Council of Ministers. So far, however, there has not been a sufficiently large majority to approve the legislation with amendments and to start negotiations with the European Parliament. According to diplomats, the fact that the blockade could end on Thursday is the result of the Croatian government changing from the camp of opponents to that of supporters. Croatia will take over the EU presidency in January and apparently wants to be constructive. Nevertheless, the decision will probably be very close.
Germany will probably not support the decision

This is also due to the fact that the Federal Government is likely to abstain: That counts like a no vote. Federal Finance Minister Olaf Scholz (SPD) was initially sceptical about public country-by-country reporting, but in September he spoke out in favour. But the coalition partner in Berlin, the CDU/CSU, is not playing along; Federal Economics Minister Peter Altmaier (CDU) rejects the publication obligation. Therefore, Germany will probably not support the decision.

Sven Giegold, financial policy spokesman for the Greens in the European Parliament, says that « it would be shameful » if the disagreement of the federal government prevented a majority for the directive. « Altmaier and the Union should no longer block our sharpest tax sword for fair competition in the internal market, » he demands. It is « incomprehensible » that the Union should even refuse the weakened proposal.

David Walch
Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit
Attac Österreich

—————————————————————————————-

Une tentative de l’Union européenne vers la transparence fiscale (Le Soir – Be et du Guardian))

https://plus.lesoir.be/262742/article/2019-11-25/union-europeenne-tentative-kamikaze-sur-la-transparence-fiscale-par-pays?referer=%2Farchives%2Frecherche%3Fdatefilter%3Dlastyear%26sort%3Ddate%2520desc%26word%3Dlamer

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/27/eu-ministers-to-vote-on-move-to-expose-firms-tax-avoidance

————————————————————————————————

Comme vous le savez peut-être, un important vote sur les questions de transparence fiscale des multinationales aura lieu ce jeudi 28/11 au Conseil Européen. Cette proposition, bloquée depuis 2016, vise à imposer aux entreprises multinationales la transparence sur les activités de leurs différentes filiales, afin d’éviter qu’elles transfèrent leurs profits dans des paradis fiscaux.

 Nos partenaires européens se sont immédiatement mobilisés et nous invitent à faire de même. Vu le délai très court, l’idée est d’organiser une petite action le matin du vote devant le Conseil Européen (Schuman). L’objectif et de mettre un maximum de pression sur le vote et de montrer que la population est demandeuse de plus de justice fiscale.

 Pour cela nous vous proposons :

 1)      De faire tourner l’événement Facebook dans vos réseaux https://www.facebook.com/events/2913097018735031/

2)      D’être présent jeudi matin pour renforcer l’action.

Pouvez-vous me confirmer votre présence par retour de mail ?

En espérant vous voir nombreux.ses jeudi, je vous souhaite une très bonne journée !

Jean-Gabriel Vermeire – CNCD.11.11.11

As you know on 28 November the Council of the EU will for the first time ever discuss public country by country reporting at ministerial level here in Brussels. As this nicely overlaps with the annual TJ-E meeting, we have decided to hold an action in front of the Council in the morning of 28 Nov, before the meeting starts, to show the Ministers that tax transparency matters to us and that we will be following what they do!

The plan is to start gathering in front of the Council around 8 and to stay there until around 9:30, which is when the Council session starts. We’ll then go together towards the location where the TJ-E meeting takes place.

Please save the date already in your calendars (technological or mental 😉). … Also, if you have nice banners, material, and generally ideas for what we could do that morning, please do get in touch!

Best, Lis

Lis Cunha | EU Policy Officer | ActionAid International

 —————————————-

La position allemande de refus de la transparence des grandes multinationales …

https://sven-giegold.de/german-government-prevents-tax-transparency/

—————————————————————————

Ce 24 octobre une possibilité d’avancer sur le PCBCR … ?

https://sven-giegold.de/action-on-tax-transparency/

————————————–

Une vidéo en 8 langues dont le français sur le

PCBCR

http://bit.ly/CBCR_videos_2019

———————————–

Spitzenkandidaten debates and tax – updated 10

May 2019

 

1. Brussels debate 15 May 2019

 

Nico CUÉ, European Left (EL)

Ska KELLER, European Green Party (EGP)

Jan ZAHRADIL, Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe (ACRE)

Margrethe VESTAGER, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE)

Manfred WEBER, European People’s Party (EPP)

Frans TIMMERMANS, Party of European Socialists (PES)

 

Environmental taxes

Timmermans: Why are we not taxing kerosene of airplanes? Why are we not introducing a CO2 tax for all companies? Use revenues to bring back to the people eg for sustainable housing

Cue: we’re not currently taxing polluters, the big companies. instead we’re taxing citizens like Macron did in France. That is unacceptable. Tax evasion is at about 800bi (? interpreter had a pause here)

 

Corporate taxes / tax havens / digital taxes

Great intro by the moderators, stating that citizens are paying taxes and many digital giants are not – a symbol of unfairness and injustice!. Question to the candidates: which countries in the EU are tax havens and how will you change their behaviour?

Vestager: Some corps pay 0.01%, like Apple. Many MS are changing taxation in Ireland, Netherlands, Malta, Cyprus because change is coming. We need digital taxation and we need to put a floor on the corporate taxation otherwise there will just be a race to the bottom. Companies need to contribute to societies where they do a good business! We need tax fairness.

Ska Keller: big companies are running away from their responsibilities, costing us money to fund public services, we need tax justice. Tax for digital big companies, minimum tax rate for companies, transparency for every company. We tried to establish rules for transparency on tax but the liberals and conservatives voted for exemptions to this transparency!

Timmermans: it was about time that Netherlands changed its tax system. Agree with Vestager that we need a minimum tax rate of 18%, for a fair playing field. Economy has changed fundamentally. Some companies have found a way to get away from paying taxes. Thinks he can convince all MS (incl Netherlands) of the need to stop tax competition (he didnt say it in these exact words)

Zahradil: EU should not tax, it’s not a state. There shouldnt be pan-European taxes. But tax evasion should be stopped. We already have good rules for this (exchange of info for tax authorities). Vestager did a good job on level playing field

Cue: In Europe we have whole areas where all public services have been done away with. Harmonising taxation at European level and get rid of tax dumping. There were plans but they havent been materialised, we need hard action on tax fraud. Importance of whistleblowers, they need to be protected.

Manfred Weber: Wants to use digital taxes differently? Agrees that we should change in some tax fields from unanimous voting to qualified majority. Believes in tax competition, but not on digital tax, there we need a common European rule.

2. Maastricht debate 29 April 2019

Bas Eickhout – Greens

Frans Timmermans – Socialists

Violeta Tomić – European Left

Guy Verhofstadt – ALDE/En Marche

Jan Zahradil – Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists in Europe

 

Digital tax

Violeta (Left): digital giants need to pay taxes where they operate. Abolish tax havens in the EU and make fair taxation.

Bas (Greens): are competing against each other to offer low taxes for companies. We need tax to be EU competence so we can tax digital companies

Timmermans (Socialists): tax big tech companies. Tax them where they make their profits. Member States have been very reluctant on taxation. Member States are „completely obsessed with taxation“, but it’s clear they can’t control these big tech companies alone. They’re arm-twisted to grant them tax-free access to their economy, only Europe can stop that. Member States need to give the EU power to change this.

Verhofstadt (ALDE): very briefly agrees with the digital tax proposals others mentioned then changes the subject.

Zahradil: absolutely no input on this. Taxation should not be a matter for the EU whatsoever. Big tech companies should be taxed, but at national level.

 

Minimum corporate tax rate

Timmermans: wants minimum corporate tax rate 18% across the EU. Violeta and Bas raise their hands in agreement. Verhofstadt says he has an alternative proposal but doesn’t get to explain it.

 

Environmental taxes

Zahradil criticised the French tax introduced by Macron, said it was a „small tax on fuel“, that was done in an unsustainable way and that’s why it was opposed by society. Argues it was endangering the economy. The context was his arguments against going green too fast.

Timmermans: Macron got protests because he first lowered the taxes for the rich and then increased those for people in low income.

Verhofstadt: thinks the French fuel tax may have gone „too fast“ and that Macron recognises that. What Verhofstadt wants at EU level is a carbon tax that raises resources towards EU budget, for investments in sustainable programmes eg battery industry and public transport

Bas: vague. We need to make sure polluters pay.

 

General

Timmermans: we need fair taxation systems

3. Florence debate 3 May 2019

Ska Keller – Greens

Frans Timmermans – Socialists

Guy Verhofstadt – ALDE/En Marche

Manfred Weber – EPP

 

Economic and financial policy

Timmermans and Ska Keller: end tax havens and tax evasion

« This is a disaster » – Ska Keller called out Germany’s Finance Minister for blocking the EU pCBCR proposal.

 

Environmental taxes

Ska Keller (Greens): Yes to carbon-based border adjustment taxes, but not as part of trade deals (as would punish the countries in the agreement). Wants carbon price per ton that is then redistributed across all society. Models already exist e.g. Switzerland. EU level but national level also (MS can go ahead and do that on their own)

Guy Verhofstadt (ALDE): carbon taxes yes, resources then used to fund EU budget instead of national contributions. When asked more specifically about ‚border adjustment taxes on polluting goods (in the countries where they were produced)‘: he said yes as part of trade deals (though he believes this is already done by Malmstrom)

Manfred Weber (EPP) avoided answering directly the question on carbon taxes

Ska and Manfred: Gilets Jaunes showed that climate taxes must consider the social dimension.

Timmermans (S&D): the transition is going to be painful but we need to make it. But must be socially sustainable, unlike in France. « those who can bear the brunt, bear the brunt ». Big tech must pay taxes. Calls for carbon tax at the European level, dedicated for transition of the economy in a sustainable way (e.g. sustainable housing).

 

4. ARD debate in Germany 7 May 2019

(didn’t watch it, just copy-pasted Politico summary)

Timmermans

Weber

Timmermans said he wants a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, Weber said he doesn’t. Both vowed to make flying more expensive — via the aforementioned tax in Timmermans’ case, versus by ending the tax privilege for jet fuel for Weber.  

———————————————————————————————-

Tax justice:  10-point plan for European tax justice

Link, to spread this information on twitter/facebook: https://sven-giegold.de/tax-justice-10-point-plan-for-european-tax-justice/

The Greens/EFA group have launched a 10-point plan for tax justice in the European Union, which will form part of its core demands for the coming legislative period in the European Parliament. The Greens/EFA Group has already been at the forefront of driving demands to combat excessive tax avoidance, tax evasion and money laundering in Europe.

Greens/EFA ten point plan for tax justice: http://extranet.greens-efa-service.eu/public/media/file/1/6021

Sven Giegold, member of the Greens/EFA Group in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and in the Special committee on financial crimes, tax evasion and tax avoidance, commented:

« We need to become serious in fighting tax dumping and money laundering. The next EU Commission must also put tax justice in the European Union at the top of its agenda. It is unacceptable for EU member states to lose billions every year from tax avoidance and money laundering.

1. Eradicate the dirty money that funds criminality in Europe
2. Adopt an EU-wide action plan to tax the super-rich
3. End golden visas and the purchasable citizenship:
4. Regulate tax advisers
5. Crystal clear transparency on how much tax companies pay and where:
6. Make large companies pay their fair share
7. Sanction the tax cheats
8. Modernise the tax system for the fair taxation of the digital economy
9. Prioritise sustainable tax policy to tackle the climate emergency
10. The end of unanimity decision making on tax matters

Study „Competing for the Rich – Tax exemptions and special schemes for the rich“: http://extranet.greens-efa-service.eu/public/media/file/1/5920

—————————————————————————————————–

---

Hi everyone,

In case you haven’t seen, public CBCR got a special mention last night at the Spitzenkandidaten debate which took place in Florence, moderated by the FInancial Times. Ska Keller, one of the candidates for the Greens, called out the German SPD minister for blocking pCBCR in the Council 😉

You can watch it here, around minute 44: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SH2jAEU8Jc&t

I also tweeted it here: https://twitter.com/ActionAidEU/status/1124249044644241408

——————————————————————————————–

Parlement européen 4 juillet : Rejet de l’amendement socio-démocrate visant à limiter les possibilités d’exemption de CBCR, ceci limite fortement la portée de la mesure … « loophole », en français : « entourloupe » possible et certaine  : neuf entreprises multinationales sur dix échapperont à la transparence !

some comments:

The corporate get out clause remains and the S&D amendments to time-limit the corporate get out clause and eventually require retroactive publication of CBCR information did not pass the Plenary. There is now a clear risk that this loophole will be abused by multinationals in order to avoid having to report on some of their operations in certain countries.

Ce 4 juillet à Strasbourg, les eurodéputés se réveilleront-ils ? :

Please support the action by tweeting. You can even use those beautiful pictures here

https://oxfam.box.com/s/gwc9kwojcdkcna49m9hdudcvf0go9ted

Tax Transparency Tug of War: whose side are MEPs on?

Sample tweets below:
Tax tug of war! Will MEPs vote for the interests of big corporations or citizens in today’s public #CBCR vote #TaxTransparency ?
.@MEP please chose the side of citizens in the tax tug of war. Vote for worldwide public #CBCR #TaxTransparency
.@MEP please chose side of citizens in the tax tug of war. Vote for amendment to limit corporate ‘get out clause’! Public #CBCR

The debate is very lively and MEPs disagree strongly over worldwide disaggregation and the get out clause – All MEPs are going to join for the voting time around midday so be ready to react J. You can follow the debate here http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/en/home.html

Le vote au parlement européen ce 4 juillet sur les propositions des Commissions – à suivre en direct (voir plus bas) – vote entre 12 et 14h !

( 3the July) – As you know, tomorrow there will be a debate and a vote in the Plenary on public country by country reporting. MEPs. As you know, MEPs will be voting on the changes to the European Commission’s proposal, including an S&D amendment to limit the ‘corporate get out clause’.

La proposition d’amendement du CBCR en discussion entre le Conseil et le Parlement (22 juin 2017) :

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10525-2017-INIT/en/pdf

—————————————————————–

Le vote de ce 12 juin a eu lieu en Commissions JURI/ECON, il n’est pas satisfaisant.

*La Libre Belgique : ici   –  CBCR 14 juin 17 et savoir qui et comment il a voté :

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/plenary/fr/report-details.html?reference=A8-0227-2017

*Euractiv : ici – https://www.euractiv.com/section/economy-jobs/news/european-parliament-on-the-fence-over-tax-transparency-for-multinationals/

Des latitudes (un recours éventuel à un besoin de confidentialité) sont laissées aux multinationales pour ne pas devoir publier de CBCR. Les groupes ALDE (libéraux) et PPE (conservateuts) sont les responsables de cet affaiblissement du rapport Bayet-Regnier. Reste à voir ce qui se passera au Parlement européen … auquel ces amendements encore flous seront soumis ! Il n’est pas trop tard pour réagir … la transparence , c’est juste bon pour les salariés et les retraités !

( Eurodad Brussels, June 12 2017. This evening [Monday June 12], two committees of the European Parliament voted on new tax transparency requirements for multinational corporations. While the outcome would strengthen the text proposed by the European Commission, a proposal by the Liberals and Conservatives introduced a dangerous loophole. The issue will now be sent to the plenary of the European Parliament for a final decision.

« Until now, the European Parliament has been in favour of letting the public know what multinational corporations pay in taxes and where they do business,” said Tove Maria Ryding, Tax Coordinator at Eurodad, the European Network on Debt and Development. “But tonight, at the expense of the rest of society, the Liberals and Conservatives decided to protect large multinational tax cheats by introducing a loophole, through which they can continue dodging taxes.

“Public country by country reporting would be an important step towards ensuring that multinational corporations pay their share of taxes – both in Europe and in the world’s poorest countries. Failing to stop large-scale corporate tax dodging doesn’t only mean that we lose funding for public services around the world. It also disadvantages all the small and medium enterprises, which struggle to compete with large multinational corporations that are not paying taxes,” said Ryding.

“We call on the European parliamentarians to fix the loophole in this important piece of legislation, when the issue comes to a vote in the plenary.”

Thanks to the Liberals (ALDE group) and Conservatives (EPP) a very problematic loophole was introduced, which allows multinational corporations to leave out countries from their CBCR reports if they state concerns about corporate confidentiality. The details are to be determined, but it’s clear that there’s a strong risk this can be abused to leave out tax havens from the report.

http://www.epsu.org/article/six-reasons-why-tax-inspectors-want-public-country-country-reporting

———————————————————————

This morning’s CBCR vote in the European Parliament has been postponed – probably until 12 June.

——————————————————————–

FISCALITÉ: les entreprises françaises vent debout contre la transparence fiscale pays par pays – Bulletin Europe du 22 04 2017

Bruxelles, 21/04/2017 (Agence Europe) – Le Mouvement des entreprises de France (MEDEF) s’inquiète grandement de la proposition de la Commission visant à instaurer des déclarations publiques pays par pays (‘reporting’). Mais il renonce à se contenter d’entonner le refrain déjà connu du risque pour la compétitivité. Le MEDEF a donc décidé de présenter aux députés européens des exemples concrets pour qu’ils prennent la mesure du risque que les entreprises courent.

Dans un document transmis aux députés, vu par EUROPE, le MEDEF met avant tout en avant la concurrence faussée à laquelle les entreprises concernées par le ‘reporting‘ feront face : – d’abord, en raison des groupes étrangers qui auront accès à des informations sensibles ; – ensuite, un ‘reporting‘ montrant une augmentation soudaine des employés dans un territoire donné, ou « des coûts déclarés dans un pays où il n’y avait auparavant pas d’activités, amèneraient la concurrence à deviner une potentielle pénétration du marché européen, bien avant une annonce officielle », écrit le MEDEF.

Un autre exemple évoqué par le MEDEF est le cas dans lequel un groupe n’a qu’une entité dans un pays : en regardant le chiffre d’affaires, « les concurrents auront une vision plus claire des prix et, donc, de la marge réalisée ». La même difficulté émerge si un groupe n’a qu’un client dans ce pays. « Le reporting mènerait ce client à renégocier un prix plus bas », puisqu’il connaitra la marge de son fournisseur, écrit encore le MEDEF.

Les entreprises françaises utilisent ensuite un argument qui fait mouche auprès des décideurs européens : la perte de compétitivité vis-à-vis des partenaires économiques principaux de l’UE. Elles soulignent que le Congrès américain a déjà émis des réserves vis-à-vis du ‘reporting‘.

Enfin, le MEDEF met en avant l’érosion de l’assiette fiscale des entreprises concernées hors de l’UE. « Comme les entreprises seront détaillées (pays par pays, NDLR), pour les entreprises basées dans l’UE, et sur une base agrégée, pour les entreprises hors de l’UE, tous les pays tiers vont rediriger leurs investissements et activités dans l’UE en utilisant des compagnies de holding basées hors de l’UE et vont réduire leurs investissements dans l’UE au minimum requis pour gérer leurs entreprises locales », écrit le MEDEF.

Le MEDEF conclut son document par quatre exemples de situations concrètes où la publicité des informations du ‘reporting‘ leur serait nuisible.

L’organisation patronale aura l’occasion de s’exprimer face aux eurodéputés ce lundi 24 avril. Elle a invité les députés à échanger de façon informelle sur le ‘reporting‘ avec les entreprises Danone, Renault et L’Oréal.

Le rapporteur fictif du groupe PPE, le Polonais Dariusz Rosati, organise, quant à lui, mercredi 26 avril, une conférence avec le cabinet d’audit PwC (dont les données ont été volées et rendues publiques dans le cadre du Luxleaks) sur les effets de la publicité des informations du ‘reporting‘.

Selon plusieurs sources, le groupe ADLE du Parlement européen aurait quant à lui refusé qu’Oxfam vienne présenter son rapport sur les banques européennes et les bénéfices qu’elles réalisent dans des ‘paradis fiscaux’, rapport compilé grâce au ‘reporting‘ public qui existe déjà pour les banques.

L’accès des entreprises aux groupes politiques du PE « pose des inquiétudes » nous a expliqué Aurore Chardonnet d’Oxfam, qui dit vouloir « les mêmes opportunités » d’échanger sur le ‘reporting‘ public. (Élodie Lamer)

————————————————————–

L’usage des paradis fiscaux par 20 grandes banques européennes : un nouveau rapport d’Oxfam France

http://www.alternatives-economiques.fr/coeur-business-banques-europeennes/00078051

Avec Pascal St Amans (OCDE) :

http://www.la-croix.com/Debats/Forum-et-debats/Pascal-Saint-Amans-Des-questions-pour-linstant-sans-reponse-2017-03-27-1200835131

---

http://www.wort.lu/fr/economie/selon-une-etude-bancaire-d-oxfam-le-luxembourg-paradis-fiscal-prefere-avec-l-irlande-58d8d823a5e74263e13aca15

http://www.la-croix.com/Economie/Monde/Les-banques-europeennes-restent-dopees-aux-paradis-fiscaux-2017-03-27-1200834986?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=e-mail&utm_content=20170327&utm_campaign=newsletter__crx_alert&utm_term=604682&PMID=10fa620954698de41dc0e2e4c4eef5a9

http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/banques-finance/les-profits-ahurissants-des-banques-dans-les-paradis-fiscaux-670127.html#xtor=EPR-2-[l-actu-du-jour]-20170327

Paradis fiscaux : les banques de l’UE en abusent

La Cayman National Bank à George Town, dans les îles Caïmans, un paradis fiscal utilisé par les grandes banques européennes. © GARY HERSHORN / REUTERS / REUTERS

Les vingt plus grandes banques européennes « déclarent 26 % de leurs bénéfices dans les paradis fiscaux, soit 25 milliards d’euros en 2015, mais seulement 12 % de leur chiffre d’affaires et 7 % de leurs employés », un « décalage flagrant », remarque l’ONG britannique Oxfam, qui publie une étude avec le réseau Fair Finance Guide International. Ces mêmes établissements déclarent même « au global 628 millions d’euros [de bénéfices] dans des paradis fiscaux où elles n’ont pourtant aucun employé ». Cette « utilisation abusive des paradis fiscaux » peut permettre aux banques de « délocaliser artificiellement leurs bénéfices pour réduire leur contribution fiscale, faciliter l’évasion fiscale de leurs clients ou contourner leurs obligations réglementaires », souligne Oxfam. L’ONG classe parmi les paradis fiscaux les Etats figurant dans les principales listes en la matière, dont celles de l’OCDE et du Fonds monétaire international. Elle y ajoute d’autres pays selon des critères propres comme un taux d’imposition effectif faible. Les auteurs de l’étude s’appuient sur des données « pays par pays » dont la publication a été rendue obligatoire pour les banques par l’Union européenne à des fins de transparence. Ces résultats, « qui dépassent parfois l’entendement, montrent l’étendue du problème et l’impunité totale qui entoure les pratiques des plus grandes banques européennes dans les paradis fiscaux », commente Manon Aubry, co-auteure du rapport. Le Luxembourg, l’Irlande et Hongkong font partie des paradis fiscaux privilégiés par les établissements étudiés. En Irlande, cinq banques – la britannique RBS, la française Société générale, l’italienne UniCredit et les espagnoles Santander et BBVA – « ont même obtenu une rentabilité supérieure à 100 % et dégagent plus de bénéfices qu’elles ne font de chiffre d’affaires », souligne Oxfam. Selon cette étude, le taux d’imposition des banques étudiées s’élève en moyenne à 6 % et descend à 2 % pour certaines banques, « bien en deçà du taux normalement en vigueur de 12,5 %, déjà le plus faible de l’Union européenne ». Les cinq plus grandes banques françaises – BNP Paribas, BPCE, Crédit agricole, Crédit mutuel-CIC et Société générale – « ont déclaré 5,5 milliards d’euros de bénéfices dans les paradis fiscaux ». Quatre d’entre elles sont notamment présentes aux îles Caïmans, où elles ont réalisé « 174 millions d’euros de bénéfices bien qu’elles n’y emploient personne ». (Le Monde 27 mars)

———————————————————————————-

(L’Echo 27 mars) « Une étude d’Oxfam révèle les pratiques des banques de l’Union européenne. Un quart de leurs bénéfices partirait vers les paradis fis caux. Le Luxembourg et l’Irlande res tent de loin, selon l’ONG, les paradis fiscaux les plus populaires. L’ONG britannique Oxfam (via sa branche française) a tenté d’ana lyser la façon dont les banques utilisent les paradis fis caux. Il ressort de l’étude que les vingt plus grandes banques euro péennes déclarent un quart de leurs bénéfices dans des para dis fiscaux, avec une pré férence pour le Luxembourg, Hong-Kong et l’Irlande.

Ces banques déclarent, selon Oxfam: • 26% de leurs bénéfices dans les paradis fiscaux , soit 25 milliards d’euros en 2015, • mais seulement 12% de leur chiffre d’affaires • et 7% de leurs employés Cela constitue un « décalage flagrant », remarque l’ONG, qui pu- blie cette étude avec le réseau Fair Finance Guide Interna tio nal . Ces mêmes établis sements déclarent même « au global 628 millions d’euros (de bénéfices) dans des para – dis fiscaux où elles n’ont pourtant aucun em ployé ». • Quel est l’intérêt du système? Cette « utilisation abusive des paradis fiscaux » peut permettre aux banques de « déloca liser artificiellement leurs bénéfices pour réduire leur contribution fiscale, faciliter l’éva sion fiscale de leurs clients ou contourner leurs obligations en matière d’impôts » (Sophie Leroy – L’Echo)

———————————————————————-

#Taxtransparency shines spotlight on dodgy tax practices shows @Oxfam.EU should adopt public #CBCR for all big Cies http://oxf.am/Zbyh

Les filiales placées dans les paradis fiscaux sont deux fois plus profitables que celles placées hors paradis fiscaux ( sur 100 € d’activités, 42 € de bénéfices dans les paradis fiscaux pour 19 ailleurs ) … les employés y sont 4 fois plus productifs … En 2015, ces banques ont enregistré 628 millions € de bénéfices avec 0 employé. La banque BNP Paribas a fait 134 millions de bénéfices (sans verser d’impôts) aux Iles Caïmans, mais elle n’y a aucun employé …

————————————————————————–

Au niveau européen, le point par Aurore Chardonnet (Oxfam – France) :

Hello CBCR lovers,
Today Oxfam tried its best to make clear that we needed a directive on public CBCR to be adopted with no further delay and met with ME P. Beres (FR MEP – ECON coordinator for S&D and involved in the JURI ECON discussion). We delivered the petition to end tax havens and get more tax transparency. I made clear today that now the Council was about to reach a general approach while the EP still did not have a draft report and that they needed to move fast. However she really made it clear she wanted ECON to be involved, together with JURI.

For the encounter see here 🙂 https://www.oxfamfrance.org/actualites/justice-fiscale/petition-oxfam-350-000-soutiens-pour-mettre-fin-lere-des-paradis-fiscaux
And you can retweet too 🙂 https://twitter.com/oxfamfrance/status/803987773724172289 or EN version https://twitter.com/OxfamEU/status/804015738533068800

Also, just to let you know that MEP Buzek (Chair of the Conference of Committee Chairs) recommended shared competence between ECON and JURI (art 55) and this might be adopted soon (in the next 15 days). I do not think much can be done now. It is a pity – but MEP Beres told me she spent time securing the fact that the French Finance Minister who she knows well will never change the legal base (unanimity required) from accounting to tax. This might be positive consequence in the end because what we need is a legal base which is not on tax.

If really the legal base is to remain the same in Council, we really need the EP to just move faster – Also it means both JURI and ECON would be associated on an equal level so JURI will not be out.
Let’s also hope S&D will not lose rapporteurship in one or the other committee.

Cheers,
Aurore Chardonnet | EU Policy Advisor | Inequality and Taxation
Oxfam EU Advocacy Office | Challenging EU policies to make them work for people in poverty

____________________________________________

Tout savoir et discuter sur le CBCR avec Alex Cobbham – un briefing ce 6 décembre 2016 – s’inscrire ici :

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/virtual-briefing-country-by-country-reporting-tickets-29629436442

_________________________________________________

Le Conseil de l’UE porte un coup douloureux au projet de transparence fiscale – le combat d’arrière-garde du service juridique du Conseil …

MIS EN LIGNE LE 15/11/2016 À 11:33 – Le Soir

PAR ELODIE LAMER

Le reporting public pays par pays est dans les limbes. Les pays européens ont désormais de quoi lui asséner le coup de grâce.

Qui veut la peau du reporting public pays par pays ? Cette proposition visant à obliger les entreprises à publier chaque année certains chiffres (chiffre d’affaires, bénéfices, impôts payés, nombre d’employés) semble, depuis le début, vouée à un destin difficile.

La question avait été évoquée en 2014 au lendemain du scandale LuxLeaks. Mais la Commission avait traîné des pieds pendant un an et demi avant de consentir à présenter une proposition en avril dernier, vu qu’elle n’avait trouvé aucun effet négatif sur la compétitivité des entreprises européennes.

Le service juridique du Conseil de l’UE (cénacle des Etats membres) vient désormais de donner un argument de poids à tous les détracteurs de la mesure : ce dossier est une question fiscale qui devrait être traitée à l’unanimité avec, pour seule contribution du Parlement européen, un avis non contraignant, a-t-il conclu lundi dans un avis juridique que Le Soir a pu consulter.

La Commission prévoyait que ce dossier soit décidé à la majorité qualifiée des pays européens sur pied d’égalité avec le Parlement. Un précédent que certains pays dénonçaient puisque les questions fiscales, toujours très sensibles, sont traitées à l’unanimité des Etats après une simple consultation des eurodéputés.

L’argument du service juridique du Conseil est le suivant : la Commission ne démontre pas que les multinationales constitueraient une menace aux intérêts du public justifiant que ces données fiscales soient accessibles à ce même public et permettant le recours à une base juridique liée au droit des sociétés. Les juristes du Conseil considèrent également que l’obligation de publier ces données doit être considérée comme une disposition fiscale.

Réunion mouvementée jeudi

Les pays opposés au reporting public (Luxembourg, Irlande, Chypre, Malte, Allemagne, Pologne, Autriche et Belgique dans une certaine mesure), dont certains avaient réclamé cette contribution du service juridique, ont eu la victoire modeste, lundi. Si la proposition devait in fine être décidée à l’unanimité, ce « serait difficile », disent plusieurs délégations. Voire la fin de l’histoire, concède une autre source.

Du côté des pays qui soutiennent le texte, comme la France, on fulmine. Les délégations qui ont demandé l’avis juridique « ne l’ont pas fait pour des raisons juridiques, mais politiques », critique-t-on au Conseil.

Mais le Parlement européen, qui voulait un reporting plus ambitieux que celui auquel s’est résolue la Commission, ne compte pas se laisser faire. « Il faut l’unanimité des Etats membres pour changer la base juridique de la proposition », nous explique l’eurodéputée autrichienne Evelyn Regner, à la tête des négociations pour le Parlement. « L’avis ne tient pas debout »,poursuit l’eurodéputé français Pascal Durant, qui se dit prêt à aller le contester devant la Cour de Justice de l’UE. Pour Elena Gaita, de l’ONG Transparency International, les pays européens essaient juste « de bloquer la voix du Parlement en utilisant des excuses juridiques sournoises ».

La Commission européenne, quant à elle, ne se remet pas en question. Il appartient désormais à la présidence en exercice du Conseil de définir comment aller de l’avant. Elle prendra la température ce jeudi, lors d’une réunion des experts du Conseil qui s’annonce mouvementée.

_______________________________________________

Un reporting public CBCR en France

http://www.novethic.fr/breves/details/projet-de-loi-sapin-ii-les-deputes-adoptent-un-reporting-fiscal-pays-par-pays-en-open-data.html

_______________________________________________

Ce qu’un CBCR devrait comprendre pour remplir ses objectifs (R.Murphy) 

What country-by-country reporting data should look like

__________________________________________________

Et aux USA ? Il faudrait aussi un CBCR public avec un seuil de 45 millions $ de chiffre d’affaires et non de 850 comme le projette le fisc américain, réclament les ONG et quatre sénateurs dont Bernie Sanders !

http://www.taxjusticeblog.org/archive/2016/06/to_maximize_corporate_transpar.php#.V2JqqdSLRkq

_________________________________________________

8 juin 2016 : Pascal St Amans justifie le caractère non public du CBCR

–in the context of the French debate on public CBCR here is an ITW of Pascal Saint Amans from the OECD.
http://www.challenges.fr/challenges-soir/20160607.CHA0199/loi-sapin-ii-la-mise-en-garde-du-monsieur-evasion-fiscale-de-l-ocde.html

Summary:
– disclosing the data put the whole agreement on CBCR (Action 13 OECD) at risk. If EU companies publish their data, then third countries administration will have no interest in sharing their data. Power seats where multinationals are headquartered,
– let’s implement CBCR and when it will work well, then we can think of disclosing the data
– to analyse the data you need to be an expert
– publicity could undermine a company when there is an acquisition (easier to evaluate)
– the OECD will publish a tax havens list in July
______________________________________________________

 

12 May 2016  communiqué de l’OCDE – 39 signataires du protocole Action 13 du BEPS/concernant les CBCR

A new boost to transparency in international tax matters: 6 new countries sign agreement enabling automatic sharing of country-by-country reporting 12/05/2016 – As part of continuing efforts to boost transparency by multinational enterprises (MNEs), Canada, Iceland, India, Israel, New Zealand and the People’s Republic of China signed today the Multilateral Competent Authority agreement for the automatic exchange of Country-by-Country reports (“CbC MCAA”), bringing the total number of signatories to 39 countries. The signing ceremony took place in Beijing, China. The CbC MCAA allows all signatories to bilaterally and automatically exchange Country-by-Country Reports with each other, as contemplated by Action 13 of the BEPS Action Plan. It will help ensure that tax administrations obtain a complete understanding of how MNEs structure their operations, while also ensuring that the confidentiality of such information is safeguarded. The OECD/G20 BEPS Project set out 15 key actions to reform the international tax framework and ensure that profits are reported where economic activities are carried out and value created. BEPS is of major significance for developing countries due to their heavy reliance on corporate income tax, particularly from MNEs.

__________________________________________________

La Commission a manqué encore une fois l’occasion de mettre fin réellement aux paradis fiscaux, déclarent les ONG.

http://eurodad.org/Commissions-selective-tax-transparency-proposal-leaves-most-of-the-world-in-the-dark

Des photos de la manif d’Oxfam Solidarité Belgique :

http://wordsandpictures.oxfamsol.be/pages/search.php?search=!collection452&k=e149f0223e

___________________________________________________

Responding to the European Commission’s proposal for country by country reporting for mulitnationals, Owen Espley, Tax Campaigner at War on Want said:

“The European Commission’s proposal is a smokescreen that will not stop multinationals dodging their taxes. Between 85-90% of the world’s multinationals will not have to report under the proposal and of the remainder that do, they won’t have to report in every country.  The Commission offers no assurance that notorious tax havens such as British Virgin Islands, Switzerland, or  Delaware in the US will be covered.

“The Commission has once more taken the side of tax dodging multinationals against the European public. The proposal is a recipe for more austerity, cuts to public services and tax competition, and leaves no seat at the table for southern countries, for whom genuine country-by-country reporting could help to collect taxes to fund essential public services.

“The European Commission’s proposal is a kick in the teeth to the hundreds of thousands of Europeans who have been demanding the EU take action to tackle tax dodging.”

 

Notes to Editors

Contact Ross Hemingway 07983 550 728 to arrange interviews.

• Over 270,000 signatures have been collected on petitions calling for public country by country reporting. See www.waronwant.org
• On 26 April 2016, the court case against LuxLeaks whistleblower Antoine Deltour will begin in Luxembourg. Later on, a similar case will begin against Edouard Perrin – a French journalist who covered the story. Both these men could face up to 5 years in prison, despite the fact that all they’ve done is to show the public that multinational corporations are dodging taxes.
• Corporate tax dodging cost Zambia $3 million billion a year http://www.waronwant.org/media/corporate-tax-dodging-costs-zambia-3-bill…

_____________________________________________________

The European Commission has missed yet another chance to effectively end tax havens, campaigners say. Today’s proposal on tax transparency limits public country-by-country reporting to the EU and an arbitrary list of tax havens. This makes it impossible to effectively combat tax havens which have been at the center of scandals like the Panama Papers, LuxLeaks or OffshoreLeaks. Also, the EU executive’s proposal will only apply to a very small number of companies.

Oxfam’s EU tax policy advisor, Aurore Chardonnet, said: “The European Commission finally recognizes tax transparency as a powerful tool to fight tax avoidance. But today’s proposal is not country-by-country reporting, which is what’s needed. It appears the European Commission is more interested in saving face after the Panama Papers, instead of actually fixing the broken tax system.

“The Commission’s proposal only requires reports for EU member states and countries on what is likely to be an arbitrary list of tax havens. The Commission criteria to list tax havens are already absolutely vague, and we also expect EU member states to delay or oppose the process of compiling an official EU list. A much simpler solution would be big companies disclosing basic information for all countries they operate in.”

Financial Transparency Coalition’s Lead EU Advocate, Koen Roovers said: “Sadly, it took yet another massive leak to bring the collective world’s attention to the harm of financial secrecy and tax abuse. The European Commission has an opportunity to lead the way on corporate transparency, so it’s disappointing that their proposal fails to include global public country-by-country reporting for companies doing business in the EU. Instead they settled for a half-hearted hybrid that would keep most of the world in the dark.”

ActionAid’s EU tax advocacy officer, Kasia Szeniawska said: « The European Commission’s proposal, presented today, falls far short of what is needed to lift the veil of opacity that shrouds corporate tax deals. It is this opacity which enables multinational companies, to avoid tax in some of the world’s poorest countries as well as in the EU itself.

« The proposal lets off the hook the vast majority of multinational companies by setting a very high threshold for companies covered by the requirement. Also, the Commission misses the whole point of public country-by-country reporting when it suggests limiting the reporting to EU countries and a yet-to-be-agreed list of tax havens, which is likely to be selective and highly politicised. The result is that citizens, journalists and campaign groups won’t get the information they need to scrutinise multinationals’ global tax affairs, and there’s no assurance that the world’s poorest countries will get the information either.

« The European Parliament and the EU Member States should strengthen the proposal by ensuring that it covers all large multinationals, not only the biggest ones, and that it requires them to publish their tax information for all countries where they are present. The Panama Papers show that another half–hearted attempt to tackle tax avoidance simply isn’t good enough.”

Tove Ryding Tax Justice Coordinator at the European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad) said: « As long as the proposal doesn’t cover all countries, multinational corporations will still have plenty of opportunities to hide their profits. So instead of solving the problem, this proposal would be moving the problem from one country to another, with multinationals still able to avoid taxes. We urge the European Member States and the Parliament to reject it and replace it with a meaningful proposal that delivers genuine public country by country reporting. »

Alvin Mosioma, Executive Director, Tax Justice Network – Africa: « It’s unfortunate that the European Commission failed to deliver full country-by-country reporting that could actually be of use outside of Europe, » said Alvin Mosioma, Executive Director of the Tax Justice Network – Africa. « This means multinationals will still be able to exploit the secrecy afforded to them in other regions, as they still won’t need to disclose data on countries across the African continent, throughout Asia, and the Americas. »

L’UE face à l’opacité fiscale des multinationales

Drapeaux européens se reflétant à l’entrée du Berlaymont, le bâtiment de la Commission européenne à Bruxelles. AFP / GEORGES GOBET

La Commission européenne présente mardi à Strasbourg de nouvelles mesures pour lutter contre l’opacité fiscale des multinationales au moment où le mégascandale des « Panama papers » accentue la pression sur tous les grands pays pour combattre ce fléau. La présentation au Parlement européen de ce plan élaboré par le commissaire européen chargé de la fiscalité, le Français Pierre Moscovici, et son collègue chargé de la stabilité financière, le Britannique Jonathan Hill, était prévue de longue date et survient après une consultation publique et une étude d’impact. Mais elle tombe à point nommé après l’onde de choc mondiale provoquée par les révélations du Consortium international des journalistes d’investigation (ICIJ) d’un système d’évasion fiscale à grande échelle. Concrètement, la Commission doit présenter une nouvelle directive prévoyant de rendre publiques – « pays par pays » au sein de l’Union européenne (UE) – les données comptables et fiscales des multinationales, soit leur chiffre d’affaires, leurs bénéfices, ainsi que l’assiette fiscale et les impôts payés dans les différents Etats membres. « Dès lors qu’elles ont une filiale dans l’UE et un chiffre d’affaires d’au moins 750 millions d’euros, les entreprises, quelle que soit leur nationalité – européenne, mais aussi américaine, australienne, chinoise, etc. – auront l’obligation de publier ces éléments », a précisé M. Moscovici lundi dans le quotidien Le Parisien. « Pour celles qui n’ont pas de filiale dans l’UE, nous demanderons les mêmes informations mais pour leur activité globale dans le monde entier en exigeant plus de détails pour leurs activités dans les pays qui seraient sur la liste des paradis fiscaux », a ajouté l’ex-ministre des finances français. Toutefois, cette proposition ne va pas assez loin pour nombre d’organisations non gouvernementales qui réclament davantage de transparence. Ainsi l’ONG One déplore que seules les grandes entreprises (dont le chiffre d’affaires est supérieur à 750 millions d’euros) soient concernées par cette obligation de publier des informations de base. Autre faiblesse pointée du doigt par One : le maintien dans l’ombre des activités situées ailleurs que dans l’Union européenne, puisque la publication par pays se limite à ce bloc. « Sans ces informations, il sera impossible d’en savoir plus sur les activités des multinationales dans un grand nombre de paradis fiscaux et d’avoir des indications sur de possibles mécanismes d’évasion fiscale », regrettait récemment l’ONG. Les mesures présentées mardi s’inscrivent dans une croisade beaucoup plus vaste qu’a lancée l’exécutif européen contre la fraude fiscale, après le scandale LuxLeaks en novembre 2014, qui avait profondément terni l’entrée en fonction de Jean-Claude Juncker à la présidence de la Commission européenne. Mardi, la Commission doit également « proposer d’établir dans les six mois une liste noire européenne des paradis fiscaux ».

___________________________________________________

A Mr Jean-Claude Juncker

Président de la Commission européenne

Rue de la Loi, 200

1049 Bruxelles

Bruxelles, le  5 avril 2016

 

PROPOSITION DE LA COMMISSION CONCERNANT LA MISE A JOUR D’INFORMATIONS FISCALES PAR CERTAINES SOCIETES MULTINATIONALES

 

Cher Monsieur le président Juncker,

Nous, – organisations de la société civile et syndicats dont les noms suivent ci-joints – vous écrivons pour vous exprimer notre préoccupation à propos de la proposition prochaine de la Commission concernant les informations fiscales à fournir par les sociétés multinationales. Nous vous pressons de prendre vos distances avec  le texte provisoire qui a pu circuler dans les médias récemment et de vous prononcer en faveur d’un réel bilan comptable (reporting) pays par pays (CBCR) à rendre public. C’est seulement de cette manière que la proposition pourra fournir une réelle transparence sur les bénéfices et impôts payés par les multinationales.

La proposition provisoire, publiée par les médias le 21 mars, contient plusieurs éléments préoccupants. D’abord, l’obligation pour les multinationales d’établir leur rapport pays par pays seulement pour les pays de l’Union européenne. Les données des pays extérieurs à l’Union seraient quant à elles, fournies sous forme de données additionnées (aggregate), ce qui rendrait leur usage impropre aux objectifs de transparence recherchés.

Un rapport pays par pays rendu public, devrait fournir les informations fondamentales sur les activités des sociétés multinationales, en y incluant les impôts payés sur les bénéfices réalisés dans les pays où elle opère. Avec la publication de données ne concernant que les pays de l’UE, la proposition divulguée dans la presse, permettrait en fait aux multinationales de continuer à déplacer leurs bénéfices hors Union européenne et tiendrait ainsi toujours les citoyens dans l’obscurité (sur un recours éventuel aux paradis fiscaux). Tout ceci serait également sans utilité pour les pays en développement puisqu’ils n’obtiendraient aucune information spécifique concernant leurs pays. Non seulement ceci minerait les tentatives de ces pays de lever des recettes fiscales adéquates mais ce serait également contraire à l’engagement de l’Union européenne en faveur d’une politique de développement cohérente.

Deuxièmement, fixer le seuil obligatoire de ces déclarations publiques (PCBCR) à 750 millions € de chiffre d’affaires annuel consolidé, exclurait 85 à 90% des multinationales de cette obligation, selon une estimation de l’OCDE. La proposition de CBCR, adoptée par le Parlement européen à Strasbourg dans le cadre de la Directive sur les droits des actionnaires, en conformité avec la définition propre à l’UE des « grandes entreprises », couvre toutes les grandes sociétés répondant à deux critères sur trois ; elle y inclut un seuil de 40 millions € de chiffre d’affaires. Un seuil moins élevé devrait  correspondre à plus de sociétés, fournir davantage de données sur les activités des multinationales et assurer ainsi une meilleure concurrence.

Troisièmement, les éléments fournis devraient donnent une image claire du lieu où les bénéfices sont créés et des paiements d’impôts qui y correspondent. Le projet de proposition actuel omet trop de nombreux éléments importants, comme les actifs, les ventes et une liste complète des filiales – contrairement au modèle mis au point par l’OCDE dans le point 13 de son plan d’action BEPS et dans la directive sur les droits des actionnaires (SRD) du Parlement européen.

Sous votre direction, la Commission européenne a de manière répétée déclaré son soutien à la transparence ainsi que son engagement pour la lutte contre l’évasion fiscale. Alors que des scandales fiscaux de sociétés continuent à être mis à jour, il est essentiel que la Commission saisisse cette occasion pour restaurer la confiance du public dans nos systèmes fiscaux et prennent des initiatives concrètes pour combattre les inégalités extrêmes et la pauvreté, ici et dans les pays en développement.

Nous vous pressons dès lors de faire en sorte que la proposition finale de CBCR de la Commission européenne qui sera présentée en avril, prenne en compte les questions soulevées plus haut et qu’elle soit dès lors un instrument efficace de transparence extrêmement nécessaire dans la lutte contre l’évasion fiscale des sociétés et la corruption. (voir signatures plus bas en fin du texte anglais)

_________________________________________________

Jean-Claude Juncker President of the European Commission

200, Rue de la Loi 1049 Brussels – Brussels, 5 April, 2016

Commission proposal on disclosure of income tax information by certain multinational corporations

Dear President Juncker,

We, the undersigned civil society organisations and trade unions, are writing to you to express our concern regarding the European Commission’s upcoming proposal on disclosure of income tax information by multinational corporations. We urge you to move from the intra-EU reporting that the leaked draft would deliver to actual public country-by-country reporting. Only by doing so will the proposal deliver real transparency on profits made and taxes paid by multinationals.
The draft proposal published in the media on 21 March contains several worrying elements.

Firstly, the obligation for multinationals to report on a country-by-country basis only inside the EU, while publishing aggregated data from all third countries, would make this proposal unfit for purpose.
Public country-by-country reporting should provide the public with key information on the activities of multinationals, including the taxes paid on profits made in each country in which they operate. By only publishing country-by-country data from EU countries, the proposal as leaked would effectively allow multinationals to continue shifting their profits out of the EU while still keeping citizens in the dark. It would also make the measure useless for developing countries as they would not be able to get any country-specific information. Not only does this undermine any chances of collecting adequate public revenues, it would also be contrary to the EU’s commitment to policy coherence for development.

Secondly, setting the threshold for companies covered by the reporting requirement at €750 million in annual consolidated turnover would, according to the OECD’s estimates, exclude 85-90 per cent of multinationals from the reporting requirement. The proposal on public country-by-country reporting put forward by the European Parliament in the Shareholders’ Rights Directive, in accordance with the EU’s own existing definition of “large undertakings”, covers all large companies that meet two out of three criteria, including a threshold of €40 million in turnover. A lower threshold would cover more companies, providing more data on the activities of multinationals and ensuring a more level playing field.

Thirdly, the disclosure elements should give a clear picture of whether taxes are paid where the profits are generated. The Commission’s current proposal leaves out many important elements – such as assets, sales and a full list of subsidiaries – contrary to the templates developed by the OECD under BEPS Action 13 and the European Parliament in the Shareholders’ Rights Directive.
Under your leadership, the European Commission has repeatedly stated its support for transparency as well as its commitment to the fight against tax avoidance. As corporate tax scandals continue to unfold, it is crucial that the Commission seizes this opportunity to restore public trust in our tax systems and to take concrete steps to fight extreme inequality and poverty both at home and in developing countries.

We therefore urge you to make sure the final proposal on public country-by-country reporting that the European Commission will present in April takes the above mentioned issues into account in order for it to be an effective tool that delivers the transparency urgently needed in the fight against corporate tax avoidance and corruption.
Yours sincerely,
ActionAid APIT Portugal Attac Austria Attac France Attac Ireland CCFD-Terre Solidaire Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations (SOMO) Centre national de coopération au développement, CNCD-11.11.11 11.11.11 – Koepel van de Vlaamse Noord Zuidbeweging Change Partnership Christian Aid Ireland Collectif Roosevelt Debt and Development Coalition Ireland Diakonia Ekvilib Institute European Trade Union Confederation European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad) European Public Service Union Fair Tax Mark Financial Transparency Coalition Forum Syd French Platform on Tax Havens Global Policy Forum Glopolis IGO Justice et Paix Kairos Europe Kepa Koordinierungsstelle der Österreichischen Bischofskonferenz für internationale Entwicklung und Mission Methodist Tax Justice Network UK Netzwerk Steuergerechtigkeit Observatoire Citoyen pour la Transparence Financière Internationale Oxfam International Réseau Foi et Justice Afrique Europe SHERPA Tax Research UK Tax Justice Network Tax Justice Network – Norway Tax Reconciliations Transparency International EU -Transparency International France War on Want WeMove.eu Za Zemiata – Friends of the Earth Bulgaria – Logos des signataires

_____________________________________________________

La position d’Eurodad :

http://www.eurodad.org/Entries/view/1546566/2016/03/24/Eurodad-responds-to-leaked-European-Commission-proposal-for-public-country-by-country-reporting?print=yes

______________________________________________________

Alors que le commissaire P. Moscovici souhaite un CBCR public, une fuite de « Politico »  (21 mars), reprise par le FT, révèle que la Commission ne demandera pas de publier les comptes de filiales hors UE et donc éventuellement situées dans des paradis fiscaux : inacceptable pour S. Giegold (Verts européens)

https://twitter.com/search?q=%23CBCR

1. Leaked public #CBCR proposal by @EU_Commission: with disclosure limited to #EU, #MNCs profit shifting remains hidden taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2016/03/2…

2. Why does @EU_Commission dispense with full disclosure not only of #MNCs with headquarter in #EU, but of all operating in EU via subs?

3. #Australia #China require such direct reporting by subsidiaries of #MNCs already for non-public @OECD #CBCR, and #USA did similar via #FATCA

4. @EU_Commission #CBCR proposal lumps tax havens and developing countries together = no value to latter. Policy coherence 4 development? #PCDI

Leak: Commission to impose country-by-country tax reporting on companies –  — By Quentin Ariès – 3/21/16, 7:44 PM CET

The European Commission is likely to push multinational companies operating in the European Union to disclose all their tax information country-by-country if they have a revenue of over €750 million annually.

In a proposal leaked to POLITICO, the Commission is pushing this disclosure as one of the main changes to the so-called Accounting and Transparency Directives of 2013 for companies established in the EU.

The draft directive will require companies to publish on their website “understandable” tax information over the past five years. Companies will also have to disclose a brief description of their activities, the number of employees, their annual revenue, and the amount of profit and loss before tax.

The draft directive also puts forward a proposal for EU companies to publish their tax information in countries outside the Union where they operate. However, it does not make it mandatory for companies to break down this information country-by-country.

“It is unacceptable that payments to tax havens outside of the EU shall remain in darkness,” said Sven Giegold, an MEP from the Green group.

But Commission sources said it was not legally possible for it to impose such a reporting requirement on companies operating in countries outside the EU.

Earlier this month, the Council of finance ministers also discussed a proposal the Commission made in January for an automatic exchange of information among national tax administrations in order to trace tax evasion.

The final version of the Commission’s directive is planned to be published on April 12.
To view online: http://www.politico.eu/pro/leak-commission-to-impose-country-by-country-tax-reporting-on-companies/

To update your POLITICO Pro notification preferences, visit www.politico.eu/notification

____________________________________________________

Un article du Financial Times, sur la même « fuite » :

March 21, 2016 7:49 pm

The biggest companies in Europe will be forced to disclose more clearly the taxes they pay and profits they make in individual countries in an effort to make it harder for them to conceal untaxed cash piles.

A copy of plans from the European Commission, seen by the Financial Times, would require multinationals with annual turnover exceeding €750m to publish the information each year on their websites. The rules would hit EU- headquartered companies as well as other corporations with subsidiaries in Europe. Around 6,000 companies in total would be affected, some 2,000 of which are EU-based.

But in a significant disappointment for tax-justice campaigners, the scope of the disclosure rules will be limited to activities within Europe, leaving a lack of transparency on profit shifting to non-EU tax havens such as the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.

The introduction of country-by-country reporting rules has been a longstanding request of tax campaigners and members of the European Parliament, who argue it is the only effective means to shed light on the labyrinthine schemes used by some companies to reduce their tax bills. The European Commission estimates that such “aggressive tax planning” costs national treasuries between €50bn and €70bn per year.

It is also responding to public outrage over the disclosure in 2014 of a cache of Luxembourg tax documents, which showed that up to 340 multinational companies, ranging from Ikea to Pepsi, funnelled profits through the Grand Duchy to lower their tax bills in some instances to as little as 1 per cent.

While George Osborne, UK chancellor of the exchequer, earlier this year lent his support to the introduction of such rules, the idea has raised hackles in some other EU nations amid concern about its impact on companies’ competitiveness. Wolfgang Schäuble, Germany’s finance minister, said earlier this month that sharing of country-by-country data between national tax authorities should not lead to information being made public.

Employers’ groups have also warned that transparency requirements could put EU companies at a disadvantage to rivals based in other parts of the world.

Key parts of the proposals seen by the FT, however, fall far short of what tax-justice campaigners say would be needed to blow the cover off sophisticated avoidance strategies.

In some respects, the proposals even go less far than existing country-by-country reporting rules that the EU introduced for banks in 2015.

Crucially, data on activities outside the EU would not have to be broken down country by country. Instead, firms could aggregate data on, for example, profits made in all non-EU countries into one lump sum. The same applies for taxes and other information to be disclosed.

Sven Giegold, a German member of the European Parliament’s Green group, said that this limitation meant that “tax havens outside of the EU would remain in darkness”.

“This is not the country-by-country reporting the European Parliament demanded. The commission has to revise its final proposal,” he said.

But commission officials defended their approach, saying that pushing the plans any further would have led the EU into a legal minefield. A specific concern was to prevent discrimination against EU companies vis-à-vis their global competitors.

Tax havens outside the EU will remain in darkness

Also at issue is the €750m threshold, which means that only 10-15 per cent of multinationals will be captured by the rules, according to EU data. This sample would, nevertheless, account for more than 90 per cent of corporate revenues in Europe.

According to the text of the plans, companies would be required to disclose country-by-country data on number of employees, net turnover, amount of profit or loss before tax, as well as on the amount of income tax accrued and paid.

Tove Maria Ryding, tax justice co-ordinator at the European Network on Debt and Development, said a proposal that required multinational corporations to report only on what they do in the EU “would be meaningless.”

“It would also be very problematic if the European Commission decides it should only apply to companies with minimum turnover of €750m per year. This would mean that 85 to 90 per cent of the world’s multinational corporations would not have to report anything at all.”

____________________________________________________

 

Les ministres des finances européens s’accordent sur un échange entre administrations publiques  et donc limité

la réaction des ONG synthétisée par Eurodad :

http://eurodad.org/ecofin-agreement-a-missed-chance-campaigners-say

http://www.lecho.be/economie_politique/europe_general/L_UE_va_obliger_les_multinationales_a_la_transparence_fiscale.9741597-3323.art?utm_campaign=EVENING_ROUNDUP&utm_medium=email&utm_source=SIM

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/09/business/international/eu-ministers-agree-to-share-tax-details-on-multinationals.html?_r=0

et Bercy accepterait des échanges d’information rendues publiques

http://www.lefigaro.fr/conjoncture/2016/02/22/20002-20160222ARTFIG00004-transparence-fiscale-bercy-n-exclut-plus-de-rendre-publiques-les-donnees-des-entreprises.php?m_i=GcdGhsyUKJ4MpKJMxEF3J4b8WbtBRNnXeTkZwxy%2Bc4sFXtHqjK_8oRY4ww4qC%2BkPyqaQRDbOasc5KaVI3S1DFqpZsSp1nkfyzIGxINar&a2=20160222101440&a3=763-8142392-886662#xtor=EPR-300-[actualites]-20160222

Comments

comments