AM_Com_NonLegRE€¦ · Web viewE.whereas in 2018, pending an international agreement, the European Commission put forward two proposals addressing the taxation of the digital economy,

European Parliament2019-2024

Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs

PE643.244v01-00

22.11.2019

AMENDMENTS1 - 179Draft motion for a resolutionIrene Tinagli(PE643.054v01-00)

Fair Taxation in a digitalised and globalised economy: BEPS 2.0

AM\1193325EN.docx PE643.244v02-00

EN United in diversity EN

AM_Com_NonLegRE

PE643.244v02-00 2/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

Amendment 1Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionCitation 3

Draft motion for a resolution Amendment

- having regard to the OECD BEPS Action plan of July 2013, and the OECD Public consultation document “Secretariat Proposal for a “Unified Approach” under Pillar One” of 9 October 2019 (OECD Secretariat Proposal), and the Public consultation document “Global Anti-Base Erosion Proposal (GloBE) - Pillar Two” of 8 November 2019,

– having regard to the OECD BEPS Action plan of October 2015 and Action 1 in particular,

– having regard to the OECD Programme of Work to Develop a Consensus Solution to the Tax Challenges Arising from the Digitalisation of the Economy of 29 May 2019,

– having regard to the OECD Public consultation document “Secretariat Proposal for a “Unified Approach” under Pillar One” of 9 October 2019 (OECD Secretariat Proposal), and the Public consultation document “Global Anti-Base Erosion Proposal (GloBE) - Pillar Two” of 8 November 2019,

Or. en

Amendment 2Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionCitation 8 a (new)


- having regard to the International Monetary Fund Policy Paper ‘Corporate Taxation in the Global Economy”6a,

_________________ _________________6a a short-term solution of introducing a

AM\1193325EN.docx 3/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

https://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/public-consultation-document-secretariat-proposal-unified-approach-pillar-one.pdf






digital services tax (DST), and a long-term solution defining a significant digital presence (SDP) as a nexus for corporate taxation.

Or. en

Amendment 3Niels Fuglsang, Paul Tang, Eero HeinäluomaDraft motion for a resolutionCitation 17 a (new)


- having regard to the hearing in the European Parliament on 8 October 2019 with the Commissioner Designate for a Europe fit for the Digital Age, who stated that, if there is no international solution to the tax issue by spring 2020 the EU Commission will produce its own proposal for a fair European digital tax,

Or. en

Amendment 4Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionCitation 17 a (new)


- having regard to the Council Conclusions of 5 December 2017 on the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes,

Or. en

Amendment 5Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolution

PE643.244v02-00 4/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

Citation 17 b (new)


- having regard to the Presidency State of Play of 28 October 2019 on Digital Tax,

Or. en

Amendment 6Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionCitation 17 c (new)


- having regard to the Mission Letters and hearings of the Executive Vice-President Designate for a Europe fit for the Digital Age and of the Commissioner Designate for Economy17a,

_________________ _________________17a Verbatim reports hearing of Margrethe Vestager executive vice-president-designate of the European Commission, hearing of Paolo Gentiloni, Commissioner-designate available at https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/hearings2019/commission-hearings-2019.

Or. en

Amendment 7Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkviston behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital A


A. whereas the current international corporate tax rules can be dysfunctional,

A. whereas the current international corporate tax rules are dysfunctional

AM\1193325EN.docx 5/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/hearings2019/commission-hearings-2019

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/hearings2019/commission-hearings-2019

from the early 20th century and were not designed for the challenges of the digital economy;

leading to an unfair, inefficient and unsustainable international tax system, date from the early 20th century and were not designed for the challenges of the digital economy;

Or. en

Amendment 8Sven Giegoldon behalf of the Verts/ALE GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital A


A. whereas the current international corporate tax rules can be dysfunctional, date from the early 20th century and were not designed for the challenges of the digital economy;

A. whereas the current international corporate tax rules are now dysfunctional and can be exploited for tax evasion and tax avoidance, date from the early 20th century and were not designed for the challenges of the digital economy, leading to countries taking unilateral measures to address these challenges;

Or. en

Amendment 9Luis Garicano, Stéphane Séjournéon behalf of the Renew GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital A


A. whereas the current international corporate tax rules can be dysfunctional, from the early 20th century and were not designed for the challenges of the digital economy;

A. whereas the current international corporate tax rules need to be updated, as they date from the early 20th century and were not designed for the challenges of the digital economy;

Or. en

Amendment 10Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D Group

PE643.244v02-00 6/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

Draft motion for a resolutionRecital B


B. whereas following the financial crisis from 2008-09 and a series of revelations by journalists of practices of tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and tax avoidance, the G20 countries agreed to address these issues globally via the at OECD level through the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, leading to the BEPS Action Plan;

B. whereas following the financial crisis from 2008-09 and a series of revelations by journalists and civil society organisations of practices of tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and tax avoidance, the G20 countries agreed to address these issues globally via the at OECD level through the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, leading to the BEPS Action Plan;

Or. en

Amendment 11Sven Giegoldon behalf of the Verts/ALE GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital B


B. whereas following the financial crisis from 2008-09 and a series of revelations by journalists of practices of tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and tax avoidance, the G20 countries agreed to address these issues globally via the at OECD level through the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, leading to the BEPS Action Plan;

B. whereas following the financial crisis from 2008-09 and a series of revelations by journalists of practices of tax evasion, tax avoidance and money laundering, the G20 countries agreed to address these issues globally including at OECD level through the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, leading to the BEPS Action Plan;

Or. en

Amendment 12Marek BelkaDraft motion for a resolutionRecital B


B. whereas following the financial crisis from 2008-09 and a series of revelations by journalists of practices of tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and

B. whereas following the financial crisis from 2008-09 and a series of revelations by journalists of practices of tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and

AM\1193325EN.docx 7/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

tax avoidance, the G20 countries agreed to address these issues globally via the at OECD level through the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, leading to the BEPS Action Plan;

tax avoidance, the G20 countries agreed to address these issues globally via the at OECD level through the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, leading to the BEPS Action Plan; whereas there has been a various level of engagement and commitment in applying the OECD BEPS rules both amongst the EU Member States and internationally on the OECD level;

Or. en

Amendment 13Sven Giegoldon behalf of the Verts/ALE GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital C


C. whereas the BEPS Action Plan managed to find global consensus on many aspects to fight tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and tax avoidance; however there was no agreement on addressing the tax challenges of the digitalisation of the economy, which led to a separate 2015 BEPS Action 1 Report;

C. whereas the BEPS Action Plan managed to find global consensus on several aspects to fight tax evasion and tax avoidance; however there was no agreement on addressing the tax challenges of the digitalisation of the economy, which led to a separate 2015 BEPS Action 1 Report and unresolved issues; whereas several actions of the BEPS Action Plan were included into EU law with the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) but this directive in itself is not sufficient to end base erosion and profit shifting in the Union;

Or. en

Amendment 14Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital C


C. whereas the BEPS Action Plan C. whereas the BEPS Action Plan

PE643.244v02-00 8/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

managed to find global consensus on many aspects to fight tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and tax avoidance; however there was no agreement on addressing the tax challenges of the digitalisation of the economy, which led to a separate 2015 BEPS Action 1 Report;

managed to find global consensus on some aspects to fight tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and tax avoidance; however there was no agreement on addressing the tax challenges of the digitalisation of the economy, which led to a separate 2015 BEPS Action 1 Report;

Or. en

Amendment 15Sven Giegoldon behalf of the Verts/ALE GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital D


D. whereas the European Parliament, in its TAXE, TAX2, TAX3 and PANA resolutions, has repeatedly called for a reform of the international corporate tax system to tackle tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and tax avoidance and the challenges of taxing the digital economy, and called upon the Commission and Member States to agree on a joint European position at OECD/G20 level;

D. whereas the European Parliament, in its TAXE, TAX2, TAX3 and PANA resolutions as well as in its Common Corporate Tax Base opinion, has repeatedly called for a reform of the international corporate tax system to tackle tax evasion and tax avoidance and the challenges of taxing the digital economy, and called upon the Commission and Member States to agree on a joint European position at OECD/G20 level or to act at the Union level if an international agreement was not possible;

Or. en

Amendment 16Frances Fitzgerald, Christophe HansenDraft motion for a resolutionRecital D a (new)


Da. Whereas aggressive tax planning by multinational companies is a global problem that requires a global solution; considers that the ideal way to tackle this problem is on an internationally agreed basis through the OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative;

AM\1193325EN.docx 9/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

Or. en

Amendment 17Sven Giegoldon behalf of the Verts/ALE GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital E


E. whereas in 2018, pending an international agreement, the European Commission put forward two proposals addressing the taxation of the digital economy, which were supported by the European Parliament, but not adopted in Council: a short-term solution of introducing a digital services tax (DST), and a long-term solution defining a significant digital presence (SDP) as a nexus for corporate taxation;

E. whereas in 2018, pending an international agreement, the European Commission put forward two proposals18a addressing the taxation of the digital economy, which were supported by the European Parliament, but rejected in Council because a unanimous agreement could not be reached despite support by a large majority of Member States;

_________________ _________________18a a short-term solution of introducing a digital services tax (DST), and a long-term solution defining a significant digital presence (SDP) as a nexus for corporate taxation.

Or. en

Amendment 18Markus Ferberon behalf of the PPE GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital E


E. whereas in 2018, pending an international agreement, the European Commission put forward two proposals addressing the taxation of the digital economy, which were supported by the European Parliament, but not adopted in Council: a short-term solution of introducing a digital services tax (DST), and a long-term solution defining a significant digital presence (SDP) as a

E. whereas in 2018, during the ongoing negotiations to find an international agreement, the European Commission put forward two proposals addressing the taxation of the digital economy, which were supported by the European Parliament, but not adopted in Council: a short-term solution of introducing a digital services tax (DST), and a long-term solution defining a

PE643.244v02-00 10/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

nexus for corporate taxation; significant digital presence (SDP) as a nexus for corporate taxation;

Or. en

Amendment 19Alfred Santon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital E



E. whereas in 2018, pending an international agreement, the European Commission put forward two proposals addressing the taxation of the digital economy, which were supported by the European Parliament, but not adopted in Council, notably due to the singling out of online activities, and questioned by the OECD, which highlighted the absence of consensus on the merits of interim measures: a short-term solution of introducing a digital services tax (DST), and a long-term solution defining a significant digital presence (SDP) as a nexus for corporate taxation;

Or. en

Amendment 20Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital E


E. whereas in 2018, pending an international agreement, the European Commission put forward two proposals addressing the taxation of the digital economy, which were supported by the European Parliament, but not adopted in Council: a short-term solution of introducing a digital services tax (DST),

E. whereas in 2018, pending an international agreement, the European Commission put forward two proposals addressing the taxation of the digital economy, which were supported by the European Parliament, but not adopted in Council due to resistance from a small number of Member States: a short-term

AM\1193325EN.docx 11/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

and a long-term solution defining a significant digital presence (SDP) as a nexus for corporate taxation;

solution of introducing a digital services tax (DST), and a long-term solution defining a significant digital presence (SDP) as a nexus for corporate taxation;

Or. en

Amendment 21Marek BelkaDraft motion for a resolutionRecital E



E. whereas in 2018, pending an international agreement, the European Commission put forward two proposals addressing the taxation of the digital economy, which were supported by the European Parliament, but not adopted in Council: a short-term solution of introducing a digital services tax (DST), and a long-term solution defining a significant digital presence (SDP) - which would replace the DST proposal in the long-run - as a nexus for corporate taxation;

Or. en

Amendment 22Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital E a (new)


Ea. whereas in 2016, due to pressure from the European Parliament and civil society, the Commission put forward one proposal addressing transparency as pre-condition for fair taxation, public country-by-country reporting18a, which is still not adopted in Council due to resistance from a small number of Member States; whereas public country-

PE643.244v02-00 12/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

by-country reporting brings transparency and clarity and is therefore necessary for BEPS 2.0 to work;

_________________ _________________18a Proposal of 12 April 2016 for a directive amending Directive 2013/34/EU as regards disclosure of income tax information by certain undertakings and branches, COM(2016)0198 (2016/0107(COD)).

Or. en

Amendment 23Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital E b (new)


Eb. whereas in 2016, due to pressure from the European Parliament and civil society, the Commission put forward the proposal on the C(C)CTB18a, which would harmonize European taxation rules and would ensure that taxes are paid, where profits are made;

_________________ _________________18a Proposal of 25 October 2016 for a Council Directive on a Common Corporate Tax Base (CCTB), COM(2016)0685 (2016/0337(CNS)) and on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB), COM(2016)0683 (2016/0336(CNS)).

Or. en

Amendment 24Sven Giegoldon behalf of the Verts/ALE GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital I

AM\1193325EN.docx 13/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/com/2016/0198/COM_COM(2016)0198_EN.pdf


I. whereas on 8 October 2019, the OECD Secretariat launched a public consultation on the basis of OECD Secretariat Proposal for a “Unified Approach” aiming to find a consensus between the three alternatives set out in Pillar One; whereas on 8 November 2019, the OECD Secretariat launched a public consultation on the GloBE proposal under Pillar Two;

I. whereas on 9 October 2019, the OECD Secretariat launched a public consultation on the basis of OECD Secretariat Proposal for a “Unified Approach” aiming to find a consensus between the three alternatives set out in Pillar One; whereas on 18 October 2019, the G2018a welcomed the OECD Secretariat’s efforts for the proposed unified approach under Pillar 1 but did not formally endorsed the proposal; whereas on 8 November 2019, the OECD Secretariat launched a public consultation on the GloBE proposal under Pillar Two;

_________________ _________________18a G20 communiqué: https://www.mof.go.jp/english/international_policy/convention/g20/g20_191018it.htm.

Or. en

Amendment 25Sven Giegoldon behalf of the Verts/ALE GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital J


J. whereas a fair and efficient taxation system is key to addressing inequality and ensures certainty and stability which are prerequisite for competitiveness;

J. whereas a fair and efficient taxation system is key to addressing inequality and ensures a level playing field between companies, especially towards small and medium enterprises, which is a prerequisite for fair competition in the Internal Market;

Or. en

Amendment 26Stéphane Séjourné, Luis GaricanoDraft motion for a resolutionRecital J a (new)

PE643.244v02-00 14/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN


Ja. whereas a fair and efficient taxation system is key for Member States to guarantee tax revenues enabling them to implement sound policies and therefore benefiting the whole EU through increased stability;

Or. en

Amendment 27Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital J a (new)


Ja. whereas the current international tax environment, by enabling opportunities for aggressive tax planning, undermines the credibility of national tax systems and by extension, political legitimate institutions;

Or. en

Amendment 28Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital J b (new)


Jb. whereas nominal corporate tax rates of OECD countries have decreased from an average of 32 % in 2000 to 23.5 % in 201918a, which represents a decrease of 27 %18b;

_________________ _________________

AM\1193325EN.docx 15/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

18a Data on taxation, Taxation Trends in the European Union, Table 3: Top statutory corporate income tax rates (including surcharges), 1995-2019, European Commission, 2019, available at https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/taxation_trends_report_2019_statutory_rates.xlsx18b OECD Stat, Table II.1 Statutory corporate income tax rate, https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE_II1#

Or. en

Amendment 29Markus Ferberon behalf of the PPE GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital K


K. whereas nominal corporate tax rates have decreased at EU level from an average of 32 % in 2000 to 21,7 % in 201919, which represents a decrease of 32 %; whereas this decrease can have implications on the sustainability of tax systems and potential spill over effects on other countries;

K. whereas nominal corporate tax rates have decreased at EU level from an average of 32 % in 2000 to 21,7 % in 201919, which represents a decrease of 31,5 %; whereas this decrease can have potential spill over effects on other countries;

_________________ _________________19 Data on taxation, Taxation Trends in the European Union, Table 3: Top statutory corporate income tax rates (including surcharges), 1995-2019, European Commission, 2019, available at https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/taxation_trends_report_2019_statutory_rates.xlsx

19 Data on taxation, Taxation Trends in the European Union, Table 3: Top statutory corporate income tax rates (including surcharges), 1995-2019, European Commission, 2019, available at https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/taxation_trends_report_2019_statutory_rates.xlsx

Or. en

Amendment 30Luis Garicano, Stéphane Séjournéon behalf of the Renew GroupDraft motion for a resolution

PE643.244v02-00 16/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE_II1

https://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLE_II1

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/taxation_trends_report_2019_statutory_rates.xlsx



Recital K



K. whereas nominal corporate tax rates have decreased at EU level from an average of 32 % in 2000 to 21,7 % in 201919, which represents a decrease of 32 %; whereas this decrease can have implications on the sustainability of EU welfare states and potential spill over effects on other countries;

_________________ _________________19 Data on taxation, Taxation Trends in the European Union, Table 3: Top statutory corporate income tax rates (including surcharges), 1995-2019, European Commission, 2019, available at https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/taxation_trends_report_2019_statutory_rates.xlsx


Or. en

Amendment 31Sven Giegoldon behalf of the Verts/ALE GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital K



K. whereas nominal corporate tax rates have decreased at EU level from an average of 32 % in 2000 to 21,7 % in 201919, which represents a decrease of 32 %; whereas this decrease can have implications on the sustainability of tax systems and potential spill over effects on other countries; whereas 22 of the 38 countries surveyed in the tax policy reform 2018 report from the OECD19a now have combined statutory corporate income tax rates equal to or below 25 %, compared with only six in 2000;

_________________ _________________

AM\1193325EN.docx 17/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN


19 Data on taxation, Taxation Trends in the European Union, Table 3: Top statutory corporate income tax rates (including surcharges), 1995-2019, European Commission, 2019, available at https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/taxation_trends_report_2019_statutory_rates.xlsx19a OECD and Selected Partner Economies, Tax Policy Reforms 2018; It is also worth noting that the EU 28 are already well below this level, with an average corporate income tax rate in 2018 of 21.9 %, down from 32 % in 2000, according to the Commission: Taxation Trends in the European Union - Data for the EU Member States, Iceland and Norward, 2018 Edition (page 36) and Taxation Trends in the European Union - Data for the EU Member States, Iceland and Norward, 2015 Edition (page 147).

Or. en

Amendment 32Sven Giegoldon behalf of the Verts/ALE GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital K a (new)


Ka. whereas recent multilateral initiatives have focused on BEPS, tax competition, through decreasing statutory rates as well as through the proliferation of special tax regimes, is also of great concern, as it constitutes a high revenue loss on public budgets19a; whereas estimates suggest that an overall revenue loss from tax avoidance of up to 10 percent of corporate income tax revenue would be equivalent to a cut in the statutory rate of around 2.5 percentage points19b

_________________ _________________19a International Monetary Fund, 2019,

PE643.244v02-00 18/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN




Corporate Taxation in the Global Economy, Policy Paper No. 19/007 https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/Policy-Papers/Issues/2019/03/08/Corporate-Taxation-in-the-Global-Economy-46650.19b Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2015, Measuring and Monitoring BEPS: Action 11 – Final Report, Paris http://www.oecd.org/ctp/measuring-and-montoring-beps-action-11-2015-final-report-9789264241343-en.htm.

Or. en

Amendment 33Sven Giegoldon behalf of the Verts/ALE GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital L


L. whereas criticisms have been raised by the European Commission in some Country Reports against shortcoming in national tax systems that facilitate aggressive tax planning, arguing that they undermine the integrity of the European Single Market;

L. whereas criticisms have been raised by the European Commission in the Country Reports of Cyprus, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom19a

against shortcoming in national tax systems that facilitate aggressive tax planning, arguing that they undermine the integrity of the European Single Market;

_________________ _________________19a Country reports 2019: https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2019-european-semester-country-reports_en.

Or. en

Amendment 34Alfred Santon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital L

AM\1193325EN.docx 19/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN


L. whereas criticisms have been raised by the European Commission in some Country Reports against shortcoming in national tax systems that facilitate aggressive tax planning, arguing that they undermine the integrity of the European Single Market;

L. whereas criticisms have been raised by the European Commission in some Country Reports against shortcoming in national tax systems that facilitate aggressive tax planning, for which steps are already being taken to amend aspects of national tax systems in the effort to address the concerns in the CRs;

Or. en

Amendment 35Marek BelkaDraft motion for a resolutionRecital M


M. whereas there has been a gradual shift from tangible production to intangible assets in the value chains of MNEs, as reflected in the relative rates of growth over the last five years of royalties and licensing fee receipts (almost 5 % annually) compared with trade in goods and foreign direct investment (FDI) (less than 1 % annually); whereas MNEs pay almost no taxes in some Member States despite their significant digital presence and large revenues in those Member States;

M. whereas there has been a gradual shift from tangible production to intangible assets in the value chains of multinational enterprises (MNEs), as reflected in the relative rates of growth over the last five years of royalties and licensing fee receipts (almost 5 % annually) compared with trade in goods and foreign direct investment (FDI) (less than 1 % annually); whereas MNEs - as defined in the OECD BEPS work and proposals - pay almost no taxes in some Member States despite their significant digital presence and large revenues in those Member States;

Or. en

Amendment 36Markus Ferberon behalf of the PPE GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital M


M. whereas there has been a gradual shift from tangible production to intangible assets in the value chains of MNEs, as

M. whereas there has been a gradual shift from tangible production to intangible assets in the value chains of MNEs, as

PE643.244v02-00 20/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

reflected in the relative rates of growth over the last five years of royalties and licensing fee receipts (almost 5 % annually) compared with trade in goods and foreign direct investment (FDI) (less than 1 % annually); whereas MNEs pay almost no taxes in some Member States despite their significant digital presence and large revenues in those Member States;

reflected in the relative rates of growth over the last five years of royalties and licensing fee receipts (almost 5 % annually) compared with trade in goods and foreign direct investment (FDI) (less than 1 % annually); whereas some MNEs pay almost no taxes in some Member States by making use of legally conform tax planning strategies despite their significant digital presence and large revenues in those Member States;

Or. en

Amendment 37Luis Garicano, Stéphane Séjournéon behalf of the Renew GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital M


M. whereas there has been a gradual shift from tangible production to intangible assets in the value chains of MNEs, as reflected in the relative rates of growth over the last five years of royalties and licensing fee receipts (almost 5 % annually) compared with trade in goods and foreign direct investment (FDI) (less than 1 % annually); whereas MNEs pay almost no taxes in some Member States despite their significant digital presence and large revenues in those Member States;

M. whereas there has been a gradual shift from tangible production to intangible assets in the value chains of MNEs, as reflected in the relative rates of growth over the last five years of royalties and licensing fee receipts (almost 5 % annually) compared with trade in goods and foreign direct investment (FDI) (less than 1 % annually); whereas some MNEs pay almost no taxes in some Member States despite their significant digital presence and large revenues in those Member States;

Or. en

Amendment 38Derk Jan Eppinkon behalf of the ECR GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital M a (new)


Ma. whereas direct taxation is the sole competence of the Member States and, as stated in Article 115 TFEU, is subject to

AM\1193325EN.docx 21/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

the unanimity requirement within the Council; therefore direct taxation matters can only be dealt with subject to the approval of all Member States;

Or. en

Amendment 39Billy Kelleheron behalf of the Renew GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital M a (new)


Ma. whereas the sovereignty of Member States on matters concerning taxation and industrial policies is enshrined in the Lisbon Treaty;

Or. en

Amendment 40Derk Jan Eppinkon behalf of the ECR GroupDraft motion for a resolutionRecital M a (new)


Ma. whereas a transfer of competences in the area of taxation from the national to the EU level would require a Treaty change;

Or. en

Amendment 41Sven Giegoldon behalf of the Verts/ALE GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 1


1. Acknowledges the progress made by the BEPS Action Plan and its EU implementation through the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) but

1. Acknowledges the progress made by the BEPS Action Plan and its EU implementation through the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) but

PE643.244v02-00 22/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

recognizes that some challenges, notably linked with globalisation and digitalisation of the economy, are still not addressed;

recognizes that some challenges, notably linked with globalisation and digitalisation of the economy, are still not addressed; recalls that one of the objectives of the work of the Task Force on the Digital Economy, in addition to ending corporate profit shifting, is to build a new tax system which rules are easily applicable in order to increase tax compliance and limit tax dispute resolution; is concerned that the ongoing IF negotiations could lead in the end to a very complex system, which will be hard to implement;

Or. en



2. Points out that ATAD went further than the BEPS Action Plan, notably with the new EU Controlled Foreign Company rules that enable profits parked in tax havens to be taxed in the EU country where a MNE is headquartered; notes that these types of measures limit aggressive tax planning and tax avoidance;

2. Points out that ATAD went further than the BEPS Action Plan, notably with the new EU Controlled Foreign Company rules that enable profits parked in tax havens to be taxed in the EU country where a MNE is headquartered; notes that these types of measures limit aggressive tax planning and tax avoidance; calls on the new Commission to evaluate the implementation of ATAD and analyse new ways of circumventing this directive and to present new legislative proposals when necessary; calls on the Council to resume work and progress on the revision of the Interest & Royalty directive;

Or. en


AM\1193325EN.docx 23/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN


3. Recalls that the EU’s proposals for a C(C)CTB also go far beyond these OECD alternatives at EU level, notably by departing from the separate entity principle;

3. Recalls that the EU’s proposal for a CCCTB also goes far beyond these OECD alternatives at EU level, notably by departing from the separate entity principle; recalls the need for a single set of rules for calculating taxable profits of cross-border companies by treating corporate groups as a single entity for tax purposes, in order to eliminate many of the weaknesses in the current corporate tax framework enabling aggressive tax planning and tax avoidance; insists on the importance of consolidation to reduce administrative burden, compliance costs and tax obstacles for cross-border companies in the EU and to remove the need for complex transfer pricing arrangements; calls on the Council to rapidly adopt the CCTB and CCCTB proposals;

Or. en

Amendment 44Alfred Santon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 3



3. Recalls that the EU’s proposals for a C(C)CTB also go far beyond these OECD alternatives at EU level, a position which risks breaking the consensus at OECD level and putting the EU at a competitive disadvantage, notably by departing from the separate entity principle;

Or. en

Amendment 45Piernicola Pedicini, Fabio Massimo CastaldoDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 3

PE643.244v02-00 24/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN



3. Recalls that the EU’s proposals for a C(C)CTB also go far beyond these OECD alternatives at EU level, notably by departing from the separate entity principle; deplores that the proposals are still blocked and calls the Member States to adopt them swiftly;

Or. en

Amendment 46Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 3



3. Recalls that the EU’s proposals for a C(C)CTB also go far beyond these OECD alternatives at EU level, notably by departing from the separate entity principle; recalls Parliament position on the C(C)CTB and urges the Council to adopt the two proposals swiftly;

Or. en

Amendment 47Eero HeinäluomaDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 3



3. Recalls that the EU’s proposals for a C(C)CTB also go far beyond these OECD alternatives at EU level, notably by departing from the separate entity principle; regrets that this proposal is still blocked at the Council;

Or. en

AM\1193325EN.docx 25/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

Amendment 48Frances Fitzgerald, Christophe HansenDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 3



3. Recalls that the EU’s proposals for a C(C)CTB also go far beyond these OECD alternatives at EU level, notably by departing from the separate entity principle; notes, however, that seven Member State national parliaments have issued reasoned opinions to state that the proposal for a C(C)CTB does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity as defined in Article 5(3) TEU.

Or. en

Amendment 49Stéphane SéjournéDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 3 a (new)


3a. Considers that the EU’s proposals for a C(C)CTB is beneficial for the companies as it would simplify the tax framework and for the citizens as it would help fight tax evasion;

Or. en

Amendment 50Manon Aubry, José GusmãoDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 3 a (new)


3a. Points out any version of the OECD reform will likely increase the complexity of the tax system and could provide new opportunity for aggressive tax planning in the absence of greater tax transparency; recalls that the EU proposal for a public Country-by-country

PE643.244v02-00 26/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

reporting is still blocked in Council;

Or. en



4. Recalls that the EU has been a pioneer in the debate to address the tax challenges arising from digitalisation, notably with the, C(C)CTB, DST and SDP proposals;

4. Recalls that the EU has been a pioneer in the debate to address the tax challenges arising from digitalisation, notably with the, C(C)CTB, DST and SDP proposals; however, recognises that while tackling aggressive tax planning is a key priority, there are different views from Member States on how to approach these challenges;

Or. en

Amendment 52Derk Jan Eppinkon behalf of the ECR GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 4 a (new)


4a. Warns against imposing additional obligations which go beyond what has been agreed internationally at OECD level, as gold-plating at the EU level risk weakening the competitiveness of EU countries and having a negative impact on employment;

Or. en

Amendment 53Stéphane Séjourné, Luis GaricanoDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 4 a (new)

AM\1193325EN.docx 27/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN


4a. Considers that the tax framework should be able to strike a balance between the different situations, notably monopoly rent and high growth innovative companies;

Or. en

Amendment 54Billy Kelleheron behalf of the Renew GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 5


5. Deplores that EU Member States were not able to agree on a joint approach regarding DST;

5. Recognises that thus far EU Member States have been unable to find a proportionate and fair approach regarding DST; regrets that the DST proposal would disproportionately impact small or export led economies;

Or. en

Amendment 55Frances FitzgeraldDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 5



5. Recalls that EU Member States were not able to agree on a joint approach regarding DST; notes that the OECD continues to address the tax challenges related to the digital economy and aims to reach a consensus-based long-term solution for a digital tax by the end of 2020; considers that the most ideal way to tackle tax challenges related to the digital economy is via a global agreement;

Or. en

PE643.244v02-00 28/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

Amendment 56Derk Jan Eppinkon behalf of the ECR GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 5



5. Notes that EU Member States were not able to agree on a joint approach regarding DST;

Or. en

Amendment 57Marek BelkaDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 5



5. Deplores that EU Member States were not able to agree neither on a joint approach regarding DST nor the SDP proposals; reminds that the new Commission President Ursula von der Leyen promised to put forward a proposal concerning the taxation of digital giants and push for its approval on the EU level, if no consensus on the OECD level is found by the end of 2020;

Or. en




5. Deplores that EU Member States were not able to agree on a joint approach regarding C(C)CTB, DST and SDP;

AM\1193325EN.docx 29/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

Or. en




5. Deplores that EU Member States were not able to agree on a joint approach regarding DST; recalls the difficulty with the unanimity rule in Council to adopt certain tax proposals;

Or. en

Amendment 60Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 5 a (new)


5a. Fully supports Member State efforts to establish DST or SDP at national level; encourages more Member States to propose such legislations as a potential recourse solution should both OECD and EU negotiations not be successful;

Or. en

Amendment 61Markus Ferberon behalf of the PPE GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 7


7. Welcomes the participation on an equal footing of all countries involved in the Inclusive Framework, which brings

7. Welcomes the participation on an equal footing of all countries involved in the Inclusive Framework, which brings

PE643.244v02-00 30/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

together over 130 countries and jurisdictions to collaborate on the implementation of the OECD/G20 BEPS Package and to negotiate joint solutions for tackling the remaining BEPS challenges; recalls, however, that over 100 developing countries were excluded from the negotiations on the 15 BEPS actions;

together over 130 countries and jurisdictions to collaborate on the implementation of the OECD/G20 BEPS Package and to negotiate joint solutions for tackling the remaining BEPS challenges;

Or. en



7. Welcomes the participation on an equal footing of all countries involved in the Inclusive Framework, which brings together over 130 countries and jurisdictions to collaborate on the implementation of the OECD/G20 BEPS Package and to negotiate joint solutions for tackling the remaining BEPS challenges; recalls, however, that over 100 developing countries were excluded from the negotiations on the 15 BEPS actions;

7. Welcomes the participation on an equal footing of all countries involved in the Inclusive Framework, which brings together over 130 countries and jurisdictions to collaborate on the implementation of the OECD/G20 BEPS Package and to negotiate joint solutions for tackling the remaining BEPS challenges; recalls, however, that developing countries were not involved in the BEPS process until an advanced stage of negotiations;

Or. en



7. Welcomes the participation on an equal footing of all countries involved in the Inclusive Framework, which brings together over 130 countries and jurisdictions to collaborate on the implementation of the OECD/G20 BEPS Package and to negotiate joint solutions for tackling the remaining BEPS challenges; recalls, however, that over 100 developing

7. Welcomes the participation on an equal footing of all countries involved in the Inclusive Framework, which brings together over 130 countries and jurisdictions to collaborate on the implementation of the OECD/G20 BEPS Package and to negotiate joint solutions for tackling the remaining BEPS challenges; regrets, however, that over 100 developing

AM\1193325EN.docx 31/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

countries were excluded from the negotiations on the 15 BEPS actions;

countries were excluded from the negotiations on the 15 BEPS actions;

Or. en



7. Welcomes the participation on an equal footing of all countries involved in the Inclusive Framework, which brings together over 130 countries and jurisdictions to collaborate on the implementation of the OECD/G20 BEPS Package and to negotiate joint solutions for tackling the remaining BEPS challenges; recalls, however, that over 100 developing countries were excluded from the negotiations on the 15 BEPS actions;

7. Welcomes the participation on an equal footing of all countries involved in the Inclusive Framework, which brings together over 130 countries and jurisdictions to collaborate on the implementation of the OECD/G20 BEPS Package and to negotiate joint solutions for tackling the remaining BEPS challenges; recalls, however, that over 100 developing countries were excluded from the negotiations on the 15 BEPS actions, therefore invites Member States to support the inclusiveness of the ongoing negotiations;

Or. en

Amendment 65Manon Aubry, José GusmãoDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 7


7. Welcomes the participation on an equal footing of all countries involved in the Inclusive Framework, which brings together over 130 countries and jurisdictions to collaborate on the implementation of the OECD/G20 BEPS Package and to negotiate joint solutions for tackling the remaining BEPS challenges; recalls, however, that over 100 developing countries were excluded from the

7. Welcomes the participation on an equal footing of all countries involved in the Inclusive Framework, which brings together over 130 countries and jurisdictions to collaborate on the implementation of the OECD/G20 BEPS Package and to negotiate joint solutions for tackling the remaining BEPS challenges; recalls, however, that over 100 developing countries were excluded from the

PE643.244v02-00 32/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

negotiations on the 15 BEPS actions; negotiations on the 15 BEPS actions; supports the creation of an Intergovernmental UN tax body to lead in a fairer way international negotiations on tax rules, as requested by the 130 countries of the G77;

Or. en



8. Notes that the OECD preliminary findings of the Impact assessment suggest that the combined effect of Pillar One and Pillar Two would lead to a significant increase in global tax revenues as well as a redistribution on taxing rights to market jurisdictions; notes in particular that Pillar Two would yield a significant increase of corporate income tax revenue globally; understands the two pillars would not adversely affect the investment environment20;

8. Notes that the OECD preliminary findings of the Impact assessment suggest that the combined effect of Pillar One and Pillar Two would lead to a significant increase in global tax revenues as well as a redistribution on taxing rights to market jurisdictions; notes in particular that Pillar Two would yield a significant increase of corporate income tax revenue globally; calls on the OECD to publish its impact assessments as soon as finished to provide greater clarity as to the impact of these proposed reforms on revenue collection; understands the two pillars would not adversely affect the investment environment20; calls on the Commission to complete its own impact assessment on the effects of Pillars One and Two on revenue collection for the Member States and to inform the Council and Parliament about its findings;

_________________ _________________20 OECD Secretary-General Tax report to G20 Finance Ministers and Central Banks Governors, October 2019

20 OECD Secretary-General Tax report to G20 Finance Ministers and Central Banks Governors, October 2019

Or. en

Amendment 67Manon Aubry, José GusmãoDraft motion for a resolution

AM\1193325EN.docx 33/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

Paragraph 8


8. Notes that the OECD preliminary findings of the Impact assessment suggest that the combined effect of Pillar One and Pillar Two would lead to a significant increase in global tax revenues as well as a redistribution on taxing rights to market jurisdictions; notes in particular that Pillar Two would yield a significant increase of corporate income tax revenue globally; understands the two pillars would not adversely affect the investment environment;

8. Notes that the OECD preliminary findings of the Impact assessment suggest that the combined effect of Pillar One and Pillar Two would lead to a significant increase in global tax revenues as well as a redistribution on taxing rights to market jurisdictions; notes in particular that Pillar Two would yield a significant increase of corporate income tax revenue globally; however, points out that a study from the Tax Justice Network estimated that only 5% of the profits currently declared in tax havens would be redistributed and would mostly benefit the high income countries; recommends that the OECD conducts an Impact assessment of different versions of the proposal and includes the distribution by country of new tax revenues; understands the two pillars would not adversely affect the investment environment;



Or. en



8. Notes that the OECD preliminary findings of the Impact assessment suggest that the combined effect of Pillar One and Pillar Two would lead to a significant increase in global tax revenues as well as a redistribution on taxing rights to market jurisdictions; notes in particular that Pillar Two would yield a significant increase of

8. Notes that the OECD preliminary findings of the Impact assessment suggest that the combined effect of Pillar One and Pillar Two would lead to a significant increase in global tax revenues as well as a redistribution on taxing rights to market jurisdictions; notes in particular that Pillar Two would yield a significant increase of

PE643.244v02-00 34/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

corporate income tax revenue globally; understands the two pillars would not adversely affect the investment environment20;

corporate income tax revenue globally; notes the impact on cross-border investment will still be a critical issue to consider in the ongoing impact assessment by the OECD;


Or. en




8. Notes that the OECD’s secretariat-general’s preliminary findings of the Impact assessment suggest that the combined effect of Pillar One and Pillar Two would lead to a significant increase in global tax revenues as well as a redistribution on taxing rights to market jurisdictions; notes in particular that Pillar Two would yield a significant increase of corporate income tax revenue globally; understands the two pillars would not adversely affect the investment environment20;



Or. en


AM\1193325EN.docx 35/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN



8. Notes that the OECD preliminary findings of the Impact assessment suggest that the combined effect of Pillar One and Pillar Two would lead to a significant increase in global tax revenues as well as a redistribution on taxing rights to market jurisdictions; notes however that this redistribution of taxing rights needs to be fair and balanced between all Member States, notes further in particular that Pillar Two would yield a significant increase of corporate income tax revenue globally; understands the two pillars would not adversely affect the investment environment20;



Or. en




8. Notes that the OECD preliminary findings of the Impact assessment suggest that the combined effect of Pillar One and Pillar Two would lead to a significant increase in global tax revenues as well as a redistribution on taxing rights to market jurisdictions; notes in particular that Pillar Two would yield a significant increase of corporate income tax revenue globally; understands the two pillars would not adversely affect the investment environment20; underlines that these two

PE643.244v02-00 36/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

Pillars have to be seen as a package;



Or. en

Amendment 72Derk Jan Eppinkon behalf of the ECR GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 9


9. Highlights the specificities of the Single Market which provides for the free movement of goods and services and therefore considers that any international corporate tax reform should ensure a smooth running of the Single Market, notably by safeguarding a level playing field for all firms, including paying a fair share of where the actual substantive and genuine economic activity and value creation take place;

9. Highlights the specificities of the Single Market which provides for the free movement of goods and services and therefore considers that any international corporate tax reform should ensure a smooth running of the Single Market, notably by safeguarding a level playing field for SMEs and MNEs, including paying a fair share of where the actual substantive and genuine economic activity and value creation take place;

Or. en




9. Highlights the specificities of the Single Market which provides for the free movement of goods and services and therefore considers that any international corporate tax reform should ensure a smooth running of the Single Market, notably by safeguarding a level playing field for all firms, including paying a fair share of where the actual substantive and genuine economic activity and value creation take place and ensuring that the

AM\1193325EN.docx 37/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

tax income is fairly distributed over all Member States;

Or. en

Amendment 74Stéphane Séjourné, Luis GaricanoDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 9



9. Highlights the specificities of the Single Market which provides for the free movement of goods and services and therefore considers that any international corporate tax reform should ensure a smooth running of the Single Market, notably by safeguarding a level playing field for all firms, including paying a fair share of where the actual substantive and genuine economic activity and value creation take place; considers that the access to the Single Market, which provides for one the largest pool of consumers in the world, goes hand in hand with tax responsibility;

Or. en



9a. Draws attention to the need to keep tax competition between Member States fair and transparent, and thus conducive to growth and employment;

Or. en

Amendment 76Sven Giegoldon behalf of the Verts/ALE Group

PE643.244v02-00 38/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

Draft motion for a resolutionParagraph 10


10. Welcomes that all three alternatives under consideration in Pillar One of the OECD OECD Secretariat Proposal

10. Welcomes the proposal by the OECD Secretariat to merge all three alternatives under consideration in Pillar One as they share the same objectives:

- reallocate taxing rights in favour of the user/market jurisdiction;

- reallocate taxing rights in favour of the user/market jurisdiction;

- envisage a new nexus rule that would not depend on physical presence in the user/market jurisdiction;

- envisage a new nexus rule that would not depend on physical presence in the user/market jurisdiction;

- go beyond the arm’s length principle and depart from the separate entity principle;

- start from multinationals’ global profits and depart from the separate entity principle;

- aim for simplicity, stabilisation of the tax system, and increased tax certainty in implementation;

- aim for simplicity, stabilisation of the tax system, and increased tax certainty in implementation;

Or. en



11. Calls for not ring fencing the digital economy as the tax challenges that the international tax system is currently facing are not only due to the digitalisation of the economy but also linked with an even greater globalised economy;

11. Calls for not ring fencing the digital economy as the tax challenges that the international tax system is currently facing are not only due to the digitalisation of the economy but also linked with an even greater globalised economy; calls on the IF and the European Commission to analyse the impact of excluding specific sectors (e.g. extractive industries) in terms of revenue collection, especially for developing countries;

AM\1193325EN.docx 39/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

Or. en



12. Considers that the scope of the reform should cover all large firms having the possibility to engage in BEPS practices by exploiting legal loopholes;

12. Notes that there is currently no clear definition for the concept of “consumer-facing businesses”; considers that the scope of the reform should not only cover highly digital or consumer facing businesses as currently suggested in the OECD Secretariat’s proposal but cover all large firms having the possibility to engage in BEPS practices by exploiting legal loopholes; should this scope remain, calls on the IF to clarify how to define which activities would be subject to new taxing rights in order to avoid a high burden for companies and tax administrations;

Or. en




12. Considers that the scope of the reform should cover all large firms having the possibility to engage in BEPS practices by exploiting legal loopholes; points out having a higher threshold of 750 million will leave out of the scope of the reform most large firms operating in the internal market; recommends the OECD to align its definition of a large firm with the European definition of 40 million turnover as specified by the Accounting Directive 2013/34/EU;

PE643.244v02-00 40/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

Or. en

Amendment 80Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkviston behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 12



12. Considers that the scope of the reform should cover all large firms having the possibility to engage in BEPS practices by exploiting legal loopholes, whilst protecting SME's from additional burdens, therefore regrets that the current OECD Secretariat’s proposal limits the scope of this reform to highly digital or consumer facing businesses, catching only a limited numbers of MNEs involved in aggressive tax planning;

Or. en



12. Considers that the scope of the reform should cover all large firms having the possibility to engage in BEPS practices by exploiting legal loopholes,

12. Considers that the scope of the reform should cover all large firms having the possibility to engage in BEPS practices by using legal tax planning schemes in several Member States and third countries.

Or. en


AM\1193325EN.docx 41/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN



12. Considers that the scope of the reform should cover all large firms having the possibility to engage in BEPS practices by exploiting legal loopholes, avoiding to add further and unnecessary burdens to SMEs;

Or. en

Amendment 83Evelyn RegnerDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 12 a (new)


12a. Considers that the scope of the reform should cover all companies except SMEs. The thresholds for micro, small, medium and large undertakings are defined by Fourth Council Directive 78/660/EEC (the 4th Company Law Directive).

Or. en



13. Recommends that, as a basis, operational profits should be derived from consolidated financial accounts; however, acknowledges the existence of temporal gaps when relying on consolidated financial accounts and invites Member States to clarify this point at IF level negotiations;

13. Recommends to analyse the feasibility of deriving operational profits from consolidated financial accounts; however, acknowledges the existence of temporal gaps when relying on consolidated financial accounts and invites Member States to clarify this point at IF level negotiations;

Or. en

Amendment 85Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro

PE643.244v02-00 42/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkviston behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 13 a (new)


13a. Notes that the current OECD Secretariat’s proposal envisages the exclusion of specific sectors such as the extractives sector and the commodities sector and urges the Commission to include those exclusions into its impact analysis, notably to ensure the international reform would respect the EU Policy Coherence for Development;

Or. en

Amendment 86Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkviston behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 13 b (new)


13b. Is concerned about the remaining uncertainties and potential exemptions, carve-outs and differential treatment of different sectors and business sizes remaining in the OECD Secretariat’s proposal;

Or. en

Amendment 87Piernicola Pedicini, Fabio Massimo CastaldoDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 13 a (new)


13a. Urges the OECD to make a clear difference between sectors and business

AM\1193325EN.docx 43/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

sizes in his proposal;

Or. en

Amendment 88Piernicola Pedicini, Fabio Massimo CastaldoDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 13 b (new)


13b. Deplores that the current OECD Secretariat’s proposal could cover only a limited numbers of multinationals involved in aggressive tax planning;

Or. en

Amendment 89Luis Garicano, Stéphane Séjournéon behalf of the Renew GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 14


14. Welcomes the idea to develop a new nexus that goes beyond the concept of having a physical presence in a country to include a taxpayer into a scope, considers that the nexus should be designed in order to include firms with an active engagement and interaction with customers and users, also by digital means;

14. Welcomes the idea of developing a new nexus that goes beyond the concept of having a physical presence in a country to include a taxpayer into a scope, considers that the nexus should be designed in order to include firms with an active engagement and interaction with customers and users, also by digital means;

Or. en



14. Welcomes the idea to develop a new nexus that goes beyond the concept of having a physical presence in a country to include a taxpayer into a scope, considers that the nexus should be designed in order

14. Notes the idea to develop a new nexus that goes beyond the concept of having a physical presence in a country to include a taxpayer into a scope, considers that the nexus may be designed in order to

PE643.244v02-00 44/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

to include firms with an active engagement and interaction with customers and users, also by digital means;

include firms with an active engagement and interaction with customers and users, also by digital means; recommends to undertake a detailed impact assessment of how such a nexus would affect the corporate tax revenue of individual countries;

Or. en




14. Welcomes the idea to develop a new nexus that goes beyond the concept of having a physical presence in a country to include a taxpayer into a scope, considers that the nexus should be designed in order to include all firms with an active engagement and interaction with customers and users, also by digital means;

Or. en




14. Welcomes the idea to develop a new nexus that goes beyond the concept of having a physical presence in a country to include a taxpayer into a scope, considers that the nexus should be designed in order to include firms with an active engagement and interaction with customers and users, also by digital means; however, in digital business, value is not only created by consumers, but in the first place by research and development; therefore, to

AM\1193325EN.docx 45/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

safeguard financial efforts in terms of R&D investments in the digital sector, it is important that the reallocation of taxation rights between Member states is done in a fair and balanced way;

Or. en




14. Welcomes the idea to develop a new nexus that goes beyond the concept of having a physical presence in a country to include a taxpayer into a scope, considers that the nexus should be designed in order to include firms with an active engagement and interaction with customers and users, also by digital means; endorses the idea according to which the new nexus could have thresholds including country-specific sales thresholds adapted to ensure that small economies can also benefit from it;

Or. en



15. Welcomes the idea to develop a country specific revenues threshold calibrated to ensure smaller economies also get their fair share of taxing rights; reminds in this context the EU proposal for SDP;

15. Welcomes the idea to develop a country specific revenues threshold calibrated to ensure smaller export focussed economies also get their fair share of taxing rights; reminds in this context the EU proposal for SDP;

Or. en

PE643.244v02-00 46/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN



15. Welcomes the idea to develop a country specific revenues threshold calibrated to ensure smaller economies also get their fair share of taxing rights; reminds in this context the EU proposal for SDP;

15. Welcomes the idea to develop a country specific revenues threshold calibrated to ensure smaller economies also get their fair share of taxing rights; recalls in this context the EU proposal for SDP;

Or. en



16. Welcomes the idea that this new nexus would be a stand-alone provision to ensure no need to revise all tax treaties;

16. Notes the idea that this new nexus would be a stand-alone provision to ensure no need to revise all tax treaties as a first step; however, reaffirms the need to revise the current definition of permanent establishment;

Or. en



16. Welcomes the idea that this new nexus would be a stand-alone provision to ensure no need to revise all tax treaties;

16. Welcomes the idea that this new nexus would be a stand-alone provision to ensure no need to revise all tax treaties; calls for further clarification on how the current rules on profit allocation will need to be changed to include the idea of taxing a firm even

AM\1193325EN.docx 47/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

without a physical presence in a country;

Or. en



17. Welcomes the idea to develop a new allocation of taxing rights that goes beyond the Arm’s Length Principle (ALP) and that will allocate new taxation rights to market jurisdictions;

17. Welcomes the idea to develop a new allocation of taxing rights that builds upon the Arm’s Length Principle (ALP) and that will allocate new taxation rights to market jurisdictions;

Or. en



17. Welcomes the idea to develop a new allocation of taxing rights that goes beyond the Arm’s Length Principle (ALP) and that will allocate new taxation rights to market jurisdictions;

17. Welcomes the idea to develop a new allocation of taxing rights that goes beyond the Arm’s Length Principle (ALP) and that will allocate new taxation rights to market jurisdictions; calls however for further guidance on how suggestions for formulary apportionment can still be combined with maintaining transfer pricing rules for profit allocation as suggested by the OECD;

Or. en

Amendment 100Paul TangDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 17 a (new)

PE643.244v02-00 48/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN


17a. Considers that the Transfer Price Method has failed to lead to fair and realistic prices; believes that a more complete overhaul of the ALP would therefore be appropriate; invites Member States to be more ambitious in formulating taxation rights at consolidated group level;

Or. en



18. Considers that making a distinction between routine and non-routine profits, currently not clearly defined, will add complexity and uncertainty for businesses, notably as regards OECD transfer pricing guidelines; is concerned that this could add opportunities to circumvent the newly agreed rules;

18. Questions the suggestion to make a distinction between routine and non-routine profits, for the proposal on a residual profit split; is concerned that this suggestion will lead to an artificial distinction only, undermining taxing rights of the market jurisdictions; questions the suggestion to continue with existing transfer pricing rules for allocation of the part of non-routine profit not allocated to market jurisdictions; wonders if this will not add too much complexity and uncertainty for businesses, notably as regards OECD transfer pricing guidelines; is concerned that this could add opportunities to circumvent the newly agreed rules; calls on the IF instead to look into the possibility of apportioning the global profits of taxpayers using factors reflecting real economic activities in each country such as sales, employments and assets;

Or. en

AM\1193325EN.docx 49/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN




18. Considers that making a distinction between routine and non-routine profits, concepts currently not clearly defined, as well as maintaining transfer pricing rules based on the Arm’s Length Principle (ALP) for most profits allocation, will add complexity and uncertainty for businesses, notably as regards OECD transfer pricing guidelines; is concerned that this could add opportunities to circumvent the newly agreed rules;

Or. en




18. Considers that making a distinction between routine and non-routine profits, currently not clearly defined, will add a significant burden of complexity and uncertainty for businesses, notably as regards OECD transfer pricing guidelines; is concerned that this could add opportunities to circumvent the newly agreed rules;

Or. en

Amendment 104Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkviston behalf of the S&D Group

PE643.244v02-00 50/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

Draft motion for a resolutionParagraph 18 a (new)


18a. Should the distinction between routine and non-routine profits nonetheless remain, regrets that the reallocation of the non-routine profits to the markets will only partially be done through a formulaic approach, implying that a crucial role will be maintained for the existing transfer pricing rules, but which have been proven to allow for tax avoidance;

Or. en

Amendment 105Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkviston behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 18 b (new)


18b. Regrets that the proposed rules would only reallocate a limited amount of taxing rights; believes that a significant portion of taxing rights should be reallocated to counter the aggressive tax planning strategies currently exploited by MNEs;

Or. en



19. Would therefore rather invite Member States to push for a solution that would favour fractional apportionment ,

deleted

AM\1193325EN.docx 51/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

based on factors representing the value creation, such as sales, employees, assets and users; in that regard, recalls therefore its position on the C(C)CTB and SDP proposals;

Or. en



19. Would therefore rather invite Member States to push for a solution that would favour fractional apportionment , based on factors representing the value creation, such as sales, employees, assets and users; in that regard, recalls therefore its position on the C(C)CTB and SDP proposals;

deleted

Or. en



19. Would therefore rather invite Member States to push for a solution that would favour fractional apportionment , based on factors representing the value creation, such as sales, employees, assets and users; in that regard, recalls therefore its position on the C(C)CTB and SDP (significant digital presence) proposals;

19. Would therefore rather invite Member States to push for a solution that would favour fractional apportionment , based on factors representing the value creation, such as sales, employees, assets and users;

Or. en

Amendment 109Markus Ferber

PE643.244v02-00 52/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

on behalf of the PPE GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 19


19. Would therefore rather invite Member States to push for a solution that would favour fractional apportionment, based on factors representing the value creation, such as sales, employees, assets and users; in that regard, recalls therefore its position on the C(C)CTB and SDP proposals;

19. Would therefore rather prefer a solution that would favour fractional apportionment, based on factors representing the value creation, such as sales, employees, assets and users; in that regard, recalls therefore its position on the C(C)CTB and SDP proposals;

Or. en




19. Would therefore rather invite Member States to push for a solution that would favour fractional apportionment , based on factors representing economic activity and value creation, especially sales, employees, assets and users; in that regard, recalls therefore its position on the C(C)CTB and SDP proposals;

Or. en



19. Would therefore rather invite Member States to push for a solution that

19. Would therefore rather invite Member States to push for a solution that

AM\1193325EN.docx 53/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

would favour fractional apportionment , based on factors representing the value creation, such as sales, employees, assets and users; in that regard, recalls therefore its position on the C(C)CTB and SDP proposals;

would favour fractional apportionment, based on factors representing substantive and genuine economic activity and value creation, such as sales, employees, assets and users; in that regard, recalls therefore its position on the C(C)CTB and SDP proposals;

Or. en




19. Would therefore rather invite Member States to push for a solution that would favour fractional apportionment , based on factors representing the value creation, such as sales, R&D investments, employees, assets and users; in that regard, recalls therefore its position on the C(C)CTB and SDP proposals;

Or. en



20. Welcomes the willingness to ensure tax certainty and to limit dispute that could arise from the implementation of the new nexus and the new allocation of taxing rights;

20. Notes the willingness to ensure tax certainty and to limit dispute that could arise from the implementation of the new nexus and the new allocation of taxing rights; however, points out the reform should not develop arbitration mechanisms to avoid weakening the existing national and international legal system, by fuelling a parallel system of arbitration;

Or. en

PE643.244v02-00 54/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN




20. Welcomes the willingness to ensure tax certainty and to limit dispute that could arise from the implementation of the new nexus and the new allocation of taxing rights, and while supporting the tax dispute resolution mechanisms in the European Union20a, raises concerns regarding mandatory arbitration mechanisms that could potentially disadvantage developing countries (so-called ‘Amount C’); likewise invites Member States to limit the recourse to rulings and especially Advanced Pricing Agreements when designing tools providing for increased tax certainty;

_________________ _________________20a Council Directive (EU) 2017/1852 of 10 October 2017 on tax dispute resolution mechanisms in the European Union.

Or. en




20. Welcomes the willingness to ensure tax certainty and to limit dispute that could arise from the implementation of the new nexus and the new allocation of taxing rights; disagrees with the proposal under Amount C referring to mandatory arbitration mechanisms,

AM\1193325EN.docx 55/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

while the European Union has already adopted a tax dispute resolution mechanism based on the minimum standard in BEPS Action 14;

Or. en




20. Welcomes the willingness to ensure tax certainty and to limit dispute that could arise from the implementation of the new nexus and the new allocation of taxing rights; calls therefore for simple and harmonized rules;

Or. en



20a. Stresses that tax certainty would be best achieved by establishing simple, clear and harmonised rules that would prevent disputes in the first place;

Or. en


PE643.244v02-00 56/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN


21. Welcomes the GloBE proposal which aims at ensuring that a minimum level of taxes is paid where value is created and where economic activity is taking place;

21. Welcomes the GloBE proposal which aims at ensuring that a minimum level of taxes is paid where value is created and where actual substantive and genuine economic activity is taking place; Shares the view that GloBE would address remaining Base Erosion and Profit Shifting issues while limiting tax competition, notably by reducing pressures to grant tax incentives, which are not related to any positive economic impact, and would halt the ongoing race to the bottom on a statutory corporate income tax rate at both global and EU level;

Or. en




21. Notes the GloBE proposal which aims at ensuring that a minimum level of taxes is paid where value is created and where economic activity is taking place; considers that the ultimate aim of Pillar 2 measures should be to tackle tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and tax avoidance and should not come at the expense of fair and legitimate tax competition;

Or. en


AM\1193325EN.docx 57/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN



21. Welcomes the GloBE proposal which aims at ensuring that a minimum level of taxes is paid where value is created and where economic activity is taking place; welcomes the objectives to reduce the incentive for taxpayers to engage in profit shifting and establish a floor for tax competition among jurisdictions; raises concerns however on the possible future risk to see a global race to the bottom towards this minimum floor for corporate taxation by most countries;

Or. en



22. Invites Member States to ensure that the GloBE proposal provides for the simplest framework that would not lead to the development of new harmful tax schemes;

22. Invites Member States to ensure that the GloBE proposal provides for the simplest framework that would not lead to the development of new harmful tax schemes; is concerned with the suggestion to consider outside the base to apply minimum taxation all tax regimes compliant with BEPS Action 5; calls on the IF to review its proposal on this aspect and to re-discuss criteria to define harmful tax regimes within the BEPS action plan;

Or. en


PE643.244v02-00 58/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN


22. Invites Member States to ensure that the GloBE proposal provides for the simplest framework that would not lead to the development of new harmful tax schemes;

22. Invites Member States to ensure that the GloBE proposal provides for the simplest framework that would not lead to the development of new legally conform, but harmful tax schemes;

Or. en

Amendment 123Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkviston behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 23 a (new)


23a. Notes that the first impact analysis of the GloBE proposal indicates a global increase of corporate income tax revenues, including for the EU;

Or. en



24. Considers that the calculation of tax bases, in the framework of the GloBE proposal, should be made according to agreed international principles to avoid tax base narrowing as well as competition among countries that risk undermining the effectiveness of any possible decision taken on a minimum effective level of taxation;

24. Considers that the calculation of tax bases, in the framework of the GloBE proposal, should be made according to agreed international principles to avoid tax base narrowing;

Or. en

AM\1193325EN.docx 59/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN




24. Considers that the calculation of tax bases, in the framework of the GloBE proposal, should be made according to agreed international principles to avoid tax base erosion as well as harmful competition among countries that risk undermining the effectiveness of any possible decision taken on a minimum level of taxation;

Or. en




24. Considers that the calculation of tax bases, in the framework of the GloBE proposal, should be made according to agreed international principles to avoid tax base narrowing as well as forms of harmful competition among countries that risk undermining the effectiveness of any possible decision taken on minimum levels of taxation;

Or. en



25. Considers that any discussion at deleted

PE643.244v02-00 60/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

OECD/G20 towards a minimum tax rate should focus on effective tax rates; considers that any minimum effective rate should be set at a fair and sufficient level to discourage profit shifting and prevent tax competition;

Or. en



25. Considers that any discussion at OECD/G20 towards a minimum tax rate should focus on effective tax rates; considers that any minimum effective rate should be set at a fair and sufficient level to discourage profit shifting and prevent tax competition;

25. Considers that any discussion at OECD/G20 towards a minimum tax rate focusing on effective tax rates should note that within the Eurozone and under Maastricht budgetary rules, Member States are already obligated to follow deficit and strict national debt criteria so that minimum rates for effective taxation could be burdensome; considers that any minimum levels of taxation should be set at a fair and sufficient level to discourage profit shifting while safeguarding tax competition, which is a regulatory tool to create attractiveness for investments;

Or. en




25. Considers that any discussion at OECD/G20 towards a minimum tax rate should focus on effective tax rates; considers that the IF should agree on a minimum effective corporate tax rate of 20 percent as a fair and sufficient level to discourage profit shifting and prevent tax

AM\1193325EN.docx 61/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

competition;

Or. en




25. Considers that any discussion at OECD/G20 towards a minimum tax rate should focus on effective tax rates; considers that any minimum effective rate should be set at a fair and sufficient level to discourage profit shifting and prevent tax competition, therefore recommends a minimum effective rate of 18%, noting that the current EU average of statutory corporate income tax rates is 21,7%21a and that some policy challenges, such as climate change, will require fiscal policy space and tools;

_________________ _________________21a Op. Cit, Taxation Trends in the European Union.

Or. en




25. Considers that any discussion at OECD/G20 towards a minimum tax rate should focus on effective tax rates; considers that any minimum effective rate should be set at a fair and sufficient level to discourage profit shifting and prevent tax competition; calls for a minimum effective

PE643.244v02-00 62/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

rate of 20%;

Or. en



26. Reminds that setting a global level for minimum effective taxation raises the questions of blending across jurisdictions; considers therefore that, with respect to the income inclusion rule, the minimum effective level of taxation should be established for each jurisdiction where the MNEs are located to limit possibilities to continue engaging in aggressive tax planning;

deleted

Or. en




26. Reminds that setting minimum levels of taxation on a global scale raises the questions of blending across jurisdictions; considers therefore that, with respect to the income inclusion rule, minimum levels of taxation should be established for each jurisdiction where the MNEs are located to limit possibilities to continue engaging in aggressive tax planning;

Or. en

Amendment 134Manon Aubry, José Gusmão

AM\1193325EN.docx 63/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN




26. Reminds that setting a global level for minimum effective taxation raises the questions of blending across jurisdictions; considers therefore that, with respect to the income inclusion rule, a minimum effective level of taxation should be established for each jurisdiction where the MNEs are located and each entity or subsidiary to limit possibilities to continue engaging in aggressive tax planning;

Or. en



26a. Highlights the positive aspects of taxation at source, in the framework of the OECD debate, which enables source countries to tax profits before its leaves their jurisdictions, while avoiding the possibilities of double taxation;

Or. en

Amendment 136Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 26 b (new)


26b. Invites Member States to prevent

PE643.244v02-00 64/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

the recourse to carve-outs and exemptions, thereby ensuring that the reform provides for the simplest framework possible and thus avoiding developing new harmful tax schemes;

Or. en

Amendment 137Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 26 c (new)


26c. Calls for a global shake-up regarding BEPS Action 5 on and a meaningful international definition of harmful tax practices; recalls the Parliament position on the call for an EU listing of harmful tax measures;

Or. en

Amendment 138Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkviston behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 26 d (new)


26d. Reminds that tools already exists for supporting R&D and highlights that SMEs and start-ups investing in R&D do not necessarily recourse to tax incentives or tax exemptions on corporate profits but rather rely on direct subventions or on social contributions reductions which are of Members States competences;

Or. en

AM\1193325EN.docx 65/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

Amendment 139Sven Giegoldon behalf of the Verts/ALE GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 26 a (new)


26a. Insists that the IF reform is composed of two Pillars which are equally important and should be adopted and implemented together by members of the IF;

Or. en



26. Calls for Member States to not negotiate carve-outs and exemptions to the minimum effective level of taxation once established;

Or. en

Amendment 141Niels Fuglsang, Paul Tang, Eero HeinäluomaDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 26 a (new)


26a. Insists in the case that if no OECD solution has been found by 2020, the EU should introduce its own legal measures to counteract tax havens, revise the EU list of tax havens and introduce sanctions against jurisdictions on the list which do not reform their tax system to benefit from harmful tax practices;

Or. en

PE643.244v02-00 66/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN



27. Regrets the lack of common approach at EU level vis-à-vis the current ongoing international negotiations;

27. Regrets the lack of common approach at EU level vis-à-vis the current ongoing international negotiations and the reluctance from some Member States to have the Union speak with one unified voice on this issue; calls on each Member State and the Commission to make its position on the OECD Secretariat’s proposals for Pillar 1 and Pillar 2 publicly known;

Or. en



27a. Considers that Member States are entitled to design tax systems with regard to their own circumstances;

Or. en



28. Calls upon the Commission and Member States to agree on a joint, ambitious EU position in the OECD negotiations, ensuring that the EU speaks with one voice and leads by example to ensure a fairer allocation of taxing rights

28. Calls upon the Commission and Member States to agree on a joint, ambitious EU position in the OECD negotiations, ensuring that the EU speaks with one voice and leads by example to ensure fairness in the international tax

AM\1193325EN.docx 67/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

and a minimum level of effective taxation;

environment to tackle tax evasion, aggressive tax planning and tax avoidance;

Or. en



28. Calls upon the Commission and Member States to agree on a joint, ambitious EU position in the OECD negotiations, ensuring that the EU speaks with one voice and leads by example to ensure a fairer allocation of taxing rights and a minimum level of effective taxation;

28. Calls upon the Commission and Member States to agree on a joint, ambitious EU position in the OECD negotiations, ensuring that the EU speaks with one voice and leads by example to ensure a fairer allocation of taxing rights; further insists that the challenges raised by the digitisation of business must be addressed by the EU in a multilateral setting;

Or. en




28. Calls upon the Commission and Member States to agree on a joint, ambitious EU position in the OECD negotiations, ensuring that the EU speaks with one voice and leads by example to ensure a fairer allocation of taxing rights;

Or. en

Amendment 147Eero Heinäluoma

PE643.244v02-00 68/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN




28. Calls upon the Commission and Member States to agree on a joint, ambitious EU position in the OECD negotiations, ensuring that the EU speaks with one voice and leads by example to ensure a fairer allocation of taxing rights which takes the economic specificities of all Member States into account and a minimum level of effective taxation;

Or. en

Amendment 148Marek BelkaDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 28



28. Calls upon the Commission and Member States to agree on a joint, ambitious EU position in the OECD negotiations, ensuring that the EU speaks with one voice and leads by example to ensure a fairer allocation of taxing rights and a minimum level of effective taxation; calls on the Commission and Member States to base their joint approach on the position of the European Parliament, also on files that are still in the Council pipeline (e.g. public CbCR and CC(C)TB);

Or. en



28. Calls upon the Commission and Member States to ensure the final reform

AM\1193325EN.docx 69/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

contain both pillar I and II;

Or. en



29. Invites the European Commission to provide support in the elaboration of such EU position;

29. Invites the European Commission to provide support in the elaboration of such EU position; urges the Commission to provide an impact assessment on revenues for every Member States for both pillars;

Or. en



29a. Urges the Commission, with the support of Members States, to elaborate and release an impact analysis that looks at impact on revenues for each Member State, for both pillars taken separately and combined; invites the Commission and the Member States to include spill-over effects on EU Member States in their analysis, notably to safeguard the EU Policy Coherence for Development;

Or. en


PE643.244v02-00 70/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

Draft motion for a resolutionParagraph 29 b (new)


29b. Expects Member States to share all relevant data enabling the elaboration of the most accurate impact assessments and relevant analysis to both the OECD and the European Commission;

Or. en



30. Strongly encourages the Commission and the Member States to achieve a deal at international level which would then be transposed at EU level through relevant EU and national legislations; likewise supports the commitment of the Commission President-Elect to propose an EU solution, should an international deal not be reached by the end of 2020;

30. Strongly encourages the Commission and the Member States to achieve a deal at international level which would avoid the proliferation of unilateral measures by individual countries; calls on the Commission to present a legislative proposal as soon as possible in case of a deal so that it can be transposed at EU level through relevant EU and national legislations; likewise supports the commitment of the Commission President-Elect to propose an EU solution, should an international deal not be reached by the end of 2020; calls on the Commission to explore the options to avoid a legal base requiring unanimity in Council; recalls that any new proposal should not come at the detriment of the adoption of the CCCTB;

Or. en

Amendment 154Billy Kelleheron behalf of the Renew GroupDraft motion for a resolution

AM\1193325EN.docx 71/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

Paragraph 30



30. Strongly encourages the Commission and the Member States to achieve a deal at international level which would then be transposed at EU level through relevant EU and national legislations; raises concern that to pursue an EU solution without the support of the OECD could risk putting the EU at a competitive disadvantage as well as exacerbating current international trade tensions;

Or. en




30. Strongly encourages the Commission and the Member States to achieve a deal at international level which would then be transposed at EU level through relevant EU and national legislations; likewise supports the commitment of the Commission President-Elect to propose an EU solution, should an international deal not be reached by the end of 2020 to the condition this EU solution is not limited to digital businesses;

Or. en


PE643.244v02-00 72/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN



30. Strongly encourages the Commission and the Member States to achieve a deal at international level which would then be transposed at EU level through relevant EU and national legislations; likewise supports the commitment of the Commission President-Elect to propose an EU solution, should an international deal not be reached by the end of 2020; any EU solution should be in alignment with the current Commission’s proposals such as the C(C)CTB, as well as the objective to ensure a minimum effective level of taxes is paid per Member State which would limit tax competition across Member States and strengthen the Single Market;

Or. en



30a. Reminds that the ongoing international corporate tax reform is composed of two pillars and that those two pillars are complementary; therefore, calls on the Member States to negotiate those two pillars as a unique package of needed reforms;

Or. en


AM\1193325EN.docx 73/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

Draft motion for a resolutionParagraph 30 b (new)


30b. Calls on the Commission and the Council to prepare legislative ground for implementing the outcome of an international deal into EU law as of early 2021;

Or. en

Amendment 159Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marqueson behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 30 c (new)


30c. Calls on the Commission to consider, if appropriate, the procedure laid down in Article 116 of the TFEU which makes it possible to change the unanimity requirement for tax purposes when solution will be implemented at EU level; recalls the Commission’s contribution through its communication ‘Towards a more efficient and democratic decision making in EU tax policy’ proposing a roadmap to qualified majority voting;

Or. en

Amendment 160Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 30 d (new)


30d. Recalls the cross-border nature of MNE activities; highlights that those

PE643.244v02-00 74/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

MNEs operating intra-EU benefit considerably from the single market advantages; recommends that corporate income tax revenues could form part of the EU own resources;

Or. en

Amendment 161Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 30 e (new)


30e. Calls on the Commission to initiate parallel work on harmful tax practices (identification, definition and potential ban) within and outside the EU to ensure maximum effectiveness of the future international tax reform outcome;

Or. en

Amendment 162Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 30 f (new)


30f. Highlights that an efficient and comprehensive international reform crucially is to be accompanied by transparency; calls in this regard for the swift unblocking in Council and implementation in the Member States of the public Country by Country Reporting;

Or. en

AM\1193325EN.docx 75/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

Amendment 163Jonás Fernández, Niels Fuglsang, Neena Gill, Eero Heinäluoma, Aurore Lalucq, Pedro Marques, Evelyn Regner, Joachim Schuster, Paul Tang, Carmen Avram, Margarida Marques, Erik Bergkvist, Marek Belkaon behalf of the S&D GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 30 g (new)


30g. Highlights that an efficient and comprehensive international reform crucially is to be accompanied by transparency and clarity; calls in this regard for the swift unblocking in Council and implementation in the Member States of the public country-by-country Reporting; underlines that public country-by-country reporting is necessary for BEPS 2.0 to work;

Or. en

Amendment 164Paul TangDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 30 a (new)


30a. Criticizes the intentions of some Member States to intensify global tax competition by reducing their corporate tax rates. Considers it vital that during the OECD negotiations, aimed at ending the global race to the bottom, Member States refrain from decreasing their corporate tax rates until and unless negotiations at OECD and EU level have ended;

Or. en


PE643.244v02-00 76/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN


30a. Calls upon the Council to unblock the EU proposal for a CCCTB and relaunch negotiations on this file;

Or. en

Amendment 166Piernicola Pedicini, Fabio Massimo CastaldoDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 30 a (new)


30a. Calls Member States to negotiate the two pillars together as a unique package;

Or. en

Amendment 167Piernicola Pedicini, Fabio Massimo CastaldoDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 30 b (new)


30b. Calls Member States to the swiftly adoption and implementation of Country by country reporting (CBCR);

Or. en



31. Invites the Council, with the support of the Commission, to update the criteria of the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes once the international rules and/or the EU newly agreed reforms have been adopted, and notably the EU

deleted

AM\1193325EN.docx 77/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

listing criteria on Fair Taxation;

Or. en

Amendment 169Luis Garicano, Stéphane Séjournéon behalf of the Renew GroupDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 31


31. Invites the Council, with the support of the Commission, to update the criteria of the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes once the international rules and/or the EU newly agreed reforms have been adopted, and notably the EU listing criteria on Fair Taxation;

deleted

Or. en



31. Invites the Council, with the support of the Commission, to update the criteria of the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes once the international rules and/or the EU newly agreed reforms have been adopted, and notably the EU listing criteria on Fair Taxation;

31. Invites the Council, with the support of the Commission, to urgently update the criteria of the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes and without waiting for the international rules and/or the EU newly agreed reforms to be adopted, and notably the EU listing criteria on Fair Taxation;

Or. en



31. Invites the Council, with the 31. Invites the Council, with the support

PE643.244v02-00 78/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

support of the Commission, to update the criteria of the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes once the international rules and/or the EU newly agreed reforms have been adopted, and notably the EU listing criteria on Fair Taxation;

of the Commission, to update the criteria of the EU list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes once the international rules and/or the EU newly agreed reforms have been adopted, and notably the EU listing criteria on Fair Taxation; calls on the Code of Conduct Group to include IF countries on the list as soon as information provided demonstrate a failure by these countries to comply with the list’s criteria; calls on the Code of Conduct Group to re-assess the compliance of the United States with criterion 1 on transparency;

Or. en



31. Welcomes that the Council will discuss the EU proposal of a public country-by-country reporting at the next ECOFIN; urges the Council to reach an agreement on this file;

Or. en



32. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

32. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission, the OECD Secretariat and to the governments and parliaments of the Member States.

Or. en

AM\1193325EN.docx 79/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

Amendment 174Enikő GyőriDraft motion for a resolutionParagraph 9


9. Highlights the specificities of the Single Market which provides for the free movement of goods and services and therefore considers that any international corporate tax reform should ensure a smooth running of the Single Market, notably by safeguarding a level playing field for all firms, including paying a fair share of where the actual substantive and genuine economic activity and value creation take place.;

9. Highlights the specificities of the Single Market which provides for the free movement of goods and services and therefore considers that any international corporate tax reform should ensure a smooth running of the Single Market, notably by safeguarding a level playing field for all firms, including paying a fair share of where the actual substantive and genuine economic activity and value creation take place and, in the meantime, maintains competitive tax systems, as they are a tool to increase the EU’s external competitiveness;

Or. en




21. Takes note of the GloBE proposal which aims at ensuring that a minimum level of taxes is paid where value is created and where economic activity is taking place;

Or. en



22. Invites Member States to ensure that the GloBE proposal provides for the

22. Invites Member States to examine whether the GloBE proposal provides

PE643.244v02-00 80/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

simplest framework that would not lead to the development of new harmful tax schemes;

for the simplest framework that would not lead to the development of new harmful tax schemes; to assess its impact, first we need a proper economic analysis;

Or. en




24. Considers that any discussion at OECD/G20 towards a minimum tax rate should focus on effective tax rates and on the competitiveness of the EU and our businesses; considers that any minimum effective rate should be set at a fair and sufficient level to discourage profit shifting and prevent tax evasion;

Or. en




26. Reminds that setting a global level for minimum effective taxation raises the questions of maintaining our competitive economy, and of blending across jurisdictions; considers it crucial, both economically and legally, that the minimum tax proposal shall not affect valid business activities; considers therefore that careful examination and negotiation are needed to determine whether it is useful to create a the minimum effective level of taxation should be established for each jurisdiction where the MNEs are located to limit possibilities to continue engaging

AM\1193325EN.docx 81/82 PE643.244v02-00

EN

in aggressive tax planning;

Or. en




28. Calls upon the Commission and Member States to agree on a joint, ambitious EU position in the OECD negotiations, ensuring that the EU speaks with one voice and leads by example to ensure a fairer allocation of taxing rights;

Or. en

PE643.244v02-00 82/82 AM\1193325EN.docx

EN

Documents

AM_Com_NonLegRE€¦ · Web viewE.whereas in 2018, pending an international agreement, the European Commission put forward two proposals addressing the taxation of the digital economy,