Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-06-12-Speech-2-301"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010612.14.2-301"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Madam President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, since it has not been possible since 1992 to achieve greater harmonisation of value added tax, the Commission quite rightly decided to go for a different solution, which is to harmonise and simplify VAT administrative practices, as a result of the work carried out by the SLIM (Simpler Legislation for the Internal Market) Group. The difficulty of this proposal is finding a situation of optimal balance which makes the work of companies easier, particularly SMEs, although the directive is aimed at all business in the European Union, and yet does not lead to a loss of income or make it more difficult for tax administrations to carry out audits. We would do well to bear in mind that income from VAT is not only a very important source of income for national budgets, it is also one of the own resources for funding the European Union budget.
I therefore propose that we basically approve the Commission’s proposal, as long as it meets three important political objectives. First of all, the proposed harmonisation of compulsory statements in invoices would entail a considerable lightening of the administrative burden for traders operating across the European Union. Currently, traders are faced with fifteen different sets of regulations and, in total, with twenty-five different compulsory statements. We must, therefore, welcome the proposal to replace this patchwork of rules with a single list of compulsory statements, which will mean, in practice, that a trader would have to comply with only one set of rules for all invoices issued to customers in the EU. Secondly, the introduction of a common framework for electronic invoicing will further lighten the administrative burden for companies, while at the same time making VAT audits more efficient. In addition, electronic invoicing will result in savings for companies as the cost of sending and handling an electronic invoice is far lower than a paper invoice. Thirdly, the introduction of a common set of rules for E-invoicing will also further the development of electronic commerce in Europe, not least as regards services provided by electronic means.
I therefore believe that the amendments we tabled in committee, my colleagues and I, have improved the draft directive. Nevertheless, there are two aspects resulting from the vote taken in committee, with which I do not agree. One aspect concerns an amendment tabled by my colleague, José Manuel García-Margallo y Marfil on the numbering of invoices. The Commission is proposing a single number and I propose that this number should be sequential, in one or more series. In other words, we can adopt different series, according to the country or type of product, but always on a sequential basis. I feel that this must have been Mr García-Margallo y Marfil’s intention, but the version that has been adopted says exactly the opposite.
The other aspect concerns electronic signatures. I agree with the Commission’s proposal that the authenticity of the origin and integrity of the contents of invoices must be guaranteed by means of an advanced electronic signature within the meaning of the European Parliament and Council directive on a Community legal framework for electronic signatures. The Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs voted against this proposal, or rather, tabled an amendment to remove this proposal. I think that we should reintroduce this proposal, or in other words, that we should keep the Commission’s wording. Why do I say this? While it is true that electronic signatures come at a cost, this is relatively insignificant compared to the potential savings. The level of security chosen by the Commission can currently be bought on the Belgian market for around EUR 15 per year. This cost is expected to fall in the near future, in particular once the European Directive enters into force. Parliament and the Council have adopted a directive to ensure that use is made of this simplified electronic signature. We now have the opportunity to use this directive and to provide guarantees for tax administrations. I think that this principle, proposed by the Commission, should be maintained. What I mean is that this is a good proposal and that Parliament’s amendments are all – with the exception of these two examples – a step in the right direction. This proposal will make the life of businesses and tax administrations easier through this project."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples