Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-04-23-Speech-4-510"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090423.71.4-510"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Madam President, in a globalised world, where tax evaders and fraudsters take advantage of the limited scope of authority of national tax administrations, efficient cooperation and mutual assistance between tax administrations is essential to better combat tax fraud and evasion. Improved rules and greater transparency are crucial.
While appreciating the constructive approach of Parliament, the Commission cannot therefore accept some of the amendments in their present form. However, the Commission will defend the spirit of a number of these amendments in the Council deliberations without formally amending its proposal.
Turning now to the sensitive subject of VAT fraud, I would like to recall that at the ECOFIN meeting of 4 December 2007 the Council invited the Commission to accelerate its work on the conventional measures to combat VAT fraud. The ECOFIN also invited the Commission to present legislative proposals to rectify the shortcomings encountered in the current legislation.
Hereupon the Commission presented a communication on a coordinated strategy to improve the fight against VAT fraud in the European Union in December 2008. The communication sets out a series of measures for which the Commission intends to present legislative proposals in the short term. The present proposal is part of the first set of proposals announced in this communication.
The proposal will allow the Member States to better fight VAT fraud in two ways. Firstly, by providing further clarification on the conditions for exempting certain imports of goods, and, secondly, by creating the legal basis for allowing cross-border joint and several liability for traders failing to fulfil their reporting obligations.
I would like to thank Parliament, and in particular the rapporteur, Mr Visser, for dealing with this proposal in such a short time and for the constructive report. Allow me, however, some comments.
Amendments 2 and 4 of the report would require the Commission to carry out an evaluation on the functioning of the new cross-border joint and several liability provision. Unfortunately, the Commission does not possess this information, as the assessing of taxes, as well as their recovery, are purely national competences. Furthermore, if the Commission receives complaints from the economic operators that the provision is being misused by national tax administrations or leads to unwarranted results, it will assume its responsibility as guardian of Community legislation and take appropriate measures. This includes in particular presenting a proposal to amend this provision when necessary.
Amendments 3 and 5 go against the division of competences between Member States in the overall functioning of the Community VAT system. This system is based on a taxable event taking place in a specific Member State, leading to a VAT debt and VAT liability in that Member State. It is the Member State where that VAT is due that will determine the procedure to be followed in order to collect this VAT, including from non-established traders.
Therefore, a trader who has not fulfilled his reporting obligations in the Member State of departure will have to justify his shortcomings to the tax administration of the Member State where the VAT is due and not to the tax administration of his own Member State. The latter will only intervene upon request of the first Member State in order to obtain additional information or in the tax recovery process.
This has recently been underlined by the G20 summit in London, and it is even more relevant in the internal market in the midst of the financial crisis and the need to tighten fiscal policies in the European Union. Against this background I am glad to discuss with you tonight two proposals that both contribute to the objective of fighting tax fraud and tax evasion in two different tax areas.
The proposed revision of the Savings Tax Directive seeks to close loopholes and better prevent tax evasion. I very much welcome the constructive and supporting attitude to this proposal shown in the report by Mr Hamon and the opinion by Mrs Siitonen.
I am aware that the most controversial point of the discussions in the committees has been Amendment 20, fixing an end to the transitional period during which three Member States are allowed to levy a withholding tax in place of automatically exchanging information. I also notice the opposed initiative from Mrs Lulling and Mr Karas supporting, through Amendment 28, the option for these three Member States to pursue the levying of the withholding tax and to abstain from automatic information exchange on a permanent basis.
Let me recall that the ultimate objective of the Savings Tax Directive is automatic exchange of information on as wide a basis as possible, as this is the only reasonable tool to enable the country of residence of the taxpayer to apply its own tax rules to cross-border income from savings. This is perfectly in line with recent developments at international level – such as the G20 conclusions – favouring transparency and the strengthening of the cooperation between tax administrations on the basis of exchange of information. Therefore I can assure you that the Commission, while rejecting Amendment 28 because it contradicts the aim of the Directive, has no negative view on Amendment 20.
However, we consider that fixing a date for the end of the transitional period is premature at this stage and could create an obstacle to the necessary quick adoption of the amending proposal by the Council. There is actually a need to evaluate when and how the political commitments for enhanced cooperation, which have been taken by a number of jurisdictions, can actually be implemented. Nevertheless, the Commission will not be opposed to any reinforcement of the corresponding provisions of the Directive which could be unanimously agreed by the Council.
In Amendment 22 the Commission is asked to produce by the end of 2010 a comparative study analysing advantages and weaknesses of both the systems of exchange of information and of the withholding tax. However, the target date for the production of this study does not seem realistic: all Member States would also have to make available to the Commission, from this year onwards, the elements of statistics the transmission of which is set to be optional for them under the Council conclusions of May 2008 and Annex V of the amending proposal.
Concerning the other amendments of a more technical nature which aim either at extending the scope of a particular provision – like Amendment 17 on insurance – or at limiting the administrative burden on the economic operators, the Commission considers that its proposal is already the result of a delicate balance between improving the effectiveness of the Directive and limiting an additional administrative burden.
The proposed amendments, however, could negatively affect this delicate balance. They could either increase the administrative burden in a disproportionate manner – this is notably the case for the amendments aimed at extending the scope – or have an unfavourable impact on the effectiveness of the provisions."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples