Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-04-23-Speech-4-513"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2009-04-23"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Taxation of savings income in the form of interest payments - Common system of VAT as regards tax evasion linked to import and other cross-border transactions (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"bg"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20090423.71.4-513"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2009-04-23-Speech-4-5142
lpv:speaker	lp:Kristian Vigenin2
lpv:spokenAs	substitute; Delegation to the EU-Croatia Joint Parliamentary Committee (2007-07-02--2009-07-13)3 member; AFET (2007-06-06--2009-07-13)3 unknown; Platform European Socialists (2007-06-06--2009-07-13)3 substitute; ECON (2007-06-06--2009-07-13)3 member; Delegation for relations with the countries of Southeast Asia and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) (2007-06-06--2009-07-13)3 vice-chair; PES (2007-06-19--2009-07-13)3
lpv:translated text	"Madam President, Commissioner, I am sorry that Mr Visser did not stay to listen right to the end of the debate on this topic, but I must begin by saying that we support the Commission’s proposals in this direction. A complete reform of VAT would, of course, do a much better job, but as this is not possible at the moment, your proposal should resolve some of the problems encountered by Member States in their desire to contain VAT fraud. Particularly in the context of a crisis, we think that it is of paramount importance for VAT revenue to be guaranteed as, at the moment, Member States are trying to invest billions to support the economy. In this respect, every opportunity to limit the chance of fraud should be supported by Parliament. I would also like to say that we support on the whole the proposals made by Mr Visser in the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. They will perhaps instil slightly greater confidence among the business sector, compared to the initial proposals from the Commission. However, we also think that the suggestion made in Article 1, point c) that the period between the delivery of the goods and the receipt of notification referred to in the second subparagraph should be two years is fairly short and, in our view, creates additional opportunities for restricting the scope and results of the European Commission’s proposal. This is why the PSE Group is suggesting that this period should be five years, which we believe is sufficiently short for the business sector, but also a long enough period for the tax administration to complete its work. Furthermore, the introduction of this point c) is not linked either to suggestions concerning from what date and how it will come into force, which we think will create additional problems for Member States. We hope that the proposal will be supported and yield its expected results."@en1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph