Brussels, 29/02/2016 (Agence Europe) - The Dutch Presidency of the Council of EU will push for a consensus on the question of country-by-country reporting, but will have no bias either way, the Dutch Secretary of State for Finance, Eric Wiebes, announced on Monday 29 February, at an exchange of views with the special TAXE II committee of the European Parliament.
He was answering a question from Jeppe Kofod (S&D, Denmark), rapporteur for this committee, who wanted to know which way the Presidency intended to push for an agreement on a possible Commission proposal, on 12 April of this year, on the transparency of this reporting. The Commission is currently carrying out an impact assessment into the publication issue. If this proves positive, which does not seem unlikely to either of the two men, then the Presidency will be in favour, Wiebes explained. However, the Secretary of State added that the dossier would not conclude under the Dutch Presidency, but confirmed that he was hoping for an agreement in March on the Commission's proposal on reporting to the tax administrations, in the framework of the Directive on administrative cooperation. The Presidency has tabled a proposed compromise, dated 23 February, in which it seeks to mollify concerns over the question of secondary reporting (see EUROPE 11496). The discussions are due to continue with the United Kingdom and Germany over this dossier. A further text is said to be anticipated to seal an agreement at the Ecofin Council on 8 March. The EP, which has been consulted on this dossier, therefore needs to get to work. In a draft report, Dariusz Rosati (EPP, Poland) welcomes the Commission's proposal on the table, but argues that it may be necessary to extend the exchange of information between tax administrations to the European Commission “to assess compliance of member states with regard to EU State aid rules” on the basis of the information exchanged.
He told Germany's Michael Theurer, who asked him whether the rules on 'patent boxes', tax regimes favourable to intellectual property, could become legally binding, Wiebes explained that the Council's code of conduct group and the OECD had examined the issue. The question of patent boxes “is dealt with”, he said. He did not make any promises, either to Danuta Hubner (EPP, Poland), or Hugues Bayet (S&D, Belgium) on the permanent establishment question. The former asked him whether the Dutch Presidency would be following the approach of its predecessor, Luxembourg, by including a provision on this issue in the proposed anti-tax evasion directive proposed on 28 January. Bayet wanted to know whether the states would be working on a common definition of this notion. The Commission opted for recourse to a recommendation to the states on this issue. If the discussions come to fruition, then “there will be Council conclusions” on a permanent establishment, Wiebes explained, thereby ruling out the possibility that this provision will be included in the directive.
Lastly, the Dutch minister told Ernest Urtasun (Greens/EFA, Spain) that the Presidency of the Council would try to keep this anti-tax evasion directive in a single unit rather than slice it up, as certain states are calling for. However he added that ultimately “something is better than nothing”. (Original version in French by Elodie Lamer)