On 20 September, the member states appeared somewhat divided over the amendments made by the European Parliament to the proposal for public country-by-country reporting. The Estonian Presidency of the Council of the EU sounded the experts out on three elements: the geographical coverage of the text, the safeguard clause and the powers of the auditor.
On the first of these elements, the Presidency explained that the Parliament's amendments would have the effect of requiring a breakdown by country of companies' entire accounting data for all jurisdictions of the world. The Commission's proposal limited this country-by-country breakdown to EU member states and countries on the future list of tax havens, with aggregate data for the rest of the world.
France, which was one of the only countries to support this "disaggregation" of data for the whole world, has backtracked, according to several sources, most likely due to the change in government. Most member states are reported to have declared against the country-by-country breakdown being extended to the entire world. Italy, Denmark, Poland and the Netherlands are reportedly in favour of it.
The second element concerns the safeguard clause of the European Parliament. This would allow businesses to be excused from having to publish data if this could damage their competitive position. The Estonian Presidency takes the view that as it is currently worded, this clause could be a burden on businesses, which would have to apply for this exemption, country by country, in a number of member states. It also stressed the lack of clear guidelines to evaluate the sensitive commercial nature of any given piece of information. Instead, it proposes that the cut-off date for the publication of information be extended from one year to two, arguing that after two years, information would no longer be sensitive. The Danish have come out in favour of the Parliament's idea, but against the Presidency's proposal. Italy and Poland are against the amendment of the MEPs.
Finally, Hungary is reported not to have commented on the Parliament's amendments, going no further than to announce that it was opposed to the current legal basis of the text, which provides for the Parliament to have equal footing with the Council in the negotiations. (Original version in French by Élodie Lamer)