EU-BOLAGSSKATT

Tidningarna rapporterar den 19 oktober under rubriken Kommissionen föreslår en EU-bolagsskatt om ett förslag från EU-kommissionen om att införa en särskild EU-moms, samt att EUs budget också ska finansieras via skatt på finansiella transaktioner, utauktionering av utsläppsrätter och en EU-avgift på flygtransporter.

Förslaget har inte mottagits positivit.

Nyligen (den 8 oktober) publicerade EU-kommissionens Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union ett Arbetspapper om Tax Policy after the Crisis (nr 24 2010) rubricerat Monitoring tax revenues and tax reforms in EU Member States 2010.

Den 12 oktober drog Kommissionär Algirdas Šemeta igång den Skattepolitiska gruppen för att driva på grundläggande skattefrågor. Den kommer att fungera som ett forum för djupare diskussioner om prioriterade frågor, som beskattning av finanssektorn, en gemensam konsoliderad bolagsskattebas och den nya momsstrategin.

Någon insikt om bolagsbeskattningens skadeverkningar samt rättsliga och praktiska problem har kommissionen dessvärre inte.

Rapporten Tax Policy after the Crisis identifierar tre områden där samordning av beskattningnen skulle vara särskilt välgörande.

(i) Corporate taxation, with a wider examination of the effects of harmful regimes, mismatches and other negative effects of tax competition, and the work towards the definition of a common base.

(ii) Consumption taxation, particularly VAT,
especially in the context of a trend towards
increasing its contribution to balance national
budgets.

(iii) Environmental taxation, which is likely to play
a key role in the near future.

Jag återger här avsnittet om bolagsbeskattning.

There might indeed be a case for implementing rules in computing corporate tax bases that are common for all Member States. Such rules would also be in line with the renewed fight against practices that artificially divert profit from where it is generated to minimise the tax burden. The Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base
(CCCTB) project could provide a comprehensive solution for removing significant tax obstacles from the Internal Market. It has the potential to allow reductions in the high compliance costs that multinational enterprises face in dealing with different tax administrations and transfer pricing obligations. The European Tax Survey (2004)
estimated compliance costs at 2% of taxes paid by large companies. Moreover, the study identified a positive and significant correlation between crossborder activity (in terms of subsidiaries established abroad) and the size of tax-related compliance
outlays. Tasks related to transfer pricing obligations seemed to be perceived as particularly onerous by the surveyed multinationals, which is consistent with the findings of the 2001 Company Tax Study. According to available estimates, the costs of transfer pricing requirements for large and medium-sized multinationals would amount to roughly 3% of corporate income tax revenues. For 2007, this amounts to EUR 13 billion for EU27. Furthermore, by introducing cross-border loss relief, the CCCTB could provide a solution to the potential occurrence of double taxation, which is not adequately tackled by the existing tax treaty network. Beyond this objective, there is a need to develop a coherent approach vis-à-vis third countries, as profit shifting does not take place only within the EU. For these reasons, the CCCTB project has gained support from business and the academia as well as certain tax
administrations. (149)

Some suggested tax reforms (e.g. CO2 taxation) would require an adoption of common tax bases and at least some agreement on minimum rates or a range of rates at the EU level. Moving together would allow the scale and the effects of the proposed action to be increased and the desired outcome of the reform to be achieved. In particular, recently discussed taxes on the financial sector, be they financial transaction taxes (Tobin style or other), balance sheet levies or financial activity taxes as discussed in Chapter 4.3, fall in this category. (150)

More generally, reforms require coordination when they target mobile tax bases. This does not only apply to the taxation of corporations (multinationals in particular) but also of savings. The current Savings Tax Directive (151) has been operational since mid 2005 and is functioning well within its limits. There is however a need to
improve the effectiveness of the Directive and close existing loopholes by broadening its scope to savings instruments and vehicles that are presently not covered. Currently a Commission proposal to address these shortcomings is pending before the Council and discussions are in the closing stages. This makes the Savings Directive an even more efficient weapon in the fight against cross-border tax fraud and evasion.