Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-03-13-Speech-3-346"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020313.13.3-346"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
". – Madam President, I should also like to thank Mr Della Vedova for his report on the Commission's communications, on our general tax policy and on company taxation in the internal market. I should also like to thank Mr Pérez Royo for his report on the proposal for a directive on the taxation of savings.
This is exactly why the Commission asked for and obtained authorisation from the Council to enter into negotiations with the six third countries mentioned in the Faro European Council conclusions. They are: the United States, Switzerland, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco and San Marino. The aim of these negotiations is to secure the adoption of measures equivalent to the system applied within the Community.
At the same time, Member States are committed to promoting the adoption of the same measures by their own dependent and associated territories. The discussions with third countries and dependent territories should hopefully be finalised before the summer.
I must emphasise that the Faro Agreement provides that these negotiations with third countries and dependent and associated territories should precede the adoption of the directive. The Commission cannot therefore accept amendments that would make the application of the directive, once adopted, dependent on the outcome of such negotiations. There is a risk that such amendments might undermine our negotiating position
the third countries who quite rightly want to be sure that Member States will implement the directive if they agree to apply equivalent measures.
On the particular point raised by Mrs Thyssen, the discussions with third countries should precede adoption of the directive. Those agreements are a political condition for adoption of the directive. Therefore we have to live with that.
In closing, I once again thank Parliament for its support for the proposed directive on taxational savings. I assure Parliament that I shall keep it informed of developments to the best of my abilities.
I should like to begin with the report of Mr Della Vedova, which I very much welcome. It may help if I recall briefly the Commission's motivation for producing these two communications. Individual Member States retain, quite correctly, responsibility for many aspects of national tax policy. But there is an ongoing demand for an EU tax policy in many areas. A key question is: what degree of harmonisation is appropriate? A high degree of harmonisation is necessary, it seems to the Commission, in the field of indirect taxes. Such taxes can create an immediate obstacle to the free movement of goods and the free supply of services within the internal market. Indeed a certain degree of harmonisation in that area has already taken place. I am very conscious that this Parliament has had its differences with the Commission on the issue of rates of excise duty on tobacco and alcohol – an issue dear to the heart of Mrs Lulling.
It is clear, however, that the existing wide rate divergences between Member States constitute a strong incentive for both fraudulent transactions and legitimate cross-border shopping which lead both to distortion of competition and diversion of trade. I am therefore of the opinion that the permanent solution for these problems requires enhanced approximation of rates to a level at which the above effects no longer occur or are brought back to a sustainable level.
On the other hand, there is no need to harmonise personal income taxes unless they entail discrimination or double taxation. But there is an intermediate zone of direct taxation of mobile tax bases – in particular the taxation of companies and capital – where the situation is less clear-cut and which may have direct effects on the internal market. The so-called tax package, of which the directive on savings taxation is an important element, seeks to address the potential erosion of tax revenues and eliminate harmful tax competition. But to achieve a balance in European tax policy, attention should also be paid to the concerns of taxpayers, both individuals and companies. That means addressing obstacles that hinder the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty. This is where our communication devoted to company taxation comes in. In that communication we review the tax obstacles faced by companies who operate cross-border in the European Union. We have identified a significant number of those obstacles, which, we must all agree is astonishing, given the fact that it is nearly 10 years since the internal market was established. We have also identified potential solutions.
We have examined a number of possible solutions to this problem in the form of both targeted and comprehensive approaches. The latter would, in the longer term, provide companies with a consolidated, corporate tax base for their EU-wide activities. Naturally I am extremely grateful for the support given to this principle by Mr Della Vedova in his report.
In pursuing the various objectives I have just outlined in relation to taxation at EU level, the Commission will need to employ a variety of methods, including non-legislative mechanisms. Again, I am very grateful for the unqualified support for this policy in Mr Della Vedova's report.
I now turn to the proposal for a directive on the taxation of savings. Firstly, I am pleased to note that a substantial number of the proposed amendments correspond to changes agreed by of the ECOFIN Council in the draft directive approved on 13 December 2001, for the purpose of negotiations with third countries. The large measure of agreement between the Council and Parliament on the text of the proposal cannot but strengthen the Community's negotiating position in the discussion with third countries.
The Commission takes the view that the amendments agreed by the Council on 13 December improve and clarify the legal texts, but that they do not substantially change the proposal for a directive. The Commission therefore considers that these amendments do not justify presenting a revised proposal for a directive given the particular time constraints that we are operating under.
A number of the amendments proposed by the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs related to the negotiations with third countries and Member States' dependent and associated territories, and more particularly to Parliament's role in these discussions. Parliament may rest assured that I intend to keep Parliament fully informed of these negotiations and that I have no intention whatsoever of undermining Parliament's prerogatives. I fully share the view expressed by Mr Pérez Royo that this proposal has an important international dimension."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples