Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-10-25-Speech-2-644-000"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20111025.32.2-644-000"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, I would like to thank Mr Šemeta for giving such a clear answer to the questions from the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs. I would also like to congratulate Mr Giegold on his report. A broad majority in Parliament has supported this report and we will also be adopting it. Mr Šemeta, you have the opportunity to put into effect the points that have been made in this report on the Parent-Subsidiary Directive as part of the process of tax harmonisation which you are working towards. We know that some of the problems in the euro area, for example, have arisen as a result of different taxation rates. The countries which you mentioned were almost all euro area states. We are asking you to have the courage to submit a corresponding proposal. You will have our support.
My second point concerns the bilateral tax agreement between Germany and Switzerland. Fortunately, you have been very restrained on this subject. All I can say is that this agreement does not contravene the EU agreement with Switzerland. I can remember when I first took my seat in Parliament in 1994 that there was already a lively debate going on about the standardisation of tax on interest. First Luxembourg tabled an objection, then Austria, then Luxembourg again and finally the Channel Islands. Once they had all been reconciled, we had to include Switzerland. After this, there were more delays. Things went to and fro for more than 10 years, because the principle of unanimity had to be preserved. You really do not have an easy job, Mr Šemeta, because it is difficult to reconcile the interests of all the Member States.
The model chosen by Switzerland, which does not involve exchanging information, but instead adopting its own taxation measures, does not conflict with this bilateral agreement. Firstly, as you yourself have said, you were not involved, but you were informed. Secondly, this is not about having the same basis for taxation. It is about ensuring that what may possibly be dirty money, which has not been subjected to taxation, is taxed retrospectively at a different tax rate. It is also about a payment in the future. This goes further than the EU agreement with Switzerland. The tax rate chosen there corresponds to the current level in Germany, in other words, 25% plus the solidarity surcharge, which amounts to exactly 26.57%. I have read a passage in the agreement which clearly states that if the tax rates in Germany are changed, then the agreement will be amended. If Switzerland does not comply with this, the agreement will be terminated within six months. In other words, this is a completely new situation. I understand that people see problems here, particularly in Germany, where there have been fierce political debates on the subject. However, this agreement represents an initial step which does not attack Swiss banking secrecy in general. We do not anyway have the powers to implement a new dimension of interest taxation with a third country, in this case Switzerland. If other states follow suit, this could be a model for the ongoing development of the bilateral agreement with Switzerland. I agree that there is a need to ask questions, but I believe that the criticism that has been made is unjustified."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples