Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2009-04-23-Speech-4-508"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20090423.71.4-508"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
I should like to start by thanking the shadow rapporteurs for their sound cooperation.
Mr President, I will conclude. Importers who commit fraud must be dealt with quickly. The honest exporter must be addressed by his own tax administration, with prior notice of two months and within a maximum period of two years, as this period limits, as far as possible, the administrative burdens on honest businesses.
Let me put things into perspective. The fight against fraud, although in large part the responsibility of the Member States, cannot be conducted solely at the national level. It must be a priority for the European Union, and we must make sure that there is close cooperation between the Member States and the European Commission. Given that the reform of VAT has been put on the back burner for the moment, the Commission has concentrated on the so-called classic measure, which is to say changes in the VAT legislation that introduce technical improvements but do not fundamentally alter the existing system.
I support the initiative brought forward by Commissioner Kovács because it moves in the right direction. Tax fraud leads primarily to violations of the principle of fair and transparent taxation, and can lead to distortions of competition if one company does charge VAT while another does not, over and above all the costs to the government. This affects the operation of the internal market, since honest businesses have competitive disadvantages because of tax fraud. I heartily welcome the efforts of the Commission to try to tackle the deliberate abuse of the VAT system by criminal gangs who seek to take advantage of the shortcomings in the system.
VAT is not only an important source of income for the Member States, but also for the EU. The European Union receives around EUR 20 billion from VAT revenue. It is estimated that VAT fraud in Europe comes to EUR 100 billion per year. This refers to the sum not handed over by importers at the border. It is a reason for taking on those importers and exporters who commit fraud.
The European Commission is introducing a major change, however, in seeking to hold suppliers acting in good faith jointly liable with importers who commit fraud. I have therefore tried to increase legal protection for exporters acting in good faith. In other words, businesses should not bear the responsibility for the shortcomings of administrative cooperation between Member States. If Member States are simply given an additional power to prosecute exporters on a cross-border basis, the Member States will have little incentive to bring an improvement to administrative cooperation.
With our amendments, we are trying to prevent honest exporters from being penalised unnecessarily. Therefore, the honest exporter must receive a warning two months before the actual penalty, so that he has the opportunity to prove that he had been acting in good faith. Contact in this regard must be made via the exporter’s own tax office and not that of the importing Member State.
The Socialist Group in the European Parliament argues in favour of a maximum recovery period of five years. I do not agree with this. The liability period for VAT at the national level has not been harmonised. In Belgium, for instance, it is three years except in the case of demonstrable fraud. A longer period of joint and several liability for VAT on cross-border transactions is undesirable because businesses will have to bear a much greater administrative burden, leading to high costs for doing business that are certainly not desirable in the current crisis.
Moreover, companies will, as of 2010, have to submit monthly summary declarations for cross-border transactions within the EU, as a result of which the tax authorities will automatically receive the necessary information to cross-check intra-community transactions. This information must be used by the tax authorities in an appropriate and targeted manner.
Why would it be necessary to give them five more years before carrying out the cross-checks, once they already receive monthly data? I am afraid that the result of a lengthy claim period of five years will be that tax authorities will act late and the fraudsters will have disappeared. As a result, the claims for recovery will be made against businesses that may have been acting in good faith."@en1
|
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples