TAXATION AND CUSTOMS UNION
Direct taxation, Tax Coordination, Economic Analysis and Evaluation Company Taxation Initiatives
Brussels, 17 September 2015
Meeting Report Code of Conduct Group
17 September 2015
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In the absence of the Chair, the meeting was chaired by the Vice-Chair (LU).
Regarding rollback and standstill, UK said it would respond to the new
information it had received from ES the previous week in respect of the
Gibraltar regime. The issue could then be discussed at the October meeting.
In the discussion of the draft work programme all MS supported the draft as it
was a balanced and accurate reflection of the previous discussions. The ongoing
discussions in the High Level Working Group on the Code Group’s mandate
It was agreed that COM would produce a revised document for the next meeting
with the aim of it being agreed by the end of the year.
It was noted that the monitoring of MS’ implementation of the Model
Instruction would be discussed at the first meeting in 2016. Before then the
Chair would seek updated information on the progress in Member States.
Under AOB, the correspondence between the Chair and the Parliament’s TAXE
Committee was discussed. COM explained that it had written to MS regarding
documents which the Committee had requested from it but which it had not yet
disclosed as MS had not given their permission. COM had proposed that the
documents could be made available to the Committee under confidential
conditions. It was now up to MS to consider COM’s proposal.
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111
1. Rollback: Gibraltar Income Tax Act 2010
2. Future of the Code of Conduct: Draft Work Programme 2015
noted that the discussions on the future of the Code would be carried
on in the High Level Working Group as well as the Code Group. The HLWG would
discuss issues relating to the mandate whilst the Group would consider the draft work
programme. Speaking for the Presidency, the Vice-Chair said that the aim was to get
both agreed by the end of the year.
All MS welcomed the draft work programme and supported it as a balanced and
accurate reflection of the previous discussions in both the HLWG and the Code
Group. Some MS made additional comments.
noted that the monitoring exercise covered the BEPS actions and this was a very
wide area. The issue of outbound payments would be worthwhile discussing.
asked whether the guidance listed in the draft was final or whether it should be
further developed and suggested that the monitoring of the exchange of information
regarding rulings should also cover the use to which MS put such information.
said its priorities in part 5 were (i) Model Instruction (ii) Inbound Profit Transfers
and (iii) BEPS. BE agreed with the excluded items and hoped that any grey areas
regarding patent boxes could be quickly resolved.
said that the work on third countries should not concentrate on particular
countries but on particular types of regime.
noted that rollback and work on third countries was very important
wanted to ensure that monitoring of the proposed Directive did not add another
layer to the Commission’s existing role under the EU Treaty. The Group should
focus on the value of exchanges, not the mechanics. SI also noted that it was maybe
too early to be specific about the BEPS issues.
said that the non-taxation of outbound payments should be included along with
said that the
monitoring process should be improved
noted the Commission’s role in monitoring the implementation of EU legislation
thought it might be useful to add some detail on what the Subgroup was going to
do. Regarding the monitoring exercise UK thought the most relevant BEPS actions
were those on interest restrictions, hybrids, transfer pricing (including the new
definition of permanent establishment), CFCs and substance. It was also important to
ensure that the allocation of responsibilities between the different bodies in the EU
agreed with IE’s comments on the visibility of the Group’s work.
asked for more information about the Subgroup’s proposed work and on the
relevant BEPS actions. It was also in favour of adding outbound payments to the
agreed that the Group needed to consider what it would look at under the heading
of BEPS. It welcomed that outbound payments were not included in the Work
3. Administrative Practices: Implementation of the Model Instruction
said that all MS had now replied to the questionnaire. The political
agreement was to implement the Model Instruction by the end of the year and this
would be looked at in the first meeting of 2016.
noted the correspondence between the Chair and the European
Parliament’s TAXE Committee.
said that the Parliament had previously asked it for access to documents which
contained information supplied by MS, which COM would only disclose with
permission. Some MS gave that permission but others did not. COM noted that the
three institutions, Council, Parliament and Commission, had different internal rules
for classifying documents. Therefore the Parliament would not necessarily follow a
“restricted” classification given by the Council or the Commission. COM had
therefore suggested that access be given to Parliament in a secure environment.
However, it was up to MS to consider this and COM had written to them accordingly.