Council of the
European Union
PUBLIC
Brussels, 11 June 2015
(OR. en)
9620/15
LIMITE
FISC 60
ECOFIN 443
REPORT
From:
Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation)
To:
Permanent Representatives Committee/Council
Subject:
Code of Conduct (Business Taxation)
- Report to the Council
INTRODUCTION
1.
On 1 December 1997, the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the
Member States, meeting within the Council, adopted a Resolution on a Code of Conduct for
business taxation. This Resolution provides for the establishment of a Group within the
framework of the Council to assess tax measures that may fall within the Code. In its report to
the Feira European Council on 19 and 20 June 2000, the ECOFIN Council agreed that work
should be pursued with a view to reaching agreement on the tax package as a whole,
according to a parallel timetable for the key parts of the tax package (taxation of savings,
Code of Conduct (business taxation) and interest and royalties).
2.
On 9 March 1998, the Council confirmed the establishment of the Code of Conduct Group.
The Group reports regularly on the measures assessed and these reports are forwarded to the
Council for deliberation.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
1
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
Conseil UE
3.
This report from the Code Group encompasses the work of the Code Group in 2015 under the
Latvian Presidency.
PROGRESS OF WORK
4.
The Code of Conduct Group met on 4 February, 7 April and 2 June 2015 under the Latvian
Presidency.
5.
At the meeting of 4 February 2015 the Group confirmed a programme of work under the
Latvian Presidency, agreeing to take forward work in the following areas:
(a) continue its work on rollback;
(b) continue existing work on standstill;
(c) continue work on the various aspects of the Group's Work Package 2011.
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIR
6.
Mr. Wolfgang Nolz (Austria) was confirmed Chair for a period of two years at the meeting of
4 February 2015.
APPOINTMENT OF VICE CHAIRS
7.
Mr. Andrejs Birums (Latvia) and Mrs. Pascale Toussing (Luxembourg) were appointed Vice-
chairs at the meeting of 4 February 2015.
ROLLBACK
UK: Gibraltar – Income Tax Act 2010
8.
With regard to the ‘asset holding companies’ the Group invited the Commission for an
agreed description of the regime. The UK and Spain will provide further information.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
link to page 3
STANDSTILL
Patent Box
9.
Member States have made commitments not to introduce new tax measures that would be
harmful within the meaning of the Code. A main issue in this respect in 2014 were patent
box regimes. In November 2014 the Group agreed, in co-ordination with developments at
the OECD, on the modified nexus approach as the appropriate method to identify harmful
aspects of patent boxes. The Group agreed that the EU patent box regimes that had been
subject to examination by the Group are not compatible with the modified nexus approach
as adapted by the compromise. As a consequence, these EU patent boxes should be changed
in line with the compromise and within the agreed timeline. The Group started a discussion
in relation to the specifics of grandfathering arrangements and how such specifics will
apply.
10.
In late 2014 Italy introduced a new patent box regime which was discussed by the Group
during its meeting on 7 April 2015 and the Commission was asked for an agreed description
of the regime. The Group noted that the Italian regime has not yet been implemented
through a decree. The Group agreed that this regime, if it were to enter into force, as it is set
out in the agreed description, would not be compatible with the compromise on modified
nexus approach for IP regimes, as set out in Annex 1 of doc. 16553/1/14 REV 1.
1
WORK PACKAGE
11.
The Group continued its work on the Work Package 2011 under the Latvian Presidency.
1
Italy has a reservation on the statement by the Group on its patent box regime. Italy reaffirms that such regime is
modelled on the modified nexus approach as adapted by the compromise. Therefore, Italy does not accept a
declaration of incompatibility which does not acknowledge the overall compliance of its regime with the
modified nexus approach.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
3
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
Anti-abuse: Hybrid PEs – Mismatches
12.
At the end of 2014 the Group had agreed on a guidance on intra-EU hybrid entities. Under
the Latvian Presidency technical work on Mismatches in connection with Hybrid PEs was
continued in a Code of Conduct SubGroup, which met on 8 April 2015. The Group agreed
on guidance notes with regards to hybrid permanent establishments as set out in Annex 1.
The Group invites the Subgroup to continue its work regarding further cases of hybrid
mismatches.
Monitoring the implementation of agreed guidance on Inbound Profit Transfers
13.
In 2014 the Commission presented a check list as a basis for assessing the extent to which
MS rules comply with the agreed guidance on inbound profit transfers. Member States were
invited to send their comments on the check list. After the presentation of the Commission’s
analysis based on the tool box approach in January 2015, it was agreed that further work is
required.
Administrative practices – Model instruction
14.
A questionnaire was circulated to the MS to receive information on measures taken
concerning the agreed Model instruction for spontaneous exchange of cross-border rulings
and unilateral APAs. The responses show that some Member States have not yet started with
the implementation of the Model instruction. The Group emphasised the need to ensure
effective implementation of the approved Model instruction by the end of the year.
Links to third countries
Liechtenstein
15.
The Commission continued the dialogue with Liechtenstein and the Group agreed at their
meeting of 9 April 2015 on inviting Liechtenstein to one of the following meetings of the
Group.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
4
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
FUTURE OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT GROUP
16.
The Group agreed on contributing to the debate on the future of the Group, with the aim of
enabling the ECOFIN to discuss strengthening the role of the Group. Up to now five
proposals have been presented. The Chair reported to the HLWP on 16 April 2015. No
agreement has been reached so far. Further work will focus on: making better use of the
existing mandate of the Code; examining the possibilities to extend the mandate and to
update the criteria; the need to adjust the governance of the Code accordingly. The Group
decided to dedicate the next meeting of the Code of Conduct Group, preferably in July, to
the future of the Code of Conduct. The five proposals are annexed to the report (Annex 2).
_________________________
9620/15
AS/FC/df
5
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
ANNEX 1
Guidance on Hybrid Permanent Establishment Mismatches Concerning Two Member States
1.
For the purposes of this Guidance, which applies to the extent that a mismatch situation
concerns two Member States
1.1. a
permanent establishment is treated as
hybrid where the business activities of an
enterprise:
1.1.1.
are not recognised as carried on through a permanent establishment in the
Member State where those activities are carried on (the Member State of
source) but are recognised as carried on through a permanent establishment
in the Member State where the enterprise is a resident (the Member State of
residence), or
1.1.2.
are recognised as carried on through a permanent establishment in the
Member State where those activities are carried on (the Member State of
source) but are not recognised as carried on through a permanent
establishment in the Member State where the enterprise is a resident (the
Member State of residence);
1.2. a
mismatch situation for two Member States, in relation to a hybrid permanent
establishment, is where the mismatched treatment by the two Member States of
business activities of an enterprise as carried on through the permanent establishment
is relevant to the treatment for tax purposes of profits from business activities of the
enterprise;
1.3.
non-taxation without inclusion arises where the profits from business activities are not
taxed in the Member State of source as such activities are treated as not being carried
on through a permanent establishment, while those profits are exempt from tax in the
Member State of residence as profits attributable to a permanent establishment;
1.4. a
double deduction arises where a deduction or other tax relief is given in each of two
Member States for the same payment, expense or loss attributed to a hybrid permanent
establishment, insofar as that payment, expense or loss is deducted from or relieved
against income that is not attributed to the hybrid permanent establishment;
9620/15
AS/FC/df
6
ANNEX 1
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
2.
Where as a result of a mismatch situation for two Member States, in relation to a hybrid
permanent establishment:
2.1. a non-taxation
without inclusion would otherwise arise, then, for the purpose of
preventing the non-taxation
without inclusion, the two Member States concerned
should treat the business activities concerned as if they were not being carried on
through a permanent establishment, or
2.2. a double deduction would otherwise arise, then, for the purpose of preventing the
double deduction, the two Member States concerned should treat the business
activities concerned as if they were not being carried on through a permanent
establishment
notwithstanding the treatment of such activities or amount that would otherwise apply.
3.
Paragraph 2 of this Guidance should apply only to the extent that is necessary for the purpose
of preventing a non-taxation without inclusion or a double deduction that would otherwise
arise, and not for any other purpose. In no case shall the application of this paragraph result in
asymmetrical treatment of income and expenses and in double taxation.
______________________
9620/15
AS/FC/df
7
ANNEX 1
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
Explanatory Notes on the Guidance on Hybrid Permanent Establishment Mismatches
Concerning Two Member States
These notes are arranged in the order of the relevant paragraphs of the text of draft guidance.
•
General comment on format of the draft text
Paragraph 1 and its four subparagraphs set out the meaning of certain terms for the purposes of the
guidance.
Paragraph 2 does the main work of the guidance - specifying an alignment of treatments
of hybrid permanent establishment (“HPE”) where mismatched treatments would otherwise result
in non-taxation without inclusion or a double deduction.
Paragraph 3 ensures that this alignment
cannot be used to achieve unintended results: it is solely to prevent
non-taxation without inclusion
and double deduction and is applied for dealing with mismatch situations, to the extent that they are
not tackled otherwise.
•
Paragraph 1 - introductory line
1. For the purposes of this Guidance, which applies to the extent that a mismatch
situation concerns two Member States
These introductory words serve the following purposes:
They signal that the meanings of terms set out in the
paragraph 1 and
its subparagraphs are for the
purposes of the guidance only and are not intended to have any wider significance.
They also signal that the application of the guidance, in addressing mismatched treatments, is
limited to situations only involving two Member States thereby excluding situations in which the
State where the business activities of an enterprise are carried on (the State of source) or the State
where the enterprise is a resident (the State of residence) is a non-EU State.
If an aggressive tax planning arrangement would involve more than one mismatch situation the
guidance would apply to each mismatch situation separately.
•
Subparagraph 1.1
1.1. a permanent establishment is treated as hybrid where the business activities of an
enterprise are:
The meaning of a permanent establishment (“PE”) being treated as hybrid is the cornerstone of the
draft guidance.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
8
ANNEX 1
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
The pre-condition for the existence of a HPE is that an enterprise resident in one Member State
carries on business activities in another Member State. The Guidance identifies the following two
types of HPE.
1.1.1. not recognised as carried on through a permanent establishment in the
Member State where those activities are carried on (the Member State of source)
but are recognised as carried on through a permanent establishment in the
Member State where the enterprise is a resident (the Member State of residence),
or
The first type of HPE refers to inconsistent treatment of business activities carried on in a Member
State by an enterprise resident in another Member State.
This definition deals with a situation where the business activities are recognised as carried on
through the PE only in the Member State where the enterprise is a resident.
1.1.2.
are recognised as carried on through a permanent establishment in the
Member State where those activities are carried on (the Member State of source)
but are not recognised as carried on through a permanent establishment in the
Member State where the enterprise is a resident (the Member State of residence),
or
The second type of HPE refers to the inconsistent treatment of business activities carried on in a
Member State by an enterprise resident in another Member State. This definition deals with a
situation where the business activities are recognised as carried on through a PE only in the Member
State where those activities are carried on. This can give rise to a double deduction in certain
circumstances.
•
Subparagraph 1.2
1.2. a mismatch situation for two Member States, in relation to a hybrid permanent
establishment, is where the mismatched treatment by the two Member States of
business activities of an enterprise as carried on through the permanent establishment
is relevant to the treatment for tax purposes of profits from business activities of the
enterprise
As definitions provided in
subparagraph 1.1. limit the scope of the guidance to the hybrid nature of
the PE, the term “a mismatch situation” serves to determine a condition for
paragraph 2 to apply.
The mismatch situation would thus arise where an inconsistent treatment of business activities
would lead to the undesirable results defined in
subparagraphs 1.3 and 1.4.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
9
ANNEX 1
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
•
Subparagraph 1.3
1.3. a non-taxation without inclusion arises where the profits from business activities
are not taxed in the Member State of source as such activities are treated as not being
carried on through a permanent establishment, while those profits are exempt from
tax in the Member State of residence as profits attributable to a permanent
establishment
This paragraph defines a specific type of double non-taxation, i.e.
a non-taxation without inclusion
resulting from inconsistent treatment of business activities by two Member States (the one of
residence and the one of source -
Example 1).
This definition suggests that
non-taxation without inclusion could only arise where a Member State
of residence of an enterprise eliminates double taxation of profits from business activities carried on
in another Member State by the exemption method.
Employment of the credit method would not exclude any profits from business activities from tax in
the Member State of residence and therefore this type of effect would not arise.
•
Subparagraph 1.4
1.4. a double deduction arises where a deduction or other tax relief is given in each of
two Member States for the same payment, expense or loss attributed to a hybrid
permanent establishment, insofar as that payment, expense or loss is deducted from or
relieved against the income that is not attributed to the hybrid permanent establishment;
This paragraph defines another type of double non-taxation, i.e.
a double deduction resulting from
an inconsistent treatment of business activities by two Member States (the one of residence and the
one of source –
Example 2).
Unlike in the example of double non-taxation set out in subparagraph 1.3, a double deduction can
arise if the enterprise's Member State of residence eliminates double taxation with either the credit
or exemption methods. This is because the residence state does not recognize the existence of a PE.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
10
ANNEX 1
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
•
Paragraph 2
2. Where as a result of a mismatch situation for two Member States, in relation to a
hybrid permanent establishment
2.1.
a non-taxation without inclusion would otherwise arise, then, for the
purpose of preventing the non-taxation without inclusion, the two Member States
concerned should treat the business activities concerned as if they were not being
carried on through a permanent establishment, or
2.2.
a double deduction would otherwise arise, then, for the purpose of
preventing the double deduction, the two Member States concerned should treat
the business activities concerned as if they were not being carried on through a
permanent establishment
notwithstanding the treatment of such activities or amount that would otherwise
apply.
Paragraph 2 contains the text that prevents the mismatched treatment of HPE by Member States
from resulting in
non-taxation without inclusion or double deduction.
To do so, it draws upon the terms set out in
paragraph 1 to identify the elements that must be
present for the guidance to apply, i.e.
- a
mismatch situation involving two Member States,
- in relation to a
HPE,
- resulting in
non-taxation without inclusion or double deduction.
Where these elements are present,
paragraph 2 prescribes the following solutions to prevent the
mismatch situation that results in
non-taxation without inclusion or double deduction:
- in the case of
non-taxation without inclusion, the alignment is for both Member States to treat
relevant business activities as if they were not carried on through a PE;
- in the case of a
double deduction, the alignment is for both Member States to treat the relevant
business activities as if they were not carried on through a PE;
9620/15
AS/FC/df
11
ANNEX 1
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
These approaches are adopted as pragmatic solutions to address harmful effects of mismatch
situations.
In order to underline that the solutions provided for in
paragraph 2 will be used only to address
harmful effects of mismatch situations, its text has been expressed in fictional form ("as if"). In
addition, this wording reconfirms that the guidance shall not affect the provisions of double taxation
conventions between the source and the residence Member State. Where the guidance results in
taxation not in line with the provisions of a double taxation convention, the Member States
concerned shall endeavour to solve the issue by mutual agreement, if applicable. In this context, it
would be useful to consider relevant modifications of double taxation conventions, where
appropriate.
•
Paragraph 3
3. Paragraph 2 of this Guidance should apply only to the extent that is necessary
for the purpose of preventing non-taxation without inclusion or a double deduction
that would otherwise arise, and not for any other purpose. In no case shall the
application of this paragraph result in asymmetrical treatment of income and
expenses and in double taxation.
Paragraph 3 serves the following purposes:
- it is intended to prevent any manipulation or abuse of the proposed guidance. It should also
ensure that no more than necessary is done to prevent HPE mismatches delivering
non-
taxation without inclusion or double deductions;
- it clarifies that the guidance is applied only when other means (e.g. national rules) are not
sufficient to prevent
non-taxation without inclusion or double deductions;
- it clarifies that the guidance shall not apply to the extent that it would result in asymmetrical
treatment of income and double taxation, if this effect would arise as a result of the
application of the credit method for the elimination of double taxation.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
12
ANNEX 1
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
Examples
Example 1
hybrid PE is
MS A
• recognised as PE for MS A tax purposes;
MS A exempts profits of A Co
A Co
attributable to PE in MS B;
• not recognised as PE for MS B tax purposes;
MS B does not tax profits
attributable to PE
non-taxation without inclusion arises
•
paragraph 2.1 of the guidance applies:
MS A and MS B do not recognise PE;
Hybrid PE
MS A taxes profits from activities in MS B
MS B
Example 2
hybrid PE is
MS A
• not recognised as PE for MS A tax purposes;
It pays interest on a loan;
A Co
The interest is set off by A Co against other income;
• recognised as PE for MS B tax purposes;
It has no other income in MS B;
The loss (the interest) is offset against B Co's profits
in MS B.
Hybrid PE
Loan Interest
double deduction arises
•
paragraph 2.2 of the guidance applies:
MS A and MS B do not recognise PE;
MS A taxes; single deduction in MS A.
MS B
B Co
9620/15
AS/FC/df
13
ANNEX 1
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
ANNEX 2
Compilation of the proposals on the future of the Code of
Conduct
Reform of the Code of Conduct Group: Irish Paper
Strengthening the EU Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation)
__________________________________________
This paper is drafted in line with the call by the European Council in May 2013 to strengthen the
EU Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation). This paper offers a revised approach to the
selection of the Chair and a new arrangement for the appointment of Vice-Chairs and the operation
of the preparatory group.
It is recalled that the work of the Code of Conduct Group is accorded political importance and this
should be reflected in the appointment by each Member State and the Commission of a high level
representative and a deputy member. The Member States and the Commission may also appoint up
to two alternates who may stand in for the high-level representative or deputy if either is unable to
attend a meeting of the Group.
Overview of current rules on appointment of Chair and Vice-Chairs
Paragraph H of Council Conclusions of 1 December 1997 established the procedure for the
examination of measures within the ambit of the Code of Conduct Group on Business Taxation.
Building on paragraph H, Council Conclusions of 9 March 1998 further elaborated the mechanism
for the appointment of the Chair, Vice-Chairs, the working of the preparatory group and the Group
itself.
Current Composition of Preparatory Group
Paragraph 10 of the Council Conclusions of March 1998 call for a preparatory group composed of
the Chair, two Vice-Chairs, Commission and with assistance from the Council Secretariat. The role
of the group is to help facilitate the work of the Code Group.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
14
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
Proposal for a revised method for the appointment of Chair and Vice-Chairs
The May 2013 European Council noted that “
it is important to continue work within the EU on the
elimination of harmful tax measures. To that end, work should be carried out on the strengthening
of the Code of Conduct on business taxation on the basis of its existing mandate….”
Within this overall mandate from the European Council it is proposed to revise and strengthen the
preparatory capacity of the Code Group. This paper proposes that the Chair and Vice Chairs of the
Code of Conduct Group would be appointed by Ministers in Council (ECOFIN), on the advice of
the Code of Conduct Group.
Appointment of Chair, Vice-Chairs and preparatory Group
1. The Chair will be appointed by Ministers in Council (ECOFIN) on the advice of the Code of
Conduct Group from among the Member States and will serve for two years from the date of
appointment.
2. Two Vice Chairs will also be appointed by Ministers in Council (ECOFIN) on the advice of the
Code of Conduct Group from among the Member States and will serve for two years from the date
of appointment.
3. In addition to the Chair and two Vice-Chairs appointed by Ministers in Council (ECOFIN) the
composition of the preparatory group would also include a person designated from among the
representatives of the Member States holding the Presidency of the Council for the duration of its
term of office as a Vice-Chair and another Vice-Chair will be designated by the delegation who is
next to hold the Presidency of the Council, for the six month period prior to the commencement of
its term of office. Representatives from the European Commission and from the General Secretariat
of the Council would also be members of the preparatory group.
Accordingly the preparatory group would be composed of the Chair, two elected Vice-Chairs, two
Vice-Chairs one each from the current and incoming Presidency, plus representatives from the
European Commission and General Secretariat of the Council.
Role of the Preparatory Group
The mandate of the preparatory group would be to ensure the correct application of the principles of
the Code of Conduct within the context of the agreed work programme and its existing mandate.
Furthermore the preparatory group would be responsible for the preparation and coordination of the
draft work programme, plenary agenda items for the Code of Conduct Group and the preparation of
draft reports for Council (ECOFIN).
9620/15
AS/FC/df
15
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
The General Secretariat of the Council would be responsible for the secretariat function as the Code
of Conduct Group operates within the framework of the Council. The European Commission
would provide technical assistance to the members of the preparatory group and the Code of
Conduct Group. The members of the preparatory group will meet as appropriate and liaise closely
with each other to develop a collaborative approach to ensure an efficient and effective working
relationship.
Review
This revised approach would be reviewed two years after the date of appointment of the first Chair
of the Group under this revised approach.
_______________
9620/15
AS/FC/df
16
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
link to page 17 link to page 17
Reform of the Code of Conduct Group: Commission Paper
Background
1. This document is being circulated in response to a request for comments from all Member
States and the Commission Services by the Chair of the Code of Conduct Group following the
discussions at the last Code of Conduct meeting regarding the future of the Code. Delegates
should note the Commission’s formal views in its recent Communication on tax transparency to
fight tax evasion and avoidance
.2 This paper does not prejudge the outcome of the
Commission's reflections on this matter.
2. The Communication outlined how the Code of Conduct on Business Taxation has been an
important tool for challenging harmful tax regimes. Despite its voluntary and inter-
governmental nature, the Code has been effective in the past in eliminating certain harmful tax
practices in the Member States. However recent work including that on patent boxes has
highlighted limitations in the scope of the Code and weaknesses in the mandate of the Code
Group.
3. The Commission view is that tackling complex challenges to fair taxation and safeguarding tax
transparency requires more decisive action by the Code Group, and more rigorous monitoring
to ensure that Member States respect their commitments. The Commission is reflecting on
ways the Code and the Group can be improved and will submit these to Member States and
these reflections will feed into the Action Plan on Corporate Taxation, to be adopted before the
summer. In order to assist the Code Group in its own current review the Commission Services
outlines below some points for the Code Group to consider.
Purpose of document
4. The purpose of this document is to explore the future of the Code of Conduct specifically in the
context of the EU BEPS Roadmap.
3 The review of the Code Group’s mandate and the
reinforcement of its role are one of the work areas included in the Roadmap.
5. A number of issues mentioned in the Roadmap are already under discussion in the Code Group.
These include patent boxes, mismatches and low effective taxation (in the context of inbound
profit transfers). The Commission Services believe that the Code Group should continue to
discuss these issues and that at least some of the other issues identified in the Roadmap should
be dealt with in the Code Group.
6. The future of the Code Group is therefore inseparable from a discussion of its future work
programme.
2 COM(2015) 136 final of 18 March 2015.
3 Working Party on Tax Questions (Direct Taxation), room document 1 of 21 January 2015 and High Level Working
Party on Tax Questions room document 1 of 5 February 2015.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
17
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 18
7. The Commission Services view is that some elements of the current work programme will need
to continue in the future, i.e. the monitoring of standstill and rollback and the ongoing dialogue
with third countries. ECOFIN has also already asked the Code Group to monitor the rollback
of existing patent box regimes in line with the compromise agreement reached in December
2014.4 However, some of the existing work (such as the preparation of guidance or application
notes) may need to be reviewed and taken forward on a different basis.
8. It is clear that the new work program will be challenging and the Commission Services believe
that it should include a timescale for its completion or at least for its key elements.
Rules of Procedure
9. The Code Group’s procedure is governed by the Council Conclusions of 9 March 1998.
5
Delegates have already discussed a proposal to revise and strengthen the preparatory capacity
of the Code Group through the appointment of two additional vice-chairs. The enlarged
preparatory group would therefore be composed of the Chair, two elected Vice-Chairs, two
Vice-Chairs (one each from the current and incoming Presidency), plus representatives from
the European Commission and General Secretariat of the Council.
10. In view of the likelihood that the future work programme of the Code Group will be heavier
than recent ones, and in line with its view that it should have a fixed timescale, the Commission
Services believe that Member States need to give serious thought to adopting an arrangement
along these lines.
11. The pace of the Code Group’s work could also be improved by reconsidering the guidance
agreed in 2008 on the meaning of “broad consensus”.
6 Currently, the Code Group’s reports to
the Council should reflect either a unanimous opinion or the various opinions expressed in the
course of the discussion.
7 In practice, the Code Group tries to reach a "broad consensus" in its
reports (effectively a unanimity rule) tempered by the option for Member States to express
disagreements through footnotes to the reports.
12. Clearly the Code Group could operate on the basis of a formal majority voting system.
Alternatively the Code Group could consider reviewing the meaning of "broad consensus" set
out in 2008. For example, it could be amended by increasing the number of objections that are
required to prevent a consensus being reported. The reports could then describe the areas
where agreement has been reached as well as the reasons why some Member States continue to
have reservations. Reports written on this basis would more clearly show what progress had
been made.
13. In situations where progress is not being made the Chair could, at any time, be able to send a
note to ECOFIN setting out the different positions and seeking political guidance.
14. The Code Group should also consider whether it would be more efficient to increase the
number of technical subgroups or even if most work should be done in subgroups.
4 Document 16553/1/14 FISC 225.
5 OJ 98/C 99/01.
6 Document 16410/08 FISC 174.
7 OJ 98/C 99/01, paragraph 14.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
18
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
link to page 19
15. If the number of subgroups is to be expanded, some thought could be given as to their
governance. The Code Group has previously agreed that the anti-abuse subgroup will be
chaired by the representative of the Member State holding the Presidency of the Council.
8 If
several subgroups were operating at the same time it might be better if the chairs were chosen
by the main Group and served for a fixed period or until the expiry of the deadline for the
completion of the work.
16. The Commission Services believes that any changes made to the preparatory capacity of the
main Group could be mirrored in the governance of subgroups, e.g. through the appointment of
additional vice-chairs (although these need not represent the same Member States as hold the
equivalent positions in the main Group).
Amendment of the criteria in paragraph B of the Code
17. Whilst it is clear that the assessment process is not a scientific exercise the main difficulty is
how the existing criteria apply to particular regimes. Amending the criteria would not
necessarily seem to address this problem, because they need to be reasonably broad as they
need to cover many different types of national rules. Criteria 1, 2 (ring fencing) and 5
(transparency) of the Code have worked well and do not present many problems.
18. Regarding criterion 3 (substance) the Commission Services think that the Code Group should
develop specific solutions for particular types of preferential measure, such as interest regimes,
in the same way as has been done for patent boxes. Analysing the Code with respect to specific
types of regimes would be a significant amount of work and would represent a logical
continuation of the recent work.
19. With regard to criterion 4 (internationally accepted principles) the discussion on patent boxes
showed a different understanding within the group. It was unclear whether under criterion 4 the
arm’s length principle should be applied by analogy to situations other than transactions
between associated enterprises.
20. The BEPS project has also highlighted the underlying problems with criterion 4 to the extent
that transfer pricing rules need to be improved in order to put more emphasis on value creation
in highly integrated groups, e.g. by tackling the use of intangibles to shift profits. The key
issue is the outcome of the work on points 7 to 10 of the BEPS Action Plan which aim to
counter the division of economic activities from the income they generate. As with criterion 3,
the answer may be to develop guidance as to how criterion 4 might apply to particular regimes
or where the application of transfer pricing rules continues to have potentially harmful effects.
21. The Code Group could also consider extending the “gateway criterion” in the Code. At the
moment the Code applies to measures which provide for a significantly lower effective level of
taxation than that which applies generally in a Member State. This could be expanded to
include measures which provide for a level of taxation below a particular effective rate.
8 Document 16233/09 FISC 163.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
19
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
Extending the Code Group’s mandate
22. The standstill and rollback obligations in the Code have proved very effective in combatting
harmful tax competition within the EU. However these obligations have so far only been
applied to the assessment of individual tax measures, although the Code Group has increasingly
worked to agree guidance on general issues such as cross-border rulings and inbound profit
transfers. The Commission Services think that it is essential that the scope of the Code be
changed to make it clear that the Code Group must effectively implement and monitor the
outcome of such work.
23. Whatever the issue at stake, it must be clear that the Code commits Member States to re-
examining their existing laws and established practices to ensure that they comply with the
agreed approach (rollback) and that they will not introduce new tax measures which contravene
them (standstill). In the light of the issues included in the Roadmap this could involve a wide-
ranging review of Member States’ rules and practices similar to that undertaken between 1998
and 2003. Any such future review would be based on the guidance agreed by the Group as
well as the criteria in paragraph B of the Code.
Geographical extension of the Code
24. Paragraph M of the Code says that it is advisable that principles aimed at abolishing harmful
tax measures should be adopted on as broad a geographical basis as possible. Clearly the main
work here has been in relation to Member States’ dependent and associated territories. Beyond
that the focus has been on Switzerland and Liechtenstein. The Commission Services believe
that the Code Group could systematically review third country regimes more widely, initially to
identify where potentially harmful regimes may exist.
___________________
9620/15
AS/FC/df
20
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
Reform of the Code of Conduct Group: G5 Position Paper
Introduction
There is a general consensus within the EU of the need to review the Code of Conduct Group
(CoCG). This Position Paper on the scope and timetable for the review is being proposed by the G5
as a basis for further discussion and action by EU Member States and the European Commission.
Overview
The Code Group has operated within the EU since 1998, as a Working Group of Council
(ECOFIN), based on a mandate agreed by Member States in 1997. The mandate and operation of
the CoCG has not been reviewed since the Group was formed. In the context of the ongoing
G20/OECD Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, and the need to implement the
outcomes of this consistently within the EU, as well ongoing work at EU level, it is timely to review
the role and operation of the CoCG. The G5 propose that this review should consider the following
areas:
•
Mandate: the remit of the CoCG, covering harmful tax practices, and the implementation of
BEPS outcomes in the EU and EU-level measures;
•
Governance: the CoCG needs effective leadership and organisation of its work, including
planning future work programmes, and better co-ordination between the Group and other high
level bodies working on taxation at EU level;
•
Representation: the membership of the CoCG, to ensure that high level representatives of
Member States are engaged in the work of the Group; and
•
Ways of Working: to ensure that the Group is able to take forward work effectively, through
processes for monitoring, reviewing and reporting on actions in Member States, and avoiding
excessive delays.
The review should lead to proposals being made to the High Level Working Party (HLWP) and
ECOFIN covering all of these areas by the end of the Luxembourg Presidency.
Background
On 1 December 1997, ECOFIN adopted a Resolution on the Code of Conduct for business taxation.
This set out the benefits of fair tax competition, but recognised that some tax measures could
unduly affect the location of mobile business activity. The Resolution sets out the criteria for
identifying potentially harmful tax measures (which can include laws, regulations and
administrative practices). The Resolution also provides for the establishment of the CoCG within
the framework of the Council to assess tax measures that may fall within the Code and to report to
the Council every 6 months.
The Code is not a legally binding instrument, although it has proved effective (e.g. work on hybrid
instruments and in relation to the Parent-Subsidiary Directive, as well as securing changes to
individual tax policy measures assessed as harmful). By adopting the Code, Member States (MS)
commit to re-examining their existing laws and established practices, amending such laws and
practices as necessary with a view to eliminating any harmful tax measures, and not introducing
new tax measures which are harmful within the meaning of the Code. These are known as rollback
and standstill respectively.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
21
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
If a tax measure has the potential to fall within the definition of a harmful tax measure given in the
Resolution, MS are required to inform the CoCG. MS can also request the opportunity to discuss
and comment on a tax measure of another MS that may fall within the scope of the Code. The
exchange of such information is facilitated by the Commission.
Mandate
The current mandate of the CoCG, agreed in 1997, is focused on identifying and assessing
potentially harmful tax practices based on the following criteria in the Code of Conduct:
• a significantly lower effective level of taxation, or zero taxation, than the general level of
taxation in the country concerned;
• tax benefits reserved for non-residents, or transactions with non-residents;
• tax incentives for activities which are isolated (ring-fenced) from the domestic economy and
therefore have no impact on the national tax base;
• granting of tax advantages even in the absence of any real economic activity;
• the basis of profit determination for companies in a multinational group departs from
internationally accepted rules, in particular those approved by the OECD; and
• lack of transparency, including where legal provisions are relaxed at administrative level in a
non-transparent way.
These are similar to, but not the same as, those agreed by the OECD Forum on Harmful Tax
Practices (FHTP), which are currently being reviewed as part of Action 5 of the BEPS project. In
addition, the CoCG and its Sub-Groups have taken forward work on a number of specific issues,
such as amending the Parent Subsidiary Directive (PSD) and working to secure the elimination of
harmful regimes in Switzerland, based on specific mandates from ECOFIN.
Proposals for a Revised Mandate
A new mandate for the CoCG could include:
• a remit to consider tax practices that undermine the functioning of the Single Market. This
would include work on defining fair tax competition within the EU and, where a coordinated
approach is relevant, on providing guidance on horizontal issues linked to the functioning of
the internal market. The role of the Group would be to identify and analyse these, and then
make recommendations to the HLWP and ECOFIN to address these;
• ongoing remit to assess potentially harmful tax practices within the EU against the current
criteria, then revised Code Criteria where an improvement could be made on the basis of the
revised criteria agreed in the Forum on Harmful Tax Practices (FHTP) as part of the BEPS
project;
9620/15
AS/FC/df
22
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
• review the existing gateway criterion, which currently applies to measures which provide for
a significantly lower effective level of taxation than that which applies generally in a Member
State;
• implementation of EU BEPS initiatives and other measures; and
• engagement with third countries in relation to harmful tax practices when specific mandates
are agreed by ECOFIN.
Governance and Representation Paragraph 10 of the Council Conclusions (March 1998) establishes a Preparatory Group composed
of a Chair, two Vice-Chairs, and Commission, with assistance from the Council Secretariat. The
Chair is elected by common accord (or by a majority vote of the high-level representatives, if
necessary) and serves for a renewable two year term, with the next election due in 2017. The first
and second vice chairs are elected for a sixth-month term by the delegates holding the current and
incoming Presidency, respectively. Paragraph 3 of the Council Conclusions (March 1998)
establishes that MS should appoint a high-level representative, and deputy member, along with two
alternatives to stand in place of the high-level representative or the deputy if they are unable to
attend. The term high level representative is not defined, and is left to the discretion of individual
MS. Currently, the Code Group’s reports to ECOFIN should reflect either a unanimous opinion or
the various opinions expressed in the course of the discussion.
Proposals for Revised Governance Arrangements
Revised governance arrangements for the Group could include:
• A new structure, with a political Chair appointed by Ministers in ECOFIN and having a
strong political experience in a Member State or in an EU institution, assisted by a technical
expert acting as Deputy Chair, in addition to the Vice-Chairs. This would provide the CoCG
with high level political leadership and a link to ECOFIN. The political Chair would present
the biannual Code Group Report if this was being discussed, or attend relevant meetings.
The number of Vice-Chairs and the process for appointing these could also be considered;
• This structure would require a reorganisation of the work of the Group, with a more
structured approach to meetings, focusing these on strategic issues and reporting to ECOFIN
(with the Chair present) and more technical meetings to consider and resolve detailed issues
(Chaired by the Deputy);
• The Chair and Deputy would have responsibility for developing a new mandate for the
CoCG, and revising this periodically, as well as proposing to ECOFIN that the Group
should take responsibility for work in specific areas;
• Member States should commit to ensuring that they are represented at an appropriate level
on the Code of Conduct Group, and to seek to ensure that this representation is consistent;
9620/15
AS/FC/df
23
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
• The guidance agreed in 2008 on the meaning of “broad consensus” within the Group could
be reviewed; and
• Consider whether to publish the biannual report of the Group once it has been adopted by
ECOFIN.
Operation of the CoCG
The way in which the CoCG operates has strengths and weaknesses. In general, the consensus
approach has been successful. However, the pace of the work can be very slow, and existing
transparency mechanisms rely on MS discretion as to what tax measures to notify to the CoCG and
when this should happen. There are also no formal mechanisms for evaluating whether MS have
abided by their commitments in relation to implementing or changing tax measures, or for gathering
information about tax regimes that may be harmful.
Proposals for Improving the Operation of the Code Group
Proposals for improving the operation of the Code of Conduct Group:
• A review of the relationships between the CoCG and other high level bodies with an interest
in direct tax issues, to clarify the relationships between them and establish how work can be
co-ordinated across them, would be useful;
• Since its inception, the Code Group has relied on the voluntary disclosure of new tax
measures or other practices by Member States. These rules should be reviewed, with a view
to their clarification;
• Similarly, it would be useful to review the reporting mechanisms to the Group, and to
consider how Member States should report on the implementation of Code Group decisions
in relation to tax measures in their jurisdictions. These could also include information from
Member States about their implementation of measures resulting from the BEPS project or
other EU initiatives;
• The Group should also consider the need for mechanisms whereby it can seek information
from Member States about potentially harmful tax practices that are not regimes, but relate
to corporate tax; and
• The Group should also consider whether it could make more effective use of technical Sub-
Groups, including the establishment and oversight of these, in order to ensure the Code
Group is able to focus on more strategic issues.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
24
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
Process and Timetable
A process and timetable for conducting the review needs to be agreed by the HLWP on the basis of
the contribution from the CoCG before being submitted to ECOFIN for decision. The G5 would
propose the following:
•
April-May – discussions of the scope and timetable for the review in the CoCG and HLWP.
•
June 2015 – agree the scope of the review and a detailed project plan and timetable, and
propose this to ECOFIN for agreement.
•
December 2015 – conclude the review and seek ECOFIN endorsement of these conclusions
by the end of the Luxembourg Presidency.
__________________
9620/15
AS/FC/df
25
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
Reform of the Code of Conduct Group: Austrian Paper
Future of the Code of Conduct Group
We very much support the intentions to intensify the work on EU level regarding necessary future
tax coordination and harmonisation issues. Of course this must be prepared by a (high level)
working group (Commission or Council group) before presenting the issue to ECOFIN.
Certainly the Code Group is one of various potential groups that can be mandated with this task.
However, the main task of the group at present - which is the standstill and rollback procedure -
must definitely not be impaired by this additional task. Nevertheless, we think that the current
standstill and rollback procedure has some weak spots which should be improved in order to make
the peer review more effective:
• In order to speed up procedure it would make sense that if the Commission considers an
agreed description as necessary it should be obligatory, irrespective of the opinion of the
concerned Member State (or other Member States). This should not weaken the decisive role
of Member States, since the assessment as harmful or not harmful shall of course remain
competence of the group exclusively. In the past, too often the decision whether the
assessment procedure should be initiated was based on insufficient knowledge of the
particular regime. Additionally, Commission is the only unbiased participant of the CoC
group.
• Already today the preparation of the meeting involves Commission, Secretariat of the
Council and vice chairs.
• Setting up a secretariat similar to the one in the OECD would not improve the procedure,
since Commission already performs this task at EU level. Having such a secretariat would
make procedures and decisions even more burdensome and lengthy.
• The ECOFIN should deal more with Code issues in order to push forward the peer review
procedure. In the past this has worked only unsatisfactory. This was partly caused by the
high requirements put on the Group by the procedural rules agreed in the December
ECOFIN 2008. In order to be able to report as “the Group” all Member States minus the one
concerned must share the opinion. Naturally this has mostly been very difficult to reach.
Thus, it would make sense that the common opinion of a certain amount of Member States
(“18”? number to be agreed) could be used in reports (to the ECOFIN) as “the great
majority”.
• The agenda of the last ECOFIN of the respective presidency is extremely full most of the
time which makes a discussion on the reports nearly impossible. A solution to this problem
could be to issue preliminary report (e.g. regarding urgent matters) to ECOFIN also during
the presidency.
• Involvement of ECOFIN on substance seems more important than involvement in procedure
(like appointment of the Chair).
_________________
9620/15
AS/FC/df
26
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
9620/15
AS/FC/df
27
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
9620/15
AS/FC/df
28
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
9620/15
AS/FC/df
29
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
CONSEIL DE
L'UNION EUROPÉENNE
Bruxelles, le 20 avril 2005
7910/05
LIMITE
FISC 40
NOTE DE TRANSMISSION
de :
Présidence
Objet:
Copie de lettre de la Présidence concernant une "Note de réflexion de la
Présidence luxembourgeoise sur la mise en place d’un comité fiscal"
Lettre de la Présidence aux délégations
Suite à la réunion informelle organisée par la Présidence néerlandaise en novembre 2004 à La Haye
et après discussions avec la Présidence sortante néerlandaise, la Présidence future anglaise, la
Commission et la Présidence du groupe code de conduite, la Présidence luxembourgeoise, sous sa
seule responsabilité, a élaboré une note de réflexion portant sur la mise en place d’un Comité fiscal.
Il a toujours été entendu que la Présidence luxembourgeoise ne soumettrait ce papier à une
discussion qu’à condition qu’il existe une disponibilité de tous les acteurs de s’engager
constructivement dans une telle discussion.
Il s’est toutefois avéré que la Commission a clairement fait savoir que la note de réflexion ci-
dessous ne constituerait pas une base de discussion considérant qu’une telle initiative ne serait ni
souhaitable ni nécessaire, l’organisation actuelle du dialogue et de la discussion en matière fiscale
étant à ses yeux pleinement satisfaisante.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
30
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
La Présidence luxembourgeoise respecte cette position de la Commission tout en la regrettant.
Partant, la Présidence luxembourgeoise renonce à soumettre la note de réflexion à une discussion
entre Etats membres et entre Etats membres et la Commission et se limite à la distribuer à toutes les
parties concernées.
Gaston Reinesch
Directeur général du
Ministère des Finances
9620/15
AS/FC/df
31
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
ANNEX
Note de réflexion de la Présidence luxembourgeoise sur la mise en place d’un comité fiscal
1) Introduction
Les discussions menées dans le passé et tout récemment à l’initiative de la Présidence néerlandaise
lors de la réunion informelle de haut niveau qui a eu lieu en novembre 2004 à La Haye ont montré
que la plupart des délégations considèrent qu’il y a un besoin de se parler régulièrement et à haut
niveau en matière fiscale.
Lors de ladite réunion, la délégation luxembourgeoise a indiqué être disposée à organiser dans les
enceintes du Conseil de l’Union européenne une réunion à ce sujet sous sa Présidence et à préparer,
ensemble avec les Services de la Commission, l’ancienne Présidence néerlandaise, la future
Présidence britannique et la Présidence du Groupe Code de Conduite, un document relatif à cette
problématique.
La présente note de réflexion se situe dans ce contexte et se base sur les orientations dégagées des
débats entre les trois Présidences successives du Conseil, les Services de la Commission et le
Secrétariat Général du Conseil de l’Union européenne.
Elle part de l’hypothèse qu’il serait dans l’intérêt aussi bien des Etats membres, pris
individuellement et dans leur ensemble, que de la Commission de mieux structurer le dialogue
fiscal à travers la mise en place d’un Groupe fiscal de haut niveau (ci-après « Comité fiscal »).
2) Rôle du Comité fiscal
Il est proposé de créer un Comité fiscal basé sur une structure mixte Commission/Conseil en vue de
discuter des problématiques fiscales et des orientations à prendre individuellement et collectivement
en matière de fiscalité directe et indirecte.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
32
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
Le Comité en question n’affecterait pas les droits et obligations des Etats membres ni les
compétences respectives des Etats membres et de la Communauté telles qu’elles découlent du traité.
En particulier, le droit d’initiative de la Commission demeurerait inchangé.
L’objectif est de disposer d’une enceinte au sein de laquelle les représentants personnels des
Ministres des Finances des Etats membres et la Commission auraient la possibilité de réfléchir et de
discuter d’une manière horizontale, le cas échéant dans une perspective de plus long terme, de tous
les sujets en relation avec la politique fiscale ; ceci à l’exclusion des travaux de préparation
directement en relation avec le Conseil, qui suivraient leur voie normale, y compris la possibilité
pour les Présidences successives de réunir, si elles le jugent utile, le Groupe de haut niveau ad hoc
du Conseil dont le mandat serait à revoir.
Les voies actuelles en ce qui concerne la discussion des propositions de directives ainsi que la
préparation des décisions juridiques à prendre par le Conseil seraient donc respectées et maintenues.
Parmi les sujets susceptibles d’être abordés dans le Comité fiscal, il y a lieu de relever à titre
illustratif le rôle de la politique fiscale dans le cadre de la stratégie de Lisbonne, la consolidation de
la compétitivité de l’Union européenne vis-à-vis des pays tiers sur le plan fiscal et les répercussions
de la jurisprudence de la Cour de Justice des Communautés européennes.
Par ailleurs ce groupe rendrait possible de créer des liens entre les personnes en charge de la
fiscalité dans les Etats membres, liens qui entre autres permettraient de mieux contribuer à la
compréhension par chacun de l’organisation et de l’orientation fiscale dans ces Etats membres.
Les travaux du Comité fiscal ne déboucheraient pas sur des résultats juridiquement contraignants.
En effet, la qualification des résultats de ces discussions serait variable en fonction du domaine sous
revue.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
33
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
Différents types de résultats seraient envisageables:
• ceux pour lesquels le suivi relève de la compétence des Etats membres,
• ceux pour lesquels le suivi relève de la Commission, sans préjudice du droit d’initiative de la
Commission,
• ceux pour lesquels un rapport pourrait ou devrait être adressé au Conseil. Dans ce cas, le
dossier serait transmis au Conseil sans préjudice des dispositions institutionnelles.
Le Comité reposerait sur un double pilier constitué par une Présidence assurée par un membre du
Comité relevant d’un Etat membre et un Secrétariat assuré soit par la Commission soit par le
Secrétariat général du Conseil, étant entendu que dans l’un ou l’autre cas la Commission et le
Secrétariat général du Conseil assumeront cette tâche en étroite collaboration. La Commission serait
également membre du Comité fiscal.
Le Comité fiscal pourrait se doter de sous-groupes pour examiner des questions déterminées.
Il est proposé d’intégrer le Groupe Code de Conduite (fiscalité des entreprises) dans le Comité
fiscal. Un sous-groupe pourrait être chargé des travaux en relation avec le gel et le démantèlement.
3) Statuts du Comité fiscal
Le Comité fiscal pourrait se doter d’un règlement intérieur sujet à révision.
Une importance politique serait à accorder aux travaux du Comité fiscal. Cela devrait se traduire par
la désignation par chaque Etat membre d'un représentant personnel de haut niveau et d'un suppléant,
la Commission étant représentée par le Commissaire en charge de la fiscalité et de deux suppléants.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
34
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
Le Président du Comité fiscal serait désigné parmi les représentants des Etats membres. Il exercerait
son mandat pendant une durée de deux ans à compter de la date de sa désignation. Le mandat ne
serait pas renouvelable. Le Président serait désigné de préférence d'un commun accord. Au besoin,
le Président serait élu à la majorité des représentants de haut niveau du Comité. Le Commissaire en
charge de la fiscalité participerait à l’élection du Président.
L’Etat membre dont le représentant serait désigné comme Président disposerait, pendant la durée du
mandat de ce dernier, de deux représentants au sein du Comité.
Le premier vice-président serait désigné parmi les représentants des Etats membres par la
délégation assumant la présidence du Conseil, pendant la durée de son mandat, et un deuxième
vice-président serait désigné par la délégation qui assumerait la prochaine présidence du Conseil,
pendant une période de six mois précédant le début de son mandat.
Si l'Etat membre du Président exerce la présidence du Conseil ou s'apprête à le faire, il ne pourrait
désigner un vice-président pendant la durée du mandat du Président et le Comité ne disposerait de
ce fait que d'un seul vice-président pendant cette période.
Le Comité serait assisté d’un secrétariat placé sous la direction d’un secrétaire. Le secrétaire et le
personnel nécessaire pour le secrétariat seraient mis à disposition soit par la Commission soit par le
Secrétariat général du Conseil. Dans le premier cas, le secrétaire serait nommé par la Commission
après consultation du Comité et le secrétariat du Comité œuvrerait en étroite collaboration avec le
Secrétariat général du Conseil de l’Union européenne, dont un représentant pourrait également
assister aux réunions du Comité.
9620/15
AS/FC/df
35
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
Le Comité fiscal se réunirait au moins une fois par semestre, sans préjudice du nombre des réunions
qu’il devrait assurer sous le mandat “Code de Conduite”. Les réunions du Comité seraient
convoquées par le Président du groupe sur sa propre initiative ou à la demande d'au moins un tiers
des membres du Comité.
Les travaux du Comité fiscal seraient confidentiels conformément aux règles en vigueur.
Les rapports du Comité fiscal refléteraient soit l'avis unanime de ses membres, soit les différents
avis exprimés au cours de la discussion.
4) Mise en place du Comité fiscal
La mise en place du Comité fiscal se ferait sur la base de conclusions politiques communes des
représentants des gouvernements des Etats membres réunis au sein du Conseil et de la Commission.
Simultanément, il y aurait lieu d’actualiser le mandat du Groupe ad hoc à haut niveau au sein du
Conseil.
___________________
9620/15
AS/FC/df
36
ANNEX 2
DG G 2B
LIMITE
EN
Document Outline