This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Code of Conduct Group on business taxation - minutes or equivalent documents'.


document 14
Ref. Ares(2015)5249172 - 20/11/2015
Code of Conduct Group meeting – 28 March 2006 
 
Minutes of the meeting 
1. Appointment of the Vice Chair 
 
Austria (
) and Finland (
) were welcomed.  
2. Work Programme for the AT Presidency 
NL requested when the Code report presented to the December 2005 Ecofin will be 
discussed again since it was not approved, more specifically the case of HU interest. 
The Chair stated that this shall be dealt with under the future of the Code (under 
procedures) before the end of the AT presidency.  
 
 
3. Rollback and Standstill: Notifications of Member States:  
 
MS were also invited to report in writing in case there was nothing to report.   
 
4. Implementation of rollback 
 
Malta ML 4 and ML 5 
 
MT presented their case. COM focussed on the two points of dispute: Amount of the 
refund and clarification of the anti-abuse measures. MT did not say anything on the 
State aid developments. The Chair and DE supported the COM view that more 
information was needed. PT also supported the COM view and mentioned the 
difference between resident and non-resident shareholding situations. Furthermore PT 
protested against the allowance of new entrants under ML4 and ML5 until the end of 
2007. BE supported the COM but mentioned that there will always be a different 
outcome for resident and non-resident shareholders. The Chair concluded that MT 
should provide information as requested by COM and asked the COM to provide a 
note (apart from the description) stating why ML4 and ML5 were considered harmful, 
compare it to the new measure + table and provide for a paragraph what more is 
needed (from the COM position). COM and MT and Chair should achieve agreement 
on the clarifications and the treatment of shareholders. 
 
5. Future of the Code of Conduct: discussion 
 
Summary of the MS contributions (+ statements from the Code meetings of 23 
November 2005 and 28 March 2006): additions from the last meeting in italics
 
•  The Chair: Their paper is more or less procedural and aims at identifying 
areas for further consideration under the Austrian Presidency. From an 
informal meeting with the Chair we know that they do not seem to see a very 
ambitious Code before them. Just maintaining the present work and 
downgrading the standstill work to subgroups of the Code before presenting it 
to the main Group. 
 

•  AT proposes to discuss the procedural rules in case there is a split decision in 
the Group on a specific regime. A minority should not be able to impede the 
assessment of a regime (it is clear that the HU-interest regime is meant). 
Furthermore, AT proposes to draft guidelines for regimes for passive income. 
AT would not favour a legal instrument since 1 MS could block everything by 
which the effectiveness of the Code is undermined. AT is in favour of including 
new elements to the work of the Code Group.
 
•  BE questions some of the results and the extension of criteria 1b and 2b. 
Furthermore, sees no real chance for a further mandate for the Group and 
would like to see that fiscal State aid rules would be applied to combat 
harmful tax competition. 
•  DE proposes to include other forms of (business taxation) as well, including 
expat taxation and shareholder taxation. Furthermore, on procedure, DE would 
like to see the majority view of the MS in the reports to Ecofin and the 
divergent opinions in footnotes. DE suggests that COM prepares a draft for a 
new council conclusion (mandate) in which all new work will be dealt with. 
DE would be in favour or drafting a legal proposal for the Code of Conduct 
and supports more in general everything the COM has proposed in their 
contribution. 
 
•  EE is positive on the Code results and proposes to continue. 
•  ES: On procedure: ES wants clarification on how to handle minority views in 
conclusions of the Group and proposes to keep minutes of the meeting. On 
attendance: ES proposes high-level when we discuss a report to Ecofin and 
lower level on technical meetings. Furthermore, amending of the organisation 
(Chair, secretariat) to operate more efficiently. On content: ES wishes to pick 
up: review of the exchange of information on APA's, transfer pricing as a 
separate subject, relation between State aid and Code of Conduct, the value of 
precedents and equal treatment of MS, revision of the Code criteria and 
geographical extension of the Code. Code process should continue. A legal 
instrument would be welcomed, however this might jeopardize the whole 
process with no future for the Code at all.
 
•  SK is positive on the Code results and proposes to continue if sufficient work 
is on the table. 
•  NL sees no future (in time or scope) for extension of the mandate for the Code 
Group. Remaining work should be done in a technical Commission group. 
Fiscal State aid should take a leading role in combating harmful tax 
competition. EU should focus on developing EU minimum standards 
(harmonization).  NL points to the shortcomings of the Code process (as 
mentioned in the COM document) and does not support the political tool that 
we have used sofar. The NL would like to openly discuss a strategy which 
should be more comprehensive including cross-border loss relief, R&D 
incentives, exit taxation and minimum standards (rates) for mobile capital in 
the EU. NL sees no room for broadening the scope of the Code since there is 
no level playing field, either within EU or, more importantly, outside EU.
 
•  CY supports the Code work and also for the future and stresses the need for 
the 'highest technocratic level' regarding attendance. 
•  PT wants to continue with monitoring of standstill and rollback. Furthermore, 
suggests to clarify the decision process of the Group (unanimity, majority) and 
the use of precedent decisions. On the content: investigation of expatregimes, 
geographical extension of the Code, relation with State aid and measures that 
lead to double non-taxation (hybrids?).  
 
2

•  LT suggests to use criterion 1 and 2 only in respect of the 'de jure' approach 
and not use de 'de facto' approach anymore. 
•  CZ  suggests to clarify the Group decision procedure (fix quorum) and to 
clarify the use of precedents (former decisions against future decisions). 
•  IT  is not satisfied with the rollback achieved and diverging deadlines. Zero 
rates should have been discussed. A high level group is no longer required 
(only in case of general issues). IT support DE on the expats. 
•  EL  supports the work and wants to continue. Equal treatment should be 
respected. 
•  SE, FR and DK strongly support the COM document. 
•  FR  would like to focus on new elements like exit taxation, promotion of the 
Code to targeted third countries and rules of procedure. FR would not see any 
role for the Code group to discuss  transfer pricing issues. FR is however open 
to discuss anti-abuse measures and ECJ.
 
•  FI want the present work to continue on a technical level but when new 
elements will be discussed a high level should be present. They don't feel the 
need to change the criteria. Code is fine and if an extension would be too 
difficult to agree it would not be a problem for FI.
 
•  SI supports looking for new types of tax schemes and proposes to also support 
the Lisbon strategy (R&D?). Rules and procedures should be reviewed 
•  IE  does not want to change the remit, no personal taxation and no transfer 
pricing issues. 
•  HU wants to discuss 'de facto', equal treatment and vast majority. 
•  Chair concluded that they would provide a new working document with some 
options for the future (either under the current remit or a new and improved 
remit). 
•  PL supports the work done so far and supports the NL idea of having 
minimum standards. 
•  LU, LT and LV do not see any extension for the remit. 
 
 
For the next meeting on 27 April 2006  
 
•  The procedures of the Code Group. 
•  The future pattern of work of the Group. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
- o -  
 
3