Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2013)71 - Implementation of enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax

Please note

This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.

dossier COM(2013)71 - Implementation of enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax.
source COM(2013)71 EN
date 14-02-2013
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL

4.

1.1. Background and history


The recent global economic and financial crisis had a serious impact on our economies and the public finances. The financial sector has played a major role in causing the economic crisis whilst governments and European citizens at large have borne the cost. There is a strong consensus within Europe and internationally that the financial sector should contribute more fairly given the costs of dealing with the crisis and the current under-taxation of the sector. Several EU Member States have already taken divergent action in the area of financial sector taxation.

Therefore, on 28 September 2011 the Commission tabled a proposal for a Council Directive on a common system of financial transaction tax (FTT) and amending Directive 2008/7/EC. The legal basis for the proposed Council Directive was Article 113 TFEU, as the proposed provisions aim at the harmonisation of legislation concerning the taxation of financial transactions to the extent necessary to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market for transactions in financial instruments and to avoid distortion of competition. This legal basis prescribes Council unanimity in accordance with a special legislative procedure, after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee.

The main objectives of this proposal were:

– harmonising legislation concerning indirect taxation on financial transactions, which is needed to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market for transactions in financial instruments and to avoid distortion of competition between financial instruments, actors and market places across the European Union, and at the same time

– ensuring that financial institutions make a fair and substantial contribution to covering the costs of the recent crisis and creating a level playing field with other sectors from a taxation point of view i, and

– creating appropriate disincentives for transactions that do not enhance the efficiency of financial markets thereby complementing regulatory measures to avoid future crises.

Given the extremely high mobility of most of the transactions to be potentially taxed, it was and still is important to avoid distortions caused by tax rules conceived by Member States acting unilaterally. Indeed, a fragmentation of financial markets across activities and across borders, and among products and actors can only be avoided and equal treatment of financial institutions in the EU and thus ultimately, the proper functioning of the internal market, can only be ensured through action at EU level. The development of a common system of financial transaction tax in the EU reduces the risk of distortion of markets through a taxation-induced geographical delocalisation of activities. Furthermore, such common system can also ensure tax neutrality through harmonisation with a broad scope, notably to also cover very mobile products such as derivatives, mobile actors and market places, thus also contributing to less double-taxation or double-non-taxation.

The proposal therefore provided for harmonisation of Member States’ taxes on financial transactions to ensure the smooth functioning of the single market and thus set out the essential features of a common system for a broad based FTT in the EU.

Since around the time of the initial Commission proposal the case for harmonisation has been further illustrated by developments in practice: France has introduced a national tax on certain financial transactions since 1 August 2012 and Spain, Italy and Portugal have recently made announcements of introducing such national taxes as well – all with different scope, rates and technical design features.

The European Parliament delivered its favourable opinion on 23 May 2012 and the Economic and Social Committee on 29 March 2012 on the Commission’s initial proposal. Also the Committee of Regions adopted a favourable opinion on 15 February 2012.

The proposal and variants thereof were extensively discussed in the meetings of the Council which started under the Polish Presidency and continued at an accelerated pace under the Danish Presidency, but failed to get the required unanimous support because of fundamental and un-bridgeable differences amongst Member States.

At the Council meetings of 22 June and 10 July 2012, it was ascertained that essential differences in opinion persist as regards the need to establish a common system of FTT at EU level and that the principle of harmonised tax on financial transactions will not receive unanimous support within the Council in the foreseeable future.

It follows from the above that the objectives of a common system of FTT, as discussed in the Council upon the Commission's initial proposal, cannot be attained within a reasonable period by the Union as a whole.

On the basis of the request of eleven Member States (Belgium, Germany, Estonia, Greece, Spain, France, Italy, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia and Slovakia) the Commission submitted a proposal[7] to the Council for authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax.

All Member States specified in their requests that the scope and objectives of the Commission's legislative proposal implementing enhanced cooperation should be based on the Commission's initial FTT proposal. Furthermore, they specified that evasive actions, distortions and transfers to other jurisdictions are to be avoided.

The present proposal for a Directive concerns the implementation of the enhanced cooperation in the area of FTT, in accordance with the authorisation of the Council of 22 January 2013, issued following the European Parliament's consent given on 12 December 2012.

In the light of this new context of enhanced cooperation, the 2011 Commission proposal mentioned above becomes without object and the Commission therefore intends to withdraw it.

The Commission Proposal for a Council Decision on the system of own resources of the European Union of 29 June 2011[8], as amended on 9 November 2011[9], set out that part of receipts generated by the FTT shall constitute an own resource for the EU budget. This would imply that the GNI-based resource drawn from the participating Member States would be reduced accordingly.

5.

1.2. Objectives of the proposal


The general objectives of this proposal are those of the Commission's original proposal of 2011. The recent and ongoing global economic and financial crisis had a serious impact on the economies and public finances in the EU. The financial sector has played a major role in causing the economic crisis whilst governments and European citizens at large have born the costs. Even though it is made of a wide variety of market actors, the financial sector at large has experienced high profitability over the last two decades which could be partially the result of an (implicit or explicit) safety net provided by governments, combined with financial sector regulation and VAT exemption.

Under these circumstances, some Member States started to implement additional forms of financial sector taxation, whilst other Member States already had in place specific tax regimes for financial transactions. The current situation leads to the following undesirable effects:

– a fragmentation of the tax treatment in the internal market for financial services - bearing in mind the increasing number of uncoordinated national tax measures being put in place- with the consequent possibilities of distortions of competition between financial instruments, actors and market places across the European Union and double taxation or double non-taxation;

– the financial institutions do not make a fair and substantial contribution to covering the cost of the recent crisis and a level playing field with other sectors from a taxation point of view is not ensured;

– taxation policy neither contributes to providing disincentives for transactions which do not enhance the efficiency of financial markets but which might only divert rents from the non-financial sector of the economy to financial institutions and, thus, trigger over-investment in activities that are not welfare enhancing, nor does it contribute alongside ongoing regulatory and supervisory measures to avoid future crises in the financial services sector.

The implementation of a common system of financial transaction tax amongst a sufficient number of Member States would entail immediate tangible advantages on all three points listed above, in regard to financial transactions covered by enhanced cooperation. In connection with these points, the position of the participating Member States in terms of relocation risks, tax revenues and efficiency of the financial market and avoidance of double taxation or non-taxation would be improved.

The decision authorising enhanced cooperation found that all the requirements of the Treaties in regard to such cooperation are fulfilled, and in particular that the competences, rights and obligations of non-participating Member States are respected. The present proposal sets out the necessary substance for the cooperation thus authorised, in line with the Treaty provisions.

6.

1.3. General approach and relationship with the Commission's initial proposal


This proposal is based on the Commission's original proposal of 2011 in that it respects all the essential principles thereof. However, some adaptations were made:

– to take account of the new context of enhanced cooperation; this means in particular that the FTT jurisdiction is limited to participating Member States, that transactions carried out within a participating Member State which would have been taxed under the original proposal remain taxable, and that it is ensured that Council Directive 2008/7/EC of 12 February 2008 concerning indirect taxes on the raising of capital[10], whose modification had been proposed in the initial proposal, remains unaffected;

– to some of the proposed provisions for the sake of clarity and

– to further strengthen anti-avoidance of taxation; this is achieved through rules whereby taxation follows the 'issuance principle' as a last resort, which compounds the 'principle of establishment', which is maintained as the main principle. This addition reflects notably the requests of the interested Member States which referred to the need to avoid evasive actions, distortions and transfers to other jurisdictions. Indeed, by complementing the residence principle with elements of the issuance principle, it will be less advantageous to relocate activities and establishments outside the FTT jurisdictions, since trading in the financial instruments subject to taxation under the latter principle and issued in the FTT jurisdictions will be taxable anyway.

Contents

1.

RESULTS OF CONSULTATIONS WITH THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS



7.

2.1. External consultation and expertise


The original proposal has been formulated against the background of a wide range of external contributions. These contributions took the form of feedback received in the course of a public consultation on financial sector taxation, targeted consultations with the Member States, experts and the financial sector stakeholders, as well as three different external studies commissioned for the purpose of the impact assessment accompanying the original proposal. The results of the consultation process and the external input are reflected in this impact assessment.

The present proposal does not differ markedly from the Commission's September 2011 proposal and retains the same solutions of principle for a common system of FTT under enhanced cooperation (e.g. as regards the scope of the tax, the establishment of a financial institution involved in a transaction as the connecting factor, the taxable amount and rates and the person liable to pay the tax to the tax authorities) and thus no new specific consultations were initiated by the Commission.

However, the Commission also benefited from the consultation of all interested parties over the last year, such as Member States, the European and national parliaments, representatives of the financial industry from within and from outside the European Union, the academic world, non-governmental organisations, and the results of ad hoc external studies that had been published in the aftermath of the tabling of the Commission's initial proposal on a common system of FTT for the entire European Union.

Commission representatives participated in numerous public events across and outside Europe on the establishment of a common system of financial transaction tax. Also, the Commission actively participated in a dialogue with those national parliaments and their relevant committees that so wished discussing the original Commission proposal.

8.

2.2. Impact assessment


The Commission services carried out an impact assessment which accompanies its original proposal adopted on 28 September 2011. Further additional technical analysis of this proposal has been presented on the Commission's website[11]. As requested by the Member States that have sought the authorisation for enhanced cooperation, the scope and objectives of this proposal are based on the Commission’s initial proposal. Therefore, the fundamental building blocks of the latter proposal are not changed, so that a new impact assessment covering the same subject area has not been considered appropriate.

However, Member States had weighed different alternative policy options within the framework of the initial Commission proposal. Also, this new proposal is intended to implement enhanced cooperation, as opposed to the initial proposal for a directive to be applied by all Member States, and Member States have specifically shown interest in learning more on the specific mechanisms that might be at work in this context and their main effects. Therefore, the Commission services have undertaken an additional analysis of these policy options and impacts that complements and reviews, where appropriate, the findings of the impact assessment accompanying the initial proposal of 2011.

2.

LEGAL ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL



9.

3.1. Legal basis


Council Decision 2013/52/EU of 22 January 2013 authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of financial transaction tax[12] authorised the Member States listed in its Article 1 to establish enhanced cooperation in the area of FTT.

The pertinent legal basis for the proposed Directive is Article 113 TFEU. The proposal aims at harmonising legislation concerning indirect taxation on financial transactions, which is needed to ensure the proper functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition. Non-participating States’financial institutions will benefit from the enhanced cooperation, as they will be confronted with only one common system of FTT applicable in the participating Member States instead of a multitude of systems.

10.

3.2. Subsidiarity and proportionality


The harmonisation of legislation concerning the taxation of financial transactions necessary for the proper functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortions of competition, be it only among the participating Member States, can only be achieved through a Union act, i.e. by way of a uniform definition of the essential features of an FTT. The common rules are necessary to avoid undue relocations of transactions and market participants and substitution of financial instruments.

By the same token, a uniform definition could play a crucial role in reducing the existing fragmentation of the internal market, including for the different products of the financial sector that often serve as close substitutes. Non harmonisation of FTT leads to tax arbitrage and potential double or non-taxation. This not only prevents financial transactions to be carried out on a level playing field, but also affects revenues of Member States. Furthermore, it imposes extra compliance costs on the financial sector arising from too different tax regimes. These findings remain valid in a context of enhanced cooperation, even though such cooperation implies a more reduced geographical reach than a similar scheme adopted at the level of all 27 Member States.

The present proposal thus concentrates on setting a common structure of the tax and common provisions on chargeability. The proposal thus leaves a sufficient margin of manoeuvre for the participating Member States when it comes to the actual setting of the tax rates above the minimum. On the other hand, it is proposed to confer delegated powers to the Commission as regards the specification of registration, accounting, reporting and other obligations intended to ensure that FTT due to the tax authorities is effectively paid to them As regards uniform methods of collection of the FTT due, implementing powers conferred to the Commission are proposed.

A common framework for an FTT therefore respects the subsidiarity and proportionality principle as set in Article 5 TEU. The objective of this proposal cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore, by reason of ensuring the proper functioning of the internal market, be better achieved at Union level, if necessary through enhanced cooperation.

The harmonisation proposed, in the form of a Directive rather than a Regulation, does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve the objectives pursued, first and foremost for the proper functioning of the internal market. It thus complies with the principle of proportionality.

11.

3.3. Detailed explanation of the proposal


12.

3.3.1. Chapter I (Subject matter and definitions)


This chapter defines the subject matter of this proposed Directive containing the proposal for implementation of the enhanced cooperation in the area of FTT. Furthermore, this chapter provides for definitions of the main terms used in this proposal.

13.

3.3.2. Chapter II (Scope of the common system of FTT)


This chapter defines the essential framework of the proposed common system of FTT under enhanced cooperation. This FTT aims at taxing gross transactions before any netting off.

The scope of the tax is wide, because it aims at covering transactions relating to all types of financial instruments as they are often close substitutes for each other. Thus, the scope covers instruments which are negotiable on the capital market, money-market instruments (with the exception of instruments of payment), units or shares in collective investment undertakings - which include undertakings for collective investment in transferable securities (UCITS) and alternative investment funds (AIF)[13] and derivatives contracts. Furthermore, the scope of the tax is not limited to trade in organised markets, such as regulated markets, multilateral trading facilities or systematic internalisers, but also covers other types of trades including over-the-counter trade. It is also not limited to the transfer of ownership but rather represents the obligation entered into, mirroring whether or not the party concerned assumes the risk implied by a given financial instrument ("purchase and sale").

Furthermore, where financial instruments whose purchase and sale is taxable form the object of a transfer between separate entities of a group, this transfer shall be taxable even though it might not be a purchase or sale.

Exchanges of financial instruments and repurchase and reverse repurchase and securities lending and borrowing agreements are explicitly included into the scope of the tax. For reasons of avoiding tax circumvention exchanges of financial instruments are considered to give rise to two financial transactions. On the other hand, by way of repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements and securities lending and borrowing agreements, a financial instrument is put at the disposal of a given person for a defined period of time. All such agreements should therefore be considered as giving rise to one financial transaction only.

Additionally, in order to prevent tax avoidance, each material modification of a taxable financial transaction should be considered a new taxable financial transaction of the same type as the original transaction. It is proposed to add a non-limitative list of what can be considered a material modification.

Also, where a derivatives contract results in a supply of financial instruments, in addition to the taxable derivatives contract, the supply of these financial instruments is also subject to tax, provided that all other conditions for taxation are fulfilled.

For the financial instruments which may form the object of a taxable financial transaction, the relevant regulatory framework at EU level provides a clear, comprehensive and accepted set of definitions[14]. It emerges from the definitions used that spot currency transactions are not taxable financial transactions, while currency derivative contracts are. Derivative contracts relating to commodities are also covered, while physical commodity transactions are not.

Structured products, meaning tradable securities or other financial instruments offered by way of a securitisation can also form the object of taxable financial transactions. Such products are comparable to any other financial instrument and thus need to be covered by the term financial instrument as used in this proposal. Excluding them from the scope of FTT would open avoidance opportunities. This category of products notably includes certain notes, warrants and certificates as well as banking securitisations which usually transfer a large part of the credit risk associated with assets such as mortgages or loans into the market, as well as insurance securitisations, which involve the transfers of other types of risk, for example the underwriting risk.

However, the scope of the tax is focused on financial transactions carried out by financial institutions acting as party to a financial transaction, either for their own account or for the account of other persons, or acting in the name of a party to the transaction. This approach ensures that FTT is comprehensively applied. In practical terms the presence of financial transactions is usually evident via respective entries in the books. The imposition of FTT should not negatively affect the refinancing possibilities of financial institutions and States, nor monetary policies in general or public debt management. Therefore, transactions with the European Central Bank, the European Financial Stability Facility, the European Stability Mechanism, the European Union where it exercises the function of management of its assets, of balance of payment loans and of similar activities, and the central banks of Member States should be excluded from the scope of the Directive.

The provisions of Council Directive 2008/7/EC continue to be fully applicable. Article 5 (1)(e) and i of that Directive is relevant to the area covered by the present Directive and prohibits the imposition of any tax whatsoever on the transactions referred to in its terms, subject to Article 6(1)(a) of the same Directive. To the extent Directive 2008/7/EC thus prohibits or could prohibit the imposition of taxes on certain transactions, in particular financial transactions as part of restructuring operations or of the issue of securities as defined in this Directive, they should not be subject to FTT. The aim is to avoid any possible conflict with Directive 2008/7/EC, without it being necessary to ascertain the precise limits of the obligations imposed by that Directive. Moreover, independently from the extent to which Directive 2008/7/EC prohibits taxation of the issuance of shares and units of collective investment undertakings considerations of tax neutrality require the single treatment of issuances by all these undertakings. The redemption of shares and units thus issued are however not in the nature of a primary market transaction and should thus be taxable.

Further to the exclusion of primary markets explained above most day-to-day financial activities relevant for citizens and businesses remain outside the scope of the FTT. This is the case for the conclusion of insurance contracts, mortgage lending, consumer credits, enterprise loans, payment services etc. (though the subsequent trading of these via structured products is included). Also, currency transactions on spot markets are outside the scope of the FTT, which preserves the free movement of capital. However, derivatives contracts based on currency transactions are covered by the FTT since they are not as such currency transactions.

The definition of financial institutions is broad and essentially includes investment firms, organised markets, credit institutions, insurance and reinsurance undertakings, collective investment undertakings and their managers, pension funds and their managers, holding companies, financial leasing companies, special purpose entities, and where possible refers to the definitions provided by the relevant EU legislation adopted for regulatory purposes. Additionally, other undertakings, institutions, bodies or persons carrying out certain financial activities with a significant annual average value of financial transactions should be considered as financial institutions. The present proposal sets the threshold at 50% of its overall average net annual turnover of the entity concerned.

The proposed Directive provides for further technical details of the calculation of the value of the financial transactions and the average of values referred to in respect of entities that may be regarded as financial institutions only on account of the value of the financial transactions they carry out, and makes provision for situations where such entities no longer qualify as financial institutions..

Central Counterparties (CCPs), Central Securities Depositories (CSDs), International Central Securities Depositories (ICSDs) and Member States and public bodies entrusted with the function of managing public debt, when exercising that function are not considered financial institutions to the extent they are not engaged in trading activity in itself. They are also key for a more efficient and more transparent functioning of financial markets and for a proper management of public debt. However, because of their central role certain obligations relating to ensuring the payment of the tax to the tax authorities and to the verification of the payment should continue to apply.

The territorial application of the proposed FTT and the participating Member States’ taxing rights are defined on the basis of the rules laid down in Article 4. This provision refers to the notion of “establishment”. In essence, it is based on the 'residence principle' supplemented by elements of the issuance principle with a view mainly to strengthen anti-relocation (details regarding this latter aspect are set out further below).

In order for a financial transaction to be taxable in the participating Member States, one of the parties to the transaction needs to be established in the territory of a participating Member State according to the criteria of Article 4. Taxation will take place in the participating Member State in the territory of which the establishment of a financial institution is located, on condition that this institution is party to the transaction, acting either for its own account or for the account of another person, or is acting in the name of a party to the transaction.

In case the different financial institutions, as parties to the transaction or acting in the name of such parties, are established in the territory of different participating Member States, according to the criteria of Article 4, each of these different Member States will be competent to subject the transaction to tax at the rates it has set in accordance with this proposal. Where the establishments concerned are located in the territory of a State which is not a participating Member State the transaction is not subject to FTT in a participating Member State, unless one of the parties to the transaction is established in a participating Member State in which case the financial institution that is not established in a participating Member State will also be deemed to be established in that participating Member State and the transaction becomes taxable there.

One particular change due to the new context of enhanced cooperation concerns what was Article 3(1)(a) of the initial proposal. Within that proposal, the reference to a financial institution “authorised” by a Member State covered headquarter authorisations and authorisations provided by the Member State concerned in regard to transactions operated by third-country financial institutions without a physical presence in the territory of that Member State. In the former configuration, transactions may be covered, according to the case, by a “passport” foreseen in EU legislation. The only “authorisation” is then the one granted to the headquarters of the financial institution. In a context of enhanced cooperation, a new configuration may raise, namely of institutions with headquarters in a non-participating Member State that operate on the basis of a “passport” in the FTT jurisdiction (cf. e.g. Article 31 of Directive 2004/39/EC). The latter situation should be assimilated to the situation of third country institutions operating on the basis of a specific authorisation provided by the Member State concerned by the transaction.

The residence principle is supplemented also by elements of the 'issuance principle' as a last resort, in order to improve the resilience of the system against relocation. Indeed, by complementing the residence principle with the issuance principle, it will be less advantageous to relocate activities and establishments outside the FTT jurisdictions, since trading in the financial instruments subject to taxation under the latter principle and issued in the FTT jurisdictions will be taxable anyway. This applies where none of the parties to the transaction would have been “established” in a participating Member State, on the basis of the criteria set out in the Commission’s initial proposal but where such parties are trading in financial instruments issued in that Member State. This concerns essentially shares, bonds and equivalent securities, money-market instruments, structured products, units and shares in collective investment undertakings and derivatives traded on organised trade venues or platforms. In the context of the issuance principle, which also underlies certain existing national financial sector taxes, the transaction is linked to the participating Member State in which the issuer is located. The persons involved in such transaction will be deemed to be established in that Member State because of this link, and the financial institution(s) concerned will have to pay FTT in that State.

All the above mentioned criteria are subject to a general rule, regarding the case where the person liable to pay the tax proves that there is no link between the economic substance of the transaction and the territory of any participating Member State. In that case, the financial institution or other person shall not be considered established within a participating Member State.

All in all, through the connecting factors chosen in combination with the above mentioned general rule, it is ensured that taxation can only take place in the presence of a sufficient link between the transaction and the territory of the FTT jurisdiction. As in existing EU legislation in the area of indirect taxes, territoriality principles are fully respected.

14.

3.3.3. Chapter III (chargeability, taxable amount and rates)


The moment of chargeability is defined as the moment when the financial transaction occurs. Subsequent cancellation cannot be considered as a reason to exclude chargeability of the tax, except in cases of errors.

As transactions in derivatives and in financial instruments other than derivatives have a different nature and characteristics, they have to be associated to different taxable amounts.

For the purchase and sale of financial instruments (other than derivatives), usually a price or any other form of consideration will be determined. Logically, this is to be defined as the taxable amount. However, to avoid market distortions special rules are necessary where the consideration is lower than the market price or for transactions taking place between entities of a group and which are not covered by the notions of 'purchase' and 'sale'. In these cases the taxable amount is to be the market price determined at arm's length at the time FTT becomes chargeable. Such transactions between entities of a group are likely to involve transfers without consideration, while transfers for consideration correspond to the notions of 'purchase' and 'sale'.

For the purchase/sale, transfer, exchange, conclusion of derivative contracts, and material modifications thereof, the taxable amount of the FTT shall be the notional amount referred to in the derivatives contract at the time it is purchased/sold, transferred, exchanged, concluded or when the operation concerned is materially modified. This approach would allow for a straightforward and easy application of FTT on derivative contracts while ensuring low compliance and administrative costs. Also, this approach makes it more difficult to artificially reduce the tax burden through creative contract design for the derivative contract as there would be no tax incentive for example to enter into a contract on differences in prices or values only. Furthermore it implies the taxation at the moment of the purchase/sale, transfer, exchange, conclusion of the contract or material modification of the operation concerned, as compared to taxing cash-flows at different moments in time during the life cycle of the contract. The rate to be used in this case will need to be rather low in order to define an adequate tax burden.

Special provisions might be necessary in the participating Member States in order to prevent fraud and evasion and a general anti-abuse rule is proposed (see also section 3.3.4). This rule could for example be applied in cases where the notional amount is artificially divided: the notional amount of a swap could for instance be divided by an arbitrarily large factor and all payments could be multiplied by the same factor. This would leave the cash flows of the instrument unchanged but arbitrarily shrink the size of the tax base.

Special provisions are necessary to determine the taxable amount in respect of transactions where the taxable amount or parts thereof are expressed in another currency than that of the participating Member State of assessment.

Transactions in derivatives and transactions in other financial instruments are different in nature. Moreover, markets are likely to react differently to a financial transaction tax applied to each of these two categories. For these reasons, and in order to ensure a broadly even taxation, the rates should be differentiated as between the two categories.

The rates should also take into account differences in the applicable methods for the determination of the taxable amounts.

Generally speaking, the minimum tax rates (above which there is room of manoeuvre for national policies) are proposed to be set at a level sufficiently high for the harmonisation objective of this Directive to be achieved. At the same time, the proposed rates are situated low enough so that delocalisation risks are minimised.

15.

3.3.4. Chapter IV (Payment of FTT, related obligations and prevention of evasion, avoidance and abuse)


This proposal defines the scope of FTT by reference to financial transactions to which a financial institution established in the territory of the participating Member State concerned is party (acting either for its own account or for the account of another person) or transactions where the institution acts in the name of a party. In fact, financial institutions execute the bulk of transactions on financial markets, and the FTT should concentrate on the financial sector as such rather than on citizens. Therefore, these institutions should be liable to pay the tax to the tax authorities of the participating Member States in the territories of which these financial institutions are deemed to be established. However, in order to avoid a certain cascade of the tax, when a financial institution acts in the name or for the account of another financial institution, only that other financial institution should pay the tax.

It is also proposed to ensure as far as possible that FTT is effectively paid. According to the terms of this proposal, therefore, in case the FTT due on account of a transaction has not been timely paid each party to that transaction should be held jointly and severally liable for the payment of the tax. Moreover, participating Member States should have the possibility to hold other persons jointly and severally liable for payment of the tax, including in cases where a party to a transaction has its headquarters located outside the territory of the participating Member States.

This proposal also provides for time limits for the payment of FTT to the accounts determined by the participating Member States. Most financial transactions are carried out by electronic means. In these cases, FTT should be paid immediately at the moment of chargeability. In other cases, the tax should be paid within a period which, while being sufficiently long so as to allow for the manual processing of the payment, avoids that unjustifiable cash-flow advantages accrue to the financial institution concerned. A period of three working days from the moment of chargeability can be considered appropriate in this sense.

The participating Member States should be obliged to take appropriate measures for registration, accounting, reporting and other obligations for the FTT to be levied accurately and timely and effectively paid to the tax authorities. In this regard, it is proposed to empower the Commission to provide for further details. This is necessary in order to ensure harmonised measures reducing compliance costs for operators and to enable speedy technical adaptations whenever they are necessary. In this context, the participating Member States should take advantage of existing and forthcoming EU legislation on financial markets that includes reporting and data maintenance obligations with respect to financial transactions.

The proposed Directive would also oblige Member States to take measures in order to prevent fraud and evasion.

Furthermore, in order to address the risk of abuse which could undermine the proper operation of the common system, it is proposed to set out a number of details in the directive. Thus, the proposal contains a general anti-abuse rule, based on the similar clause included in the Commission Recommendation of 6 December 2012 on aggressive tax planning[15], as well as a provision based on the same principles but addressing the particular problems linked to depositary receipts and similar securities.

In order to avoid complications in the collection of the tax through differing collection methods, and ensuing unnecessary compliance costs, the methods applied by the participating Member States for the collection of the FTT due should be uniform, to the extent necessary for those purposes. Such uniform methods would also contribute to equal treatment of all taxpayers. Therefore, the proposed Directive provides for an empowerment of the Commission to adopt implementing measures to this effect.

In order to ease the administration of the tax, the participating Member States could introduce national (publicly accessible) registries for the FTT entities. In practice, they could make use of existing codification, for instance the Business Identification Codes (BIC/ISO 9362) for both financial and non-financial institutions, the Classification of Financial Instruments (CFI/ISO 10962) for financial instruments and the Market Identifier Code (MIC/ISO 10383) for the different markets.

In addition to discussions on the definition of uniform collection methods in the relevant Committee, the Commission might organise regular expert meetings with a view to discuss with the participating Member States the operation of the Directive once adopted, in particular ways of ensuring the proper payment of the tax and the verification of payment, as well as matters pertaining to the prevention of tax evasion, avoidance and abuse.

The draft Directive does not address issues of administrative cooperation which are covered in existing instruments relating to the assessment and recovery of taxes, in particular Directive 2011/16/EU of the Council of 15 February on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation and repealing Directive 77/799/EEC[16] (applicable as of 1 January 2013), Directive 2010/24/EU of the Council of 16 March 2010 concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures[17] (applicable as of 1 January 2012). The directive proposed here neither adds to those instruments, nor does it diminish their scope. They continue to apply to all taxes of any kind levied by or on behalf a Member State[18], and this encompasses FTT as it does any other tax thus levied. These instruments apply to all Member States who should provide assistance within the limits and conditions thereof. Other instruments which are relevant in this context include the OECD - Council of Europe Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters[19].

Together with the conceptual approach underlying the FTT (broad scope, broadly defined residence principle, no exemptions), the rules outlined above allow to minimise tax evasion, avoidance and abuse.

16.

3.3.5. Chapter V (Final provisions)


It follows from the harmonisation objective of this proposal that the participating Member States should not be allowed to maintain or introduce taxes on financial transactions as defined in this proposal other than the FTT object of the proposed Directive or VAT. Indeed, as far as VAT is concerned, the right of option to tax as provided for in Article 137(1)(a) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax[20] continues to apply. Other taxes like those on insurance premiums etc. have of course a different nature, as have registration fees on financial transactions, in case they represent a genuine re-imbursement of costs or consideration for a service rendered. Such taxes and fees are thus not affected by this proposal.

It is proposed for the participating Member States to communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions transposing the proposed Directive into national legal provisions. No provision of explanatory documents is proposed in this respect, given the limited number of articles in the proposal and ensuing obligations on Member States.

3.

BUDGETARY IMPLICATION



Preliminary estimates indicate that, depending on market reactions, the revenues of the tax could have been between EUR 30 and 35 billion on a yearly basis in the whole of participating Member States in case the original proposal for EU27 had been applied to EU11. However, when taking account of the net effects of the adjustments made as compared to the original proposal, notably (i) the issue of units and shares of UCITS and AIF is no longer considered not to be a primary market transaction, and (ii) the anti-relocation provisions of the residence principle as initially defined have been strengthened by complementing them with elements of the issuance principle, preliminary estimates indicate that the revenues of the tax could be in the order of magnitude of EUR 31 billion annually.

The Commission Proposal for a Council Decision on the system of own resources of the European Union of 29 June 2011[21], as amended on 9 November 2011[22], set out that part of receipts generated by the FTT shall constitute an own resource for the EU Budget. The GNI-based resource drawn from the participating Member States would be reduced accordingly.

The European Council of 7/8 February 2013 invited the participating Member States to examine if the FTT could become the base for a new own resource for the EU Budget.