It was late on Tuesday evening that the negotiators representing the EU’s two legislators, the EU governments and the European Parliament, finally agreed on a compromise law that require multinational companies to disclose where – or if – they pay corporate taxes, so called public country-by-country reporting (pCBCR).
Companies with a turnover of more than €750 million operating in Europe will have to disclose their net sales and profits, the number of employees and paid income taxes, on a yearly basis and by country. The financial reporting will use a common EU template and be in machine readable electronic formats – a veritable Ali Baba’s cave for future economics researchers, NGOs and journalists.
“From now on, the spotlight is brightly and clearly on those companies who systematically avoid taxes”, said Sirpa Pietikäinen, conservative Finnish MEP, who had negotiated the deal for the centre-right party group EPP.
Multinational companies’ profit shifting from high tax to low tax jurisdictions is estimated to deprive EU countries of around €70 billion a year, according to estimates by the EU Commission. With public country-by-country reporting, this profit shifting becomes visible and the pressure on the companies will increase.
“This agreement is a defining moment for tax justice in Europe.” said Green MEP Sven Giegold, a long-time advocate for the tax transparency law.
But transparency activists are not as happy. Transparency International calls on MEPs and EU governments to vote down the compromise, as the European Parliament gave in to the Council on the main issue of conflict: the geographical scope of the EU law.
The European Parliament, which had adopted its position on the draft law five years ago, wanted all countries covered by public tax reporting. Basically that it should be mandatory for, say, IKEA to report on their sales and corporate taxes also in the UK and the US.
The EU governments, which only adopted its position this February, had wanted a much narrower scope. Leading up to the last round of negotiations, the French government had advocated that companies should only be obliged to the aggregated tax information for countries outside the EU. Its position paper was later revealed to have been drafted by the French employer association Medef.
The European Parliament all but accepted the Council’s demands. The compromise deal means that reporting is mandatory only in the EU countries, in countries that are on the EU’s “black list” of tax havens, and in countries that have been on the “grey list” of tax havens for at least two years in a row.
The tax haven black list – officially “the EU list of non-cooperative tax jurisdictions” – was established in 2017 and is regularly revised, lastly February 2021. Today 12 countries, small and peripheral, are blacklisted: American Samoa, Anguilla, Dominica, Fiji, Guam, Palau, Panama, Samoa, Trinidad and Tobago, US Virgin Islands, Vanuatu and Seychelles. While nine countries are currently on the “grey list”: Australia, Barbados, Botswana, Eswatini, Jamaica, Jordan, Maldives, Thailand and Turkey.
The actual impact of the Tuesday deal is that multinationals’ tax information will only be made public for 46 countries: the 27 EU countries, the 12 on the black list and 7 countries that have been on the grey list for two years, including Turkey.
“This agreement allows for more than 80% of the states in the world, including notable tax havens such as the Bahamas, Switzerland or the Cayman Islands, where companies won’t have to publish any information.” says Manon Aubry, French MEP and negotiator for the Left group.
But, argues Green MEP Sven Giegold, since most European tax money lost, actually go to tax havens within the EU, the agreement will have a real impact.
Researchers at Berkeley University and the University of Copenhagen have estimated that around 80% of the profits shifted out from EU countries, go to EU tax havens such as Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.
Transparency International instead fear that public country-by-country reporting mainly for the EU could lead to European companies moving parts of their tax planning outside the EU.
The “limited approach provides a perverse incentive for large multinationals to restructure some activities outside the EU to avoid reporting obligations”, numerous NGOs, from Oxfam to the European Trade Union Confederation, warned in an open letter to the legislators.
“In Europe, it is wiser to make a start with a good compromise rather than to wait forever for a supposedly ideal solution.”MEP Sven Giegold
Another point of contention between the European Parliament and the Council was the “safeguard clause”, which allows companies to not report information judged “commercially sensitive” for a period, but will have to published it retroactively. In the final deal, the clause was limited to five years, while the Council had wanted six years.
The compromise needs to be formally adopted by both legislators. And it most likely will. Although tax justice and foreign aid NGOs are unhappy, the deal has broad support in the European Parliament.
After adoption, the EU countries have 18 months to put the EU framework law in to national legislation.
Fours years after its application, the European Commission will have to go back to the directive and analyze its effects. MEPs who preferred to settle for a weaker deal rather than risking getting nothing, see this revision in the near future as another opportunity to strengthen tax transparency.
“In Europe, it is wiser to make a start with a good compromise rather than to wait forever for a supposedly ideal solution.” says Green MEP Sven Giegold.
It almost looks like an afterthought that on Tuesday, just hours before the deal was struck on public country-by-country reporting, the European Tax Observatory was launched.
The brand new EU funded research hub will assist and the European Commission and the other EU institutions in their fight against tax evasion. Leading the observatory? Gabriel Zucman, the French globally known researcher and activist against tax evasion, and the author of the Berkely/Copenhagen study on EU profit shifting.