Proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
The debate concerned a subsidiarity test of an EU directive on administrative cooperation against tax crimes, specifically regarding reporting obligations for crypto-assets. S is positive about large digital platforms reporting profits in, for example, bitcoin to counter tax evasion 1. S argues that the work against tax fraud is prioritized and that this cooperation can hardly be carried out nationally 1. S does, however, have a partial objection to the EU governing the sanction levels, as they believe that each member state should be able to control these levels themselves 1. SD is positive about a common framework for information exchange to ensure correct taxation 2. SD does, however, oppose the EU determining fixed minimum amounts for sanctions, as taxation is a national competence 2. SD believes that the goals can be achieved without common minimum levels and wants to safeguard national sovereignty 2.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Mathias Tegnér (S)
Mr. Speaker! The Committee on Taxation's report number 23, which we are now going to debate, concerns the subsidiarity test of the Council's directive on amending Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation. In the EU, parts of this work are called DAC, and it concerns administrative cooperation between EU member states against tax crimes.
This is an important task for justice to be justice, for all citizens and companies to do the right thing. It is extremely important for the cohesion in our country and in Europe, yes actually for cohesion globally, simply to maintain trust between us humans. Fundamentally, this proposal comes from an international cooperation, under the wings of the OECD, against tax evasion.
The proposal for changes that we are debating today is sometimes called DAC 8 and concerns administrative cooperation linked to the taxation of crypto assets. Put a bit bureaucratically, a harmonized framework and thus EU-wide rules on reporting obligations and information exchange regarding crypto assets can prevent tax evasion.
Proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation
Put more simply, we Social Democrats are positive about large digital platforms, such as Google, having an obligation to report profits that individuals and companies make in, for example, bitcoin.
Since this is not a review of the directive itself but a subsidiarity test, the question is therefore whether it is something that the EU should do or decide on.
We Social Democrats believe that the work against tax evasion and tax fraud is an extremely high priority. Already in 2016, the then government made a decision on a 10-point program against tax evasion. The S-led government worked effectively and intensively with these issues.
Unfortunately, the new right-wing conservative government has not shown the same will to combat tax evasion. I am thinking of the discontinuation of the exit tax investigation, I am thinking of the handling of the new coupon tax, and I am thinking of the Skatteverket's reduced framework for the work against precisely tax evasion.
In addition to this, the government, as everyone here in the chamber knows, has with surgical precision lowered taxes for the richest and shut down other inquiries that could make Sweden more just.
Mr. Speaker! Briefly stated, we Social Democrats are positive towards administrative cooperation regarding tax evasion. It is also a task that can hardly be carried out nationally. Therefore, our subsidiarity objection is only partial, and it thus concerns the sanctions according to the directive.
We are pleased that the parties in the Riksdag are in agreement on this issue, and it is also pleasing that all parties in the Swedish Riksdag stand behind this work in the EU. What we have an objection to is the design of the sanction system for the digital platforms that violate the information obligation. We believe that the design of the sanction system must be done in a way that allows each member state to control the levels, just as the right of taxation is a national competence.
Or as it stands in the statement: "In summary, the committee considers that the Member State is better suited to decide how the sanctions system should be designed and that it falls within each Member State's competence to design the sanctions that shall be applicable in the event of violations of national rules adopted in accordance with the directive on administrative cooperation in matters of taxation."
The question we are addressing today is therefore not our principled position on the proposals in DAC 8 as a whole, but our partial objection to the EU wanting to control the sanction levels.
In principle, we Social Democrats are positive about the very important directive and the work against tax evasion. This work appears extra important when one looks out over the world, where inequality is increasing rapidly and has done so for decades. A busload of the world's richest people own as much as half of the earth's population. In our own country, five people own more than 5 million Swedes.
For the cohesion of Sweden, Europe, and the world, right must be right. Right must be right, and here the work against tax evasion is immensely important.
So: It is important, it is true, and it is necessary to have powerful work against tax evasion. Therefore, we Social Democrats are positive towards DAC, administrative cooperation against tax evasion. On the other hand, the fee levels, just like the taxes, shall be decided nationally.
With this said, we, together with the rest of the committee, have a partial subsidiarity objection. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the Committee on Taxation's proposal in report 23.
Eric Westroth (SD)
Mr. Speaker! It is not every day that one gets the opportunity to highlight a subsidiarity test here in the chamber, so it should be interesting.
What is the proposal that is on the table then? The designation is Proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation.
Briefly and somewhat simplified, it is about requiring actors who provide a trading venue for crypto-assets, or cryptocurrencies as they are commonly called, to report transactions made by customers to the actor who is resident in the EU so that a correct taxation of these assets can take place in the countries concerned.
The rules are based on the OECD framework for reporting and exchange of information for taxation purposes regarding crypto-assets and are actually an extension of the reporting obligation to also include so-called e-money or cryptocurrencies.
Mr. Speaker! Now the Committee on Taxation has treated this matter as a so-called subsidiarity test. This means that we do not look at the proposal in substance but make an assessment of whether it is decided at the right level to achieve the goal. The main rule is that decisions should be made at the lowest level possible but that the goals of the proposal are still achieved.
Since the trade of crypto assets often takes place on foreign platforms, there are advantages to having a common regulatory framework for the exchange of information between countries regarding citizens' assets and transactions on these platforms. This is partly so that the assets are taxed in a correct manner, and partly so that the trading venues, in a competitive sense, receive the same tax conditions and a common standard for information exchange between the trading venue's seat and the relevant national authorities.
Mr. Speaker! There is a part of the proposal that the Committee on Taxation has reacted to. It concerns the application of minimum levels for sanctions or "fines" for companies that fail to report or where the reported information is incorrect, incomplete, or false. They also want to introduce the same type of minimum levels for sanction fees when it concerns previously decided directives.
Of course, the sanctions need to be as proposed in the directive, namely effective, proportionate, and deterrent. However, the committee opposes the determination of fixed minimum amounts for sanctions in the manner proposed in the directive. Decisions on taxation are still a national competence, and this needs to be protected. To determine sanction levels at the EU level in a similar way risks, in the long run, eroding national sovereignty regarding taxation.
To quote the Instrument of Government Chapter 9, Section 1: "The Riksdag decides on taxes and fees to the state as well as the state's budget." Or, a bit more colorful from the 1809 Instrument of Government: The Swedish people's ancient right to tax themselves is exercised by the estates of the realm alone at a general diet.
This is a principle that we must safeguard to the utmost. We see how the EU's ambitions to bring in its own funds through various types of taxation are increasing. Furthermore, there are far-reaching plans to change the decision-making procedure for taxes in the EU from unanimity to qualified majority.
Proposal for a Council directive amending Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of taxation
According to the Committee on Taxation, the sanctions system needs to be adapted to the national conditions that prevail. At the same time, we believe that the goals can be achieved without deciding on common minimum levels for this.
The committee considers that sanctions are best decided at the national level and therefore submits a reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Parliament, the Council, and the Commission.
In the statement, we point out the importance of combating tax evasion, tax avoidance, and harmful tax competition, while at the same time we oppose common Union minimum levels on sanction fees and argue that this should be a national competence to decide on and consequently that the Commission's proposal in this part violates the subsidiarity principle.
Mr. Speaker! We in the Sweden Democrats support the reasoned opinion and view it positively that all other parties in the Riksdag do the same.
The deliberation was hereby concluded.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.