1. The European Commission´s Tax Transparency Package 18 March 2015

2. Communication COM(2015)196 on Tax Transparency to Fight Tax Evasion and Avoidance:COM(2015)196 1.Proposal COM(2015)135: Automatic exchange of advance cross-border tax rulings and APAsCOM(2015)135 2.Repealing the Savings Directive 3.Country by country reporting / disclosure of aggressive tax planning 4.Reviewing Code of Conduct on Business Taxation 5.Quantifying the tax gap 6.Promoting tax transparency at OECD/G20 level

3. Automatic exchange of cross-border rulings/APAs 1. Overview Covered: issuing or amendment of – an advance cross-border tax ruling, or – an advance pricing agreement which is still valid, looking back 10 years from the entering into force of the Directive Excluded: rulings to natural persons, purely domestic rulings No monetary/size threshold Quarterly reporting, within one month, to all other MS and the Commission via secure e-mail system and defined format Protection of commercial or professional (…) secrets cannot be invoked by MS to refuse exchange Any MS may ask for more information, including full text

4. Automatic exchange of cross-border rulings/APAs: 2. Definition cross-border advance ruling Art. 3, pt. 14: „Any agreement, communication or any other instrument or action with similar effects, including one issued in the context of a tax audit, which a)is given by, or on behalf of, the government or the tax authority of a Member State, or any territorial or administrative subdivisions thereof, to any person; b)concerns the interpretation or application of a legal or administrative provision concerning the administration or enforcement of national laws relating to taxes of the Member State, or its territorial or administrative subdivisions; c)relates to a cross-border transaction or to the question of whether or not activities carried on by a legal person in the other Member State create a permanent establishment, and; d)is made in advance of the transactions or of the activities in the other Member State potentially creating a permanent establishment or of the filing of a tax return covering the period in which the transaction or series of transactions or activities took place. The cross-border transaction may involve, but is not restricted to, the making of investments, the provision of goods, services, finance or the use of tangible or intangible assets and does not have to directly involve the person receiving the advance cross-border ruling;”

5. Automatic exchange of cross-border rulings/APAs: 3. Definition advance pricing agreement Art.3 pt. 15: “Any agreement, communication or any other instrument or action with similar effects, including one issued in the context of a tax audit, given by, or on behalf of, the government or the tax authority of one or more Member States, including any territorial or administrative subdivision thereof, to any person that determines in advance of cross-border transactions between associated enterprises, an appropriate set of criteria for the determination of the transfer pricing for those transactions or determines the attribution of profits to a permanent establishment. […]”

6. Automatic exchange of cross-border rulings/APAs: 4. Exchange vs. publication Publication currently not proposed. “the Commission will look further into the question of whether tax rulings information should be subject to wider publication, particularly by the companies that benefit from these rulings. The objectives, challenges, benefits, risks and costs of such a requirement need to be carefully considered before any decision is made.”

7. Automatic exchange of cross-border rulings/APAs: 5. Information to be exchanged Name of taxpayer and group (where applicable) Description of the issues addressed in the tax ruling Description of the criteria used to determine an advance pricing arrangement Identification of the MS most likely to be affected Identification of any other taxpayer likely to be affected (apart from natural persons)

8. Automatic exchange of cross-border rulings/APAs: 6. Timeline and legislative issues Proposal to amend Directive 2011/16/EU on Administrative Cooperation in Direct Tax Implementation period: end 2015 Application as of 1 January 2016 First exchange of information: by 30 April 2016 Special legislative procedure: unanimity in Council / EP consults Ordinary legislative procedure (qualified majority in Council, co-decision) for corporate reporting

9. Assessing potential further transparency initiatives Country by country reporting: Public disclosure of a limited set of corporate tax information of multinational companies „The question of transparency requirements on aggressive tax planning arrangements which are part of the OECD BEPS work also needs to be considered...“ Accounting Directive: ordinary legislative procedure

10. Next steps Early June 2015: Action Plan on corporate taxation: „measures to make corporate taxation fairer and more efficient within the Single Market, including a re-launch the proposal for a CCCTB.“ „The CCCTB could serve as an effective tool against corporate tax avoidance in the EU, in addition to cutting costs and administrative burdens for businesses in the internal market“, and “ideas for integrating new OECD/G20 actions to combat BEPS at EU level.”

11. CFE position? Initial discussion: 1. Automatic exchange of rulings / APAs Provided that confidentiality issues are resolved (anonymisation, blackening of certain information), why should tax rulings/APA not be public, like judgments? Would this not contribute to legal certainty and equal treatment of taxpayers? Does the proposal provide for an adequate protection of the information exchanged by the receiving MS? Is it acceptable that MS may not refuse the exchange on grounds of professional (...) secrecy?

12. CFE position? Initial discussion: 2. Disclosure of tax planning arrangements Does an obligation to report aggressive tax planning arrangements to the tax authorities affect the tax adviser´s ability to provide advice and defend the client´s interest? Does it affect the relationship with the client? (How) can such obligation work in favour of the client (e.g. by increasing legal certainty)? How should such obligation be limited (Monetary thresholds? General hallmarks? Corporate taxpayers?)