Democratic control: Parliament’s powers of investigation – 23 August
The European Parliament has published an article that provides an overview of its investigatory and inquiry powers. The article maintains that the Parliament is not “just there to amend and approve new laws, but also to scrutinise the EU institutions”. It highlights that as the only directly elected EU institutions, the European Parliament has particular legitimacy to conduct such exercises. The article elaborates, in particular, on the differences between the so-called Inquiry Committees and Special Committees.
ECON Workshop on the definitive VAT system and VAT fraud – 31 August
A public workshop titled Towards a definitive VAT system and fighting VAT fraud took place at the ECON Committee of the European Parliament. As the name of the workshop implies, the focus was firstly on the VAT reforms envisioned by the Commission in its VAT Action Plan published earlier this year, which includes plans for the establishment of a definitive EU VAT regime based on the destination principle. The second area of focus was VAT fraud and best means to fight against it; in this context, the question of the reverse charge mechanism emerged. The workshop brought together as speakers the leading MEP on the dossier, Werner Langen (EPP/GER); George Karakatsanis from the European Court of Auditors (ECA); Gerhard Huemer from UEAPME (European association representing SMEs); Martin Janeček from the Czech tax administration; as well as Sebastian Fiedler from the German Federal Criminal Police Union.
George Karakatsanis presented the ECA report published in March which identified a number of limitations in the current EU VAT system and put forward a number of recommendations to better tackle intra-community VAT fraud (see FEE Tax Policy Update from 3 March for further details). Mr. Karakatsanis argued that although the EU VAT system and means to tackle fraud are robust as a concept and overall sound, there are severe limitations in practice and the application of rules. For example, there are no effective cross-checks between customs and tax data, severe limitations exist in the exchange of relevant information between Member States’ authorities, and there is no system for systematic statistics on intra-community fraud and missing trader fraud.
Gerhard Huemer emphasised the importance of a simple and robust VAT system for SMEs, especially those seeking to do business cross-border. He warned against the implementation of a temporal, partial reverse charge mechanism only applied in some Member States (NB Czech Republic has been calling for the authorisation for a reverse charge pilot project to tackle VAT fraud), fearing the undue burdens and uncertainty that such a system could pose upon SMEs. He was moreover concerned that Commission plans to give greater leeway to Member States on VAT rates (as announced in the VAT Action Plan) could also prove burdensome for SMEs to comply with.
Martin Janeček defended a partial implementation of a reverse charge mechanism through a pilot project, and argued that reverse charging has managed to reduce carousel fraud by up to 98% in Czech Republic in those sectors where applied. In response to this, a representative from the European Commission defended their preference for taxation of intra-EU supplies over reverse charging, as the latter option would merely move fraud to the end of the supply chain. Sebastian Fiedler was not dismissive of the potential of reverse charging, but emphasised that this would have to be applied universally across the EU for it to be effective and not burdensome for companies – a point shared by UEAPME as well. Mr. Fiedler also emphasised the need of better cooperation and coordination cross-border on VAT fraud, and for this purpose called for a European Public Prosecutor.
Afterwards, MEPs working on the dossier expressed their views. Pervenche Beres (S&D/FRA) was sceptical about reverse charging, whilst the ECR Group (Eurosceptic conservatives and nationalists) defended the approach for its potential. Petr Jezek (ALDE/CZE) speaking on behalf of the liberal-democrats but of Czech nationality, defended reverse charging and the pilot project as the only means of addressing carousel and missing trader fraud. The EPP (centre-Right) MEPs appeared more fragmented. Whilst Ludek Niedermayer (EPP/CZE) urged EU leaders to opt for one option or the other as soon as possible without “experiments”, the lead-rapporteur Werner Langen (EPP/GER) did not completely dismiss the prospect of pilot projects.
In terms of next steps, a vote on the draft report on the same topic is scheduled for 10 October. A Plenary vote, in turn, is likely to occur on 21 November. For further details on the draft report, please refer to the FEE Tax Policy Update from 13 May.
Luxembourg allegedly authorising verbal tax arrangements – 5 August
The European Commission has replied to a question asked by the MEP Hugues Bayet (S&D/BEL) with regard to allegations according to which Luxembourg has been granting oral tax rulings to companies. In his question, Mr. Bayet asks the Commission whether it has additional information on the issue, whether it will open an investigation on it and what the Commission will do if the allegations prove to be true. In his reply, Commissioner Moscovici maintains that the Commission has no information on the issue, and implies that under the new Directive on automatic exchange of information on tax rulings even verbal agreements would be covered. If the Commission finds evidence that a Member State has failed to comply with the Directive, it will take appropriate action.
State aid cases – 11 August
The European Commission has replied to a question asked by the MEP Brian Hayes (EPP/IRL) with regard to state aid cases. In his question, Mr. Hayes expresses concerns that the Commission state aid investigations from a tax perspective may be seen as efforts to harmonise taxation in the EU. He therefore asks the Commission whether it intends to continue its investigations, especially in the context of the Brexit. In her reply, Commissioner Vestager maintains that the Commission has not breached Member States’ tax sovereignty in the state aid cases; however, their fiscal systems must comply with relevant state aid rules and must not lead to discriminatory or preferential behaviour between companies.
Financial transaction tax in the Union – 17 August
The European Commission has replied to a question asked by the MEP Barbara Kappel (ENF/AUT) with regard to the financial transaction tax (FTT). In her question, Ms. Kappel asks the Commission what would be the fiscal impact of a FTT if introduced in individual countries rather than in “all major trading centres”; what impact the FTT would have in those Eurozone countries that choose not to implement it; and how might the financial market participants react to a FTT. In his reply, Commissioner Moscovici reminds that Member States that do not participate on the FTT are not entitled to receive a share of the tax revenues, and these countries’ financial institutions might be liable to pay taxes to the tax authorities of other Member States. He furthermore provides sources to two impact assessments on a harmonised FTT, and refers to the fact that the Commission has proposed a FTT with a broad scope and small to moderate minimum tax rates; however, the participating Member States may of course choose to amend the Commission’s proposed approach, in which case the so-called “substitution effects” could be higher.
Patent boxes and modified nexus approach – 18 August
The European Commission has replied to a question asked by the MEPs Fabio de Masi (GUE-NGL/GER) and Hugues Bayet (S&D/BEL) with regard to patent boxes and the modified nexus approach. In their question, the MEPs argue that patent boxes are ill-suited for R&D promotion and therefore ask the Commission what steps it intends to take in order to ensure compliance with the modified nexus approach and mitigate potential negative impacts of such regimes, such as tax avoidance. In his reply, Commissioner Moscovici maintains that “most Member States” have made progress in closing down their patent boxes. In terms of further steps, the Commissioner states that the Commission is considering measures to stimulate R&D investment as part of its proposal to re-launch the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB).
Reasons for corporate tax avoidance in EU Member States – 19 August
The European Commission has replied to a question asked by the MEP Adam Szejnfeld (EPP/POL) with regard to corporate tax avoidance in the EU. In his question, Mr. Szejnfeld argues that whilst it is important to penalise those who engage on unacceptable tax practices, the root causes of such practices (over-regulation, high taxes, etc.) should also be addressed. He asks the Commission whether it intends to do anything in this regard. In his reply, Commissioner Moscovici re-iterates the Commission’s commitment to fair and growth-friendly tax systems in the Single Market. He lists a number of recent measures that the Commission has taken to fight tax avoidance, and emphasises the need to also alleviate financial and administrative burdens “as much as possible” without elaborating on concrete plans for the immediate future.
Tax planning by Amazon in the EU – 22 August
The European Commission has replied to a question asked by the MEP Dominique Bilde (ENF/FRA) with regard to tax planning in the EU by Amazon. In her question, Ms. Bilde states that the Commission is “apparently” investigating whether Amazon’s tax arrangements are consistent with EU competition rules, and asks the Commission whether it can provide details on the results of these investigations and elaborate on how it plans to tackle tax avoidance by multinationals. In her reply, Commissioner Vestager elaborates on the purpose of the ongoing Amazon Luxembourg investigation which attempts to look into whether the royalty payments from Amazon EU Sarl to another group company is in line with the market conditions. However, since the investigation is ongoing the Commission cannot provide additional details. Finally, Commissioner Vestager reminds that Anti-Tax Avoidance Package (ATAP) aims to provide a comprehensive solution to various tax avoidance arrangements.
Tax principles in Member States and third countries – 23 August
The European Commission has replied to a question asked by the MEP Morten Messerschmidt (ECR/DEN) with regard to tax principles in EU Member States and third countries. In his question, Mr. Messerschmidt asks the Commission to explain what paying taxes where profits are generated means for individual Member States, how tax revenue in Member States and in relation to third countries would be distributed if more taxes must be paid in places where profits are generated, and whether there is a risk that with the principle in place some countries (e.g. the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark) could risk receiving less corporate income tax than countries such as France and Germany with larger domestic markets. In his reply, Commissioner Moscovici states that he has already answered to some of the MEP’s questions in an earlier question on the same topic (see FEE Tax Policy Update from 5 August). With regard to some Member States gaining and others losing out, the Commissioner points to the formula apportionment distribution of the tax base in its Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) proposal whose purpose is indeed to ensure a fair attribution of the tax base between the Member States in which a group is present.
Tax on corporate income – 23 August
The European Commission has replied to a question asked by the MEPs Monica Macovei (ECR/ROM) and Patricija Šulin (PPE/SVN) with regard to corporate income taxes. In their question, the MEPs emphasise the need for a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) in order to foster the process of harmonisation, and ask the Commission what it is planning to do to speed up the process. In his reply, Commissioner Moscovici re-iterates that the Commission will re-launch the CCCTB by the end of 2016 (NB likely November) in two separate stages (consolidation separately from the ‘common’), and the Commission is committed to ensuring that a full CCCTB is adopted “as quickly as possible”.
Goods applicable for VAT return – 23 August
The European Commission has replied to a question asked by the MEP Margot Parker (EFDD/UK) with regard to goods applicable for a VAT return. In her question, Ms. Parker laments that EU VAT rules prevent the UK from removing VAT on a number of non-luxury items. She therefore asks the Commission whether the Commission will make it easier for Member States to remove VAT from non-luxury products that “should never have had VAT on them in the first place”. In his reply, Commissioner Moscovici maintains that the VAT Directive makes no reference to ‘luxury’ or ‘essential’ goods, but provides for a number of exemptions and reliefs. With regard to future plans for VAT rates, the Commissioner refers the MEP to the VAT Action Plan for details.
Google avoiding tax in France – 25 August
The European Commission has replied to a question asked by the MEP Dominique Bilde (ENF/FRA) with regard to tax avoidance by Google in France. In her question, Ms. Bilde refers to tax avoidance practices by Google and a number of other multinationals in France, and asks the Commission what it plans to do to tackle “fiscal dumping”, and whether the Commission will authorise the taxation of revenues in the country of destination rather than the country of invoicing. In his reply, Commissioner Moscovici refers to the “ambitious agenda” of the Commission to ensure “fairer, more transparent and more effective taxation in the EU”, listing specific measures that the Commission has already undertaken at the EU and international (e.g. OECD) levels to achieve this principle. He moreover lists the measures planned for the future to further tackle tax planning activities, as outlined in the Panama Papers Communication published in July and including a commitment to “increasing oversight” on tax advisors.
Financial transaction tax: are we done yet? – 31 August
The European Commission has replied to a question asked by the MEP Hugues Bayet (S&D/BEL) with regard to the financial transaction tax (FTT). In his question, Mr. Bayet asks the Commission how the negotiations on the dossier are going, and refers to rumours according to which Belgium is proving a difficult negotiation partner due to its demand for a number of exemptions. In his reply, Commissioner Moscovici confirms that a number of issues are still open, including on the taxation of derivatives linked to public debt, retirement provision schemes, the real economy and the implementation costs of the FTT – some of which indeed are of concern to Belgium. He however maintains that the Commission remains confident that the “viable compromises” to these issues can be found.
Tax ruling practices in contradiction with the ALP – 31 August
The European Commission has replied to a question asked by the MEP Fabio de Masi (GUE-NGL/GER) with regard to tax ruling practices. In his question, Mr. de Masi refers to information according to which Luxembourg outsourced parts of the granting of tax rulings to PwC. He therefore asks the Commission how it assesses such procedures by the Luxembourg tax administration, how many state aid investigations it is conducting that are based on Luxembourgish tax rulings, and if no additional such investigations are ongoing how does it justify the selectiveness of its state aid cases. In her reply, Commissioner Vestager states that after 2013 the Commission has been looking at over 1000 tax rulings, including about 600 revealed by the Luxleaks. The Commission is currently investigating under state aid rules the tax treatment of Apple by Ireland and Amazon and McDonald’s by Luxembourg. Finally, she confirms that the Commission opens new investigations if it has “serious reasons” to consider that illegal state aid may have been granted through tax rulings.
Modifying VAT for feminine hygiene products – 31 August
The European Commission has replied to a question asked by the MEP Josep-Maria Terricabras (Greens-EFA/SPA) with regard to VAT on feminine hygiene products. In his question, Mr. Terricabras states that in Spain certain female hygiene products are currently subject to a reduced VAT rate of 5%, with no possibility of exemptions even though such exemptions exist in other Member States. He therefore asks the Commission what steps it will take to regulate tax rates on essential items such as hygiene products used by women in order to ensure equality and fairness. In his reply, Commissioner Moscovici reminds that the VAT Directive does not make any reference to whether a good or a service is ‘essential’. Ireland is the only Member State currently exercising a zero-rate on women’s sanitary products – the result of a temporary derogation granted to it since the rate was in force before January 2016. However, the Commission’s VAT Action Plan and subsequent reform of EU VAT rates policy propose increased flexibility for Member States on rates, including the possibility of introducing a zero rate for sanitary products.
Tax competition and tax dumping – 1 September
The European Commission has replied to a question asked by the MEPs Monica Macovei (ECR/ROM) and Patricija Šulin (EPP/SVN) with regard to tax competition and tax dumping. In their question, the MEPs argue that firms operating in the digital sector are able to easily cut their tax burdens due to the non-material nature of the sector. They therefore ask the Commission how it will address such “aggressive tax planning” and prevent “tax dumping”. In his reply, Commissioner Moscovici refers to the various measures introduce in the Anti-Tax Avoidance Package (ATAP), implying that these provide appropriate solutions to the challenges highlighted by the MEPs, including companies on the digital sector.
“EU Financial Transaction Tax Deadline Said to Be Pushed Back” – 16 August
As reported notably by Bloomberg, the deadline for reaching an agreement on the so-called Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) has been postponed. Back in June, the Finance Ministers of the 10 Member States currently working on the project, led by Austria, agreed that they would continue to look for an agreement on a number of remaining “technical issues” during the second half of 2016 (see FEE Tax Policy Update from 24 June for further details). The Ministers agreed on a compromise proposal by September, but this no longer looks feasible, according to an “official”. The next round of discussions on the dossier is currently scheduled for 10 October. According to the same article, Germany’s Wolfgang Schäuble said earlier in July that his personal preference would be for a global FTT.
Joint letter of Presidents Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker on the upcoming G20 summit – 30 August
The Presidents of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, and of the Council, Donald Tusk, have published a joint letter ahead of the upcoming G20 Summit taking place in Hangzhou, China, on 4-5 September. The letter outlines the key priorities and expectations of the EU for the Summit ahead. From a tax perspective, it states that the G20 leaders should push forward ongoing work on international tax transparency. In concrete terms, the Presidents call on the G20 to further call on all jurisdictions to engage on exchanging information under the Global Standard on Automatic Exchange of Information (AEOI) by 2018, to adhere to the Multilateral Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters, as well as to join the BEPS Inclusive framework. Finally, the letter calls for “strong international criteria” to identify “non-cooperative jurisdictions”.
HMRC publishes new Standards for tax advisors – 3 August
The UK HMRC has published new guidance aimed for tax advisors. The guidance is aimed for all who “promote tax compliance” and offer “to represent or give advice to other taxpayers”. According to the guidance, such “agents” should for example disclose “all relevant information”, to fully comply with relevant legislation, and to consider the reputational risks behind providing advice on tax planning schemes.
New leaks on over 160,000 banks accounts in Switzerland, Luxembourg – 9 August
As reported notably by the French newspaper Liberation, the authorities of Germany’s North-Rhine Westphalia region have received detailed information on over 160,000 bank accounts located in Luxembourg and Switzerland. The French and Belgian tax authorities also received data on over 40,000 accounts. The stolen data from an anonymous source was transferred to the relevant parties by the Dusseldorf Minister of Finance, Norbert Walter-Borjans, who has profiled himself as a champion against tax fraud.
HMRC Consultation: Transforming the tax system through the better use of information – 15 August
The UK HMRC has published a consultation focusing on the potential effectiveness of third party information in the digitalisation of the tax system. In the consultation document, HMRC puts forward proposals for the use of third party information and seeks stakeholder views on these. The proposals cover, for example, making the current third party information better, information standards and security, the development of “one stop” services, as well as exploring new sources of third party information which can reduce the reporting burden for taxpayers. The deadline for submitting answers is 7 November.
HMRC Consultation: proposals for increased sanctions on tax advisors – 17 August
The UK HMRC has launched a consultation document proposing a “new penalty” to enablers of tax avoidance and changes to current penalty rules on users of tax avoidance schemes that have been defeated. The document for example considers increasing the fine for using defeated tax avoidance schemes to 100% of the benefit gained. Penalties could also be imposable directly to the tax advisers themselves. Avoiders and their advisers must, moreover, take “reasonable care” to ensure that their schemes are in line with rules and not using already defeated methods. The consultation attempts to clarify further what the principle of “reasonable care” entails. The deadline for providing views on the consultation document is 12 October. As a side-note, some elements of the consultation document may ‘spill over’ and inspire the debate on tax advisors at the EU-level as well. The Commission published earlier in July its Communication on Panama Papers and will launch a public consultation on tax advisors on October. Moreover, the European Parliament has been consistently vocal in calling for greater sanctions and preventive measures to address not only the use of but also the advice provision on tax avoidance schemes.
HMRC Consultation: Tackling offshore tax evasion: A Requirement to Correct – 24 August
The UK HMRC has launched a consultation focusing on the so-called “Requirement to Correct” (RTC) obligation, which aims to encourage or “compel” taxpayers with offshore interests to “put their UK tax affairs in order” by September 2018, before the global implementation of the Common Reporting Standard (CRS). The consultation proposes the introduction of new legislation to better enforce the RTC, including new sanctions on taxpayers failing to correct. The ultimate objective is to have a “single, simplified and tougher set of sanctions for offshore tax evasion” in place. The deadline for providing views on the consultation document is 19 October.
“Cutting corporation tax will make Theresa May’s Brexit talks ‘more difficult’, European leaders warn” – 22 August
As reported notably by the Telegraph, EU leaders have warned the UK Government that its plans to further reduce the country’s corporate tax rate may have implications for Brexit negotiations, effectively rendering the negotiations “more difficult”. The warning comes from the Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven specifically, who feels that any aggressive changes to UK tax policy as a follow-up of Brexit will damage UK relations with the EU. The UK chancellor Philip Hammond has for his part set to “reset” the country’s fiscal policy, and according to the article some stakeholders and organisations have been calling for a gradual and total abolition of the corporate tax.
The Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters grows – 22/25 August
The Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (the Convention) has increased in strength as five new jurisdictions (Burkina Faso, Malaysia, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Samoa) signed the agreement, thus bringing the total number of signatories to 103. Moreover, four jurisdictions (Liechtenstein, Andorra, Saint Kitts and Nevis, and Senegal) have deposited their instruments of ratification of the Convention.
OECD releases discussion draft on branch mismatch structures under Action 2 of the BEPS Action Plan – 22 August
The OECD has published a discussion draft on branch mismatches as part of the BEPS Action 2 (on hybrid mismatches). The discussion draft applies the recommendations of Action 2 to mismatches arising from branch structures. The document identifies five types of such mismatch arrangements, and puts forward preliminary recommendations for domestic rules to address these. The deadline for providing views is 19 September.
OECD publishes public comments received on two recent discussion drafts – 24/25 August
The OECD has published the public comments it received as part of its discussion drafts on the conforming amendments to Chapter IX of the Transfer Pricing Guidelines, as well as on the design and operation of the group ratio rule under the BEPS Action 4. A total of 14 contributions were received for the former, and 23 for the latter. No follow-up public consultation is envisaged for either.
US Treasury issues warning to the Commission on state aid investigations – 24 August
The US Treasury has submitted a White Paper to the European Commission warning that the current state aid investigations into tax rulings granted by certain EU Member States to multinational companies may lead to repercussions. The White Paper was published only a few days before the Commission’s state aid decision concerning Apple in Ireland (see article below), and adds further pressure on Commissioner Vestager’s efforts to fight questionable tax practices from a fair competition perspective. The US White Paper focuses on specific areas of grievance, and argues notably that the Commission’s approach is new and does not correspond to prior EU case law and Commission decisions; that the Commission should not impose retroactive tax recoveries as a part of its “new approach”; and that the Commission’s approach is inconsistent with international norms and as such risks undermining the international tax system. Commissioner Vestager has already responded to the US Treasury’s comments, arguing that the Commission is merely applying existing Treaties and provisions. The Commissioner also called for greater tax transparency, arguing that the Apple case has yet again demonstrated the need for public Country by Country Reporting (CBCR).
“US tech warns Netherlands over tax regime” – 29 August
According to the Financial Times (article only available to subscribers), the Silicon Valley Tax Directors Group representing 80 largest US technology companies has warned the Netherlands that it risks losing jobs and investment if it loses its favourable tax regime as a result of the ongoing Commission state aid investigations. The state aid investigations have brought into question favourable tax regimes based on tax rulings granted to specific multinationals, and as such the tech giants fear that the very ‘business model’ of the Dutch tax system is under threat.
State aid: Ireland gave illegal tax benefits to Apple worth up to €13 billion – 30 August
The European Commission has issued its long-awaited verdict regarding the taxation of Apple in Ireland, ordering the country to recover a record-sum of €13 billion in unpaid taxes from the company (more than all past tax state aid recovery sums combined). As in past tax state aid cases, the Commission argues that Ireland has given Apple unlawful subsidies in the form of tax benefits not available to other companies operating in the country. The Commission argues that the arrangement between Ireland and Apple enabled the company to allocate profits generated elsewhere to a non-existent “head office”, via Apple Sales International based in Ireland.
Commissioner Vestager commented that the selected treatment enabled Apple to pay an effective corporate tax rate of only 1% on its European profits in 2003, with a low-point of 0,005% in 2014. Apple has already expressed its objection to the decision, whilst the Irish government has not yet at the moment of writing decided whether or not to launch an appeal. Regardless, the Irish authorities will have to start the recovery of the ordered amount. Commissioner Vestager has suggested the possibility of a separate account where the recovered amounts can be kept until a final decision has been reached.
Despite the Commission’s insistence that the matter is purely technical and merely aims to implement existing Treaties and other relevant provisions, the issue is de facto and for obvious reasons highly politicised. The US Treasury issued few days ago a letter to the Commission warning of potential ramifications should the state aid investigations and retroactive recovery of tax income continue (see article above).
“HMRC Notes Shift In Multinational Tax Culture” – 26 August
According to Tax News, the UK HMRC has published the results of its Large Business Survey (LBS) 2015 which in the tax authority’s interpretation may demonstrate a move towards a “more compliant mind-set” amongst large businesses. For example, 78% of respondents claimed to have a “low appetite for risk” in tax planning.
“We should collect Apple’s €13 billion and change Ireland” – 30 August
Fintan O’Toole has published an opinion piece in the Irish Time, in which he argues for the recent Commission state aid decision on Apple (see article above) as a great opportunity for Ireland. He looks at the history of Ireland as a country having built its business model on attracting big business, and reflects on whether the Commission decision has generated the need for Ireland to re-think its economic approach. Mr. O’Toole calls for a serious public discussion on whether or not Ireland should appeal, and maintains that “we are part of an international order in which those corporations have responsibilities, including the duty to pay fair taxes”.
6-7/09/2016, Bruegel Annual Meetings, Bruegel, Brussels.
21/09/2016, A transatlantic Citizen’s Dialogue on tax avoidance and privacy in the digital age, Columbia University/European Commission, New York.
28/09/2016, From tax transparency to responsible tax behaviour, CSR Europe, Brussels.
13/10/2016, EPC 20th Anniversary Conference, EPC, Brussels.
18/10/2016, Tax transparency: Do new global standards really provide a level playing field?, Euractiv.
20/10/2016, Public Country-by-Country Reporting: Tax disclosures in the spotlight, Federation of European Accountants (FEE), Brussels.