16.12.  76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 297/9 
Reasons 
In this  point,  the  Section  says  that  'new  economic  strategies  have  to be evolved  both  at 
Community  and  at Member  State  levels'.  I think  this  is unacceptable  because  it gives  the 
impression  that  present  strategies  in the  Member  States  are  incapable  of gradually  bearing 
fruit,  bearing  in mind  the  time  needed  to implement  measures  already  passed  and  the  effects 
these  measures  can  still  produce.  It is not so much  a question  of introducing  new  measures,  but 
of implementing  present  ones  more  forcefully  at national,  intra-Community  and  even  national 
level.  Further  on,  the  Section  says  a 'major  coordinated  recovery  of output  and  employment' 
must  be achieved  through  selective  and  direct  measures.  To my  mind,  this  means  a direct  and 
centralized  control  of companies'  activities,  which  would  destroy  the  singleness  of the  market 
by discriminating  between  different  sectors  and  firms.  One  might  well  wonder  who  could  fulfil 
this coordinating  role  at Community  level;  even  at national  level,  this  type  of micro-economic 
dirigism  does  not  exist  in those  EEC  countries  that  have  the  least  inflation  and  the  most 
balanced  growth. 
Quite  apart  from  this,  I think  that  point  5.2  should  be deleted  because  points  6 and  7 say 
in a much  clearer  and  more  moderated  way  what  economic  and  social  measures  should  be taken 
at both  national  and  Community  level. 
Opinion  on  the  proposal  for  a Council  Directive  concerning  indirect  taxes  on 
transactions  in securities 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 133  of 14 June  1976,  page  1. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 12 April  1976,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  100  of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the above  matter  at its 
142nd  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 27 and  28 October  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to the Treaty  establishing  the European 
Economic  Community  and,  in particular,  Article  100 
thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  made  by the Council  of 
the European  Communities  on 12 April  1976  for an 
opinion, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
27 April  1976,  instructing  the Section  for Economic and Financial  Questions  to draw  up an opinion  on 
the matter, 
Having  regard  to the  oral  report  made  by  the 
Rapporteur,  Mr Cammann, 
Having  regard  to the opinion  adopted  by the Section 
for Economic  and  Financial  Questions  at its meeting 
on 31 August  1976, 
Having  regard  to the discussions  at its 142nd  plenary 
session  held  on 27 and  28 October  1976  (meeting  of 
27 October  1976), 
No C 297/10 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 16. 12. 76 
HAS  ADOPTED  THE  FOLLOWING  OPINION  1.4.  It  is proposed  to abolish  double  taxation  and 
discrimination  by  laying  down  common  rules  for 
taxing  dealings  in securities. 
by a majority,  there  being  7 votes  against  and  5 
abstentions: 
2. General  comments 
1. Introduction 
1.1. European  integration  is inconceivable  without 
an integration  of capital  markets.  Considerable 
progress  towards  such  integration  would  have  been 
achieved  by now  but  for  numerous  administrative 
obstacles.  These  barriers,  which  still  exist,  cannot  at 
present  be abolished  completely.  But  this  does  not 
mean  that  the  Community  is released  from  the 
obligation  implicit  in EEC  Treaty  Article  99 of taking 
technical  coordination  measures  that  are  necessary 
now.  Of course,  taxation  represents  only  a part  of 
this sector,  but its importance  for the capital  market 
should  not be under-estimated. 
1.2. Taxes  on  the  raising  of capital  and  on 
dealings  in securities  are classified  as indirect  taxes.  A 
first step  towards  coordinating  this  category  of 
indirect  taxes  was  taken  as early  as 1969,  when  the 
Council  adopted  a Directive  concerning  indirect  taxes 
on the raising  of capital  (1). This  Directive  provides 
for: 
— the  abolition  of stamp  duties  on securities,  and 
— the  application  of a capital  duty  coordinated 
between  the Member  States  (2). 
1.3. The  new  proposal  seeks  to coordinate  taxes 
on dealings  in securities  and  in the process  to abolish 
double  taxation  and  discrimination.  The  risk  of 
double  taxation  lies  in the fact  that  certain  dealings 
in securities  may  become  liable  to tax  several  times 
because  of differences  between  Member  States'  laws. 
For example,  taxes  may  in some  cases  be levied  in the 
State  where  the deal  is concluded  and  in others  in the 
State  where  the transaction  is carried  out.  Discrimina-
tion is particularly  evident  in the taxation  of public 
loan issues.  Some  Member  States  grant  more  favour-
able treatment  to their  own  government  loan  issues 
than to loan  issues  by other  Member  States. 2.1. The  Committee  notes  that  the  Commission's 
proposal  does  not  prescribe  a strict  unification  of 
rules.  Instead,  it allows  individual  Member  States  to 
maintain  divergent  national  rules  within  the 
framework  of the coordination  measures. 
2.2. The  Committee  is well  aware  that  the present 
proposal  is only  one  further  step  towards  a genuine 
common  capital  market.  The  Committee  agrees  with 
the Commission  that  the best  way  to bring  about  a 
genuine  European  capital  market  would  be to abolish 
such  taxes  completely.  Complete  coordination  at the 
present  time  would,  however,  pose  numerous  almost 
insoluble  difficulties  in the  Member  States,  which 
would  hinder  attainment  of  the  final  aim. 
Nevertheless,  complete  abolition  of these  indirect 
taxes,  which  in  all  Member  States  pale  into 
insignificance  in relation  to the  total  revenue  from 
taxation,  should  remain  a priority  objective.  The 
present  proposal,  with  its limited  aim,  is to be 
regarded  as only  a first  step  towards  this  objective. 
3. Specific  comments 
3.1. The  Committee  welcomes  the  proposal  that 
taxes  on dealings  in securities  are to be discretionary. 
This  means  that  Member  States  that  do not  have  a 
tax on such  transactions  will  not  be compelled  to 
introduce  one. 
3.2. Under  Article  2 of  the  proposal,  any 
acquisition  or disposal  of securities  for  valuable 
consideration  is to be taxable.  Buying  and  selling  are 
thus considered  as separate  taxable  transactions. 
3.2.1.  The  Committee  would  point  out that  this  will 
lead to the taxes  on security  transfers  being  split  (and 
charged  on the  sale  and  purchase  of the  securities), 
which  is at variance  with  the  single  tax  systems  in 
some  Member  States  (e.g.  Denmark,  Germany, 
Ireland,  United  Kingdom).  Nevertheless  Article  8 
(maximum  taxation  rates)  and  Article  4 (exemption 
rule in the case  of transactions  involving  professional 
intermediaries),  will  probably  mean  that  there  will  be 
no increase  in the overall  tax burden. 
(J) OJ  No L 249,  3. 10. 1969,  p. 25. 
(2) OJ  No L 103,  18. 4. 1973,  p. 15. 3.2.2.  The  Committee  does,  however,  recognize 
that the Commission  proposal  has the advantage  that 
16.12.76 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities No C 297/11 
the tax burden  would  be divided  between  transferors 
and transferees.  In  the  case  of  international 
transactions,  this  would  also  simplify  apportionment 
of the  tax  entitlement  between  the  Member  States 
concerned.  On the other  hand,  administrative  costs  in 
some  Member  States  would  be  increased.  The 
Committee  believes  that  it should  be specified  which 
party  is to bear  these  additional  costs. 
3.3. The  proposed  Directive  provides  for a waiver 
for the  United  Kingdom  and  Ireland  in respect  of 
certain  transactions.  The  Committee  wonders  under 
what  circumstances  the  Council  can  amend  this 
waiver  by a qualified  majority,  if for  example  the 
United  Kingdom  or Ireland  or indeed  both  countries, 
are opposed  to a change. 
3.3.1.  Under  Article  3 (3),  the  Council,  on  a 
proposal  from  the Commission,  'shall  take  a decision 
on appropriate  measures  by a qualified  majority 
within  six months',  should  it be found  that  application 
of Article  3 (1) leads  to diversions  in transactions  on 
the securities  market.  As soon  as such  diversions 
occur  in a Member  State,  the Commission  should  be 
notified  forthwith  in  order  that  the  waiver 
arrangements  can  be reviewed.  The  Committee  also 
deplores  the fact  that  'diversions'  have  not been  more 
clearly  defined. 
3.3.2.  The  Committee  regards  the  arrangements 
under  Article  3 as merely  a temporary  exception. 
They  should  be reviewed  as soon  as possible  in the 
light  of the desire  for general  abolition  of this  tax. 
3.4. Only  certain  tax  exemptions  are compulsory. 
This  constitutes  a step  towards  coordination.  But 
complete  coordination  of exemption  rules  is not 
proposed,  in view  of the  longer-term  goal  of 
abolishing  these  taxes  altogether.  Since  only  a few  tax 
exemption  rules  are to be compulsory,  the proposed 
Directive  is sufficiently  flexible  in this  field  to allow 
individual  Member  States  to retain  the  national  tax 
exemptions  at present  in force,  and  even  extend 
them. 
3.4.1.  Despite  its  general  acceptance  of  the 
proposal,  the Committee  recommends  that  Article  4 
(1) (c) be deleted.  This  would  mean  that  exemption 
of this  type  of transaction  would  not  be compulsory 
in all Member  States  but  would  still  be left  to the 
discretion  of the  individual  Member  State.  The 
money  and  capital  markets  of the individual  Member States  are differently  structured.  In order  to prevent 
distortions  of competition,  it would  therefore  be better 
if such  tax exemptions  were  decided  at national  level, 
since  national  rules  could  reflect  the  specific 
situations  better  than  compulsory  exemption  rules. 
3.5. Article  7 states  that  in general  the tax is to be 
assessed  on the agreed  price.  In the event  of no price 
being  fixed,  or where  the  agreed  price  does  not 
correspond  to the  true  value  of the  securities,  the 
Member  States  may  assess  tax on the  'actual  value', 
or on the  average  price  of the  securities  concerned. 
This  proposal  makes  for sufficient  flexibility. 
3.6. Article  8 fixes  maximum  taxation  rates: 
1-5 %o for bonds  and  3 °/oo for all other  securities. 
Within  these  limits  it is also  possible  to distinguish 
between  cash  transactions  and  transactions  on 
account.  This  means  that  each  Member  State  can 
apply  a maximum  of four  rates  of taxation. 
3.6.1.  The  Committee  welcomes  the fact  that  the 
proposal  lays  down  only  maximum  tax  rates.  This 
leaves  more  scope  for  retaining  the  lower  rates  at 
present  in force  in most  Member  States;  only  a few 
Member  States  apply  rates  higher  than  the maximum 
rates  suggested  in the  proposed  Directive.  In the 
Committee's  view,  this  should  also  prompt  the 
Member  States  to move  spontaneously  towards 
alignment  of their  tax  rates  at as low  a level  as 
possible.  This  would  be a step  towards  total  abolition 
of the tax. 
3.7. Article  9 is of course  intended  to prevent 
discrimination  on the basis  of residence  in a Member 
State.  The  Committee  thinks  that  as it is now  worded, 
Article  9 could  be construed  as being  intended  to 
apply  to other  countries  too. 
3.8. The  German  version  of the  Commission 
document  refers  (in Articles  4, 5 and  6 and  point  IV 
of the  Annex)  to  'gewerbsmafiiger  Vermittler' 
('professional  intermediary'  in the  English  version). 
This  term  is open  to misinterpretation  in the Federal 
Republic  of  Germany.  The  Committee  would 
therefore  welcome  an amendment  to the  German 
version  to the effect  that  'gewerbsmaftiger  Vermittler' 
covers  the  term  'Handler'  (dealer)  used  in German 
law. 
3.9. The  long-term  aim  of the  proposed  Directive 
is complete  abolition  of  this  tax  on  security 
transactions.  It is,  however,  illogical  that  the 
No C 297/12 Official  Journal  of the European  Communities 16.12.  76 
Commission  should  be notified  only  when  Member 
States  wish  to  introduce  new  exemptions. 
Notification  should  also  be mandatory  in the event  of 
such  taxes  being  introduced. 3.10.  In  conclusion,  the Committee  would  reiterate 
that it regards  the  proposed  Directive  as a stop-gap 
measure,  pending  total  abolition  of  taxes  on 
transactions  in securities. 
Done  at Brussels,  27 October  1976. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic  and  Social  Committee 
Basil  de FERRANTI 
Opinion  on the  proposal  for  a Council  Regulation  on the  harmonization  of certain 
social  legislation  relating  to road  transport 
The text  referred  to the  Committee  has  been  published  in Official  Journal  of the 
European  Communities  No  C 103  of 6 May  1976,  page  2. 
A. LEGAL  BASIS  FOR  THE  OPINION 
On 17 March  1976,  the Council  referred  the abovementioned  proposal  to the Economic 
and Social  Committee  in accordance  with  Article  75 of the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community. 
B. OPINION  OF  THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE 
The Economic  and  Social  Committee  prepared  its opinion  on the  above  matter  at its 
142nd  plenary  session,  held  in Brussels  on 27 and  28 October  1976. 
The full  text  of the opinion  is as follows: 
THE  ECONOMIC  AND  SOCIAL  COMMITTEE, 
Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the 
European  Economic  Community  and,  in particular, 
Article  75 thereof, 
Having  regard  to the request  made  by the Council  of 
the European  Communities  on 17 March  1976  for an 
opinion  on the proposal  for a Council  Regulation  on 
the harmonization  of certain  social  legislation  relating 
to road  transport, 
Having  regard  to Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
543/69  of 25 March  1969  on the  harmonization  of 
certain  social  legislation  relating  to road  transport  H, as amended  by Council  Regulations  (EEC)  No 514/72 
and (EEC)  No 515/72  of 28 February  1972  (2), 
Having  regard  to the proposal  of 3 August  1972  for a 
Council  Regulation  amending  Regulation  (EEC)  No 
543/69,  and  the Committee's  opinion  of 13 December 
1973  (3) on this  proposal, 
Having  regard  to the decision  taken  by its Bureau  on 
30 March  1976,  instructing  the Section  for Transport 
and Communications  to draw  up  a provisional 
(!) OJ No L 77, 29. 3. 1969,  p. 49. (2) OJ No L 67, 20. 3. 1972,  pp. 1 and 11. 
(3) OJ No C 37, 1. 4. 1974,  p. 17.