WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3563/97 by Graham MATHER to the Commission. Commission communication on tax coordination (COM(97)495)
Date: 1997-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, MATHER
Subjects: competition, deduction at source, exchange of information, fiscal policy, savings, tax harmonisation, tax on investment income

22. 6. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 196/5

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3548/97 and E-3549/97
given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 1998)

A  declaration  in  the  Council  minutes  concerning  Council  Directive  92/83/EEC  of  19  October  1992  on  the
harmonization of the structures of excise duties on alcohol and alcoholic beverages (1) states that: (cid:145)The Council
and  the  Commission  declare  that  Member  States  which  have  traditionally  exempted  the  production  of  small
quantities of alcohol produced by private individuals for their own consumption may continue to apply such
exemptions(cid:146). In accordance with that declaration France has continued to exempt the production of ten litres of
pure alcohol per year by individuals who have traditionally been granted that right.

Apart from this special case, duty must be charged on all spirits production. There is however, an option under
Article 22 of Directive 92/83/EEC permitting Member States to charge the production of small distilleries at a
reduced rate. France, along with the majority of Member States, has chosen not to take up that option.

France having made that choice, the general rules set out in Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the
general arrangements for products subject to excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such
products (2) should apply so that, with the above exception concerning home distillation, all French distilleries
are tax warehouses in which duty payment shall be suspended until the goods produced enter free circulation,
and in which losses naturally occurring to the product of the distillery shall be taken into account.

Lastly,  as  regards  the  Commission(cid:146)s  approach  to  future  harmonization  in  this  area,  one  reason  why  the
derogations were originally permitted was because › within the parameters laid down › the tax treatment of
these small producers was considered to have insufficient effect on the internal market as to demand uniformity
at Community level. In the light of the Honourable Member(cid:146)s complaints, the Commission will keep the matter
under review, but it has no present intention of seeking further to harmonize their treatment.

(1)  OJ L 316, 31.10.1992.
(2)  OJ L 76, 23. 3.1992.

(98/C 196/08)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3563/97

by Graham Mather (PPE) to the Commission

(13 November 1997)

Subject: Commission communication on tax coordination (COM(97) 495)

At the Ecofin meeting of 13 October 1997, this Commission Communication was debated for the first time. The
document proposes a package of measures to tackle what it calls (cid:145)harmful tax competition(cid:146). The Council called
on the Commission to bring forward a new Communication, by 12 November at the latest, taking into account the
results  of  this  meeting  and  of  the  meeting  of  the  Tax  Policy  Group  of  20  October.  Ministers  unanimously
underlined their intention to reach political agreement on this matter at the Ecofin meeting on 1 December 1997.

With regard to the taxation of capital income, Point 19 III of the Communication states that (cid:145)every Member State
should either operate a minimum withholding tax or provide information on savings income to other Member
States(cid:146). Point 19 IV then states that (cid:145)the Community should also promote an extension of the agreed solution
beyond its borders(cid:146).

Through what mechanisms and international organizations does the Commission envisage the promotion

1.
of the agreed solution?

2. What means will be used within the context of these organizations and mechanisms?