WRITTEN QUESTION P-0232/02 by Karla Peijs (PPE-DE) to the Commission. VAT issues.
Date: 2002-01-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: VAT, administrative formalities, freedom to provide services, service industry, tax harmonisation

C 205 E/98

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2002)

As part of the Portuguese Community Support Framework for 2000-2006, part-financed by the Structural
Funds, the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund, Guidance Section, will assist the forestry
sector in mainland Portugal through a measure to develop sustainable forestry under the Agriculture and
Rural Development Operational Programme (approved by the Commission on 30 October 2000). Planned
public expenditure for the period amounts to € 239,5 million, including an EAGGF Guidance Section
contribution of € 119,8 million.

According to the most recent information provided at the third meeting of the Monitoring Committee for
this programme on 22 November 2001, public expenditure committed to the measure in question since
the start of the programme amounts to € 30,5 million, € 15,6 million of which is borne by the EAGGF
Guidance Section.

Under the financial rules governing the Structural Funds the funding allocated to the programmes can be
committed up to 31 December 2006 and the related expenditure can be incurred up to 31 December
2008. The financial penalties laid down in Article 31(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of
21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) do not apply to individual
measures nor do they provide for any transfer of funds whatsoever to other Member States. The EAGGF
Guidance Section has already made two intermediate payments under this programme.

Furthermore, under the rural development plan for mainland Portugal financed by the EAGGF Guarantee
Section and adopted by the Commission on 22 November 2000, Portugal benefits from an afforestation of
arable land measure on which the planned public expenditure in the 2000-2006 period amounts to € 470
million, € 352 million of it coming from the EAGGF Guarantee Section. By 15 October 2001 the
Commission had paid Portugal € 72,7 million, corresponding to actual public expenditure of approxi-
mately € 98 million.

The financial rules laid down in Article 39 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1750/1999 of 23 July 1999
laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for
rural development from the European Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) (2) apply to the plan,
regardless of the amounts spent on each measure.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2) OJ L 214, 13.8.1999.

(2002/C 205 E/110)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0232/02

by Karla Peijs (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 January 2002)

Subject: VAT issues

The international removals industry, mainly comprised of SMUs, is facing a major problem concerning the
payment of VAT on international removals in an appropriate and legal way. It is not always clear for the
removers to which national tax authorities VAT payments should be made, and the costs involved in the
use of a tax consultant are disproportionate to the amount of VAT due. In addition, tax consultants usually
refuse to work with removal firms because of the shared liability.

Is the Commission considering a system by which these amounts of VAT could be paid to a European
central body which would redistribute the sums due to the various Member States at a later stage?

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/99

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

The Commission is currently not considering proposing the introduction of such a system as that outlined
by the Honourable Member.

The main problem facing the international removals industry relates to the VAT rules determining the
place of supply of the service, which they provide. The place of taxation of intracommunity transport
services carried out for non-taxable persons is where the transport starts. This problem is also highlighted
in many responses from Industry to the Internal Market Strategy for Services (1).

The Commission does acknowledge that the Internal Market would function better with a VAT system
based on the country of origin. However, such a system does not seem to be a politically feasible option in
the short term, considering the lack of progress in Council on a Commission program of 1996 with
proposals for a gradual transition to a VAT system based on country of origin. The Commission, however,
retains the idea of such a definite system of taxation as a long term Community goal.

In its new strategy to improve the operation of the VAT system in the short term (2), which was widely
welcomed by the Member States when presented in the Council, the Commission identified the need for a
modification of the rules determining the place of supply of services as one of the issues to be addressed.
The Commission will make an effort to come up with a proposal concerning the place of supply of
services as soon as possible, in 2003 at the earliest, taking into account the problems addressed by the
international removals industry.

(1) COM(2000) 888 final.
(2) COM(2000) 348 final.

(2002/C 205 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0238/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) and Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Delays and deductions in the payment of Community agricultural aid to Greece and infringement

of Community law by the Agricultural Bank of Greece

Significant delays in the payment of Community aid to farmers by the newly established payments agency
(Opekepe) in Greece have caused them financial loss and triggered protest demonstrations. For example,
while Community aid of EUR 924,54 million for 2001 (EUR 337,5 million for wheat, EUR 190,76 million
for olive oil, EUR 249,550 million for cotton and EUR 146,73 million for tobacco) has been received by
the Greek public administration, it has not yet been paid over to the farmers.

In view of the fact that the Commission has known for some years now of these delays and also of the
amounts illegally and improperly withheld by the Agricultural Bank of Greece (ATE) and other agencies,
and given that, according to the answer given to question E-2923/01 (1), ‘the Commission is looking into
this matter within the scope of the infringement procedure laid down in Article 226 of the EC Treaty’:

1. What urgent steps will the Commission take to ensure that matters are remedied and that EAGGF

appropriations are paid immediately to the farmers?

2. What steps will the Commission take to ensure ‘full payment’ to beneficiaries as laid down by Article 2
of Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 (2) establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the
common agricultural policy?

3. What is the total financial loss (reduction), since under Regulation (EC) No 296/96 (3) there is a system
of financial penalties for expenditure effected after the deadlines laid down, and therefore a loss of
appropriations for Greece?