WRITTEN QUESTION E-0547/04 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Continued levying of a tax in Germany which, pursuant to an EU directive, ought no longer to exist in 2004, and use of the revenue from it.
Date: 2004-02-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, application of EU law, consortium, corporation tax, tax collection, tax rebate, tax system

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/623

(2004/C 84 E/0696)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0547/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 February 2004)

Subject: Continued levying of a tax in Germany which, pursuant to an EU directive, ought no longer to

exist in 2004, and use of the revenue from it

1.
Is the Commission aware that businesses in Germany are complaining that they still have to pay tax
at source on licences from abroad although, pursuant to an EU directive, allied undertakings within the EU
are supposed to have been exempt from such taxes since 1 January 2004?

2.
In proposing measures, does the Commission take account of the consideration that Member States
must be able to raise sufficient tax revenue if they wish to comply with their obligations towards their
residents and regarding the preservation of their environment and at the same time have to pass on part of
their tax revenue to the EU and comply with the restrictive criteria of the Stability Pact?

How much revenue per annum has this tax raised in Germany in recent years (cid:1) money which, if

3.
federal law were to have been amended, would otherwise have accrued to businesses in 2004?

4.
Is the German Government justified in keeping the extra tax revenue raised due to failure to amend
national legislation according to schedule and in using it, for example, to moderate the reforms which it
proposes in social, financial and economic policy or to close the gap between its expected 2004 outturn
and its Stability Pact target?

5.
If the answer to question 4 is affirmative, does this set a precedent for other Member States which
have indeed amended their national legislation in time but which, by suspending the date of entry into
force of the amendment (cid:1) otherwise planned for 2004 (cid:1) could yet secure an attractive source of revenue
for themselves?

Source: Financial Times Deutschland/Kompakt, 9.2.2004.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2004)

1. Member States were required to bring into force legislation implementing Council Directive 2003/
49/EC of 3 June 2003 (1), aimed at the elimination of taxes at source on payments of interest or royalties
between associated companies, not later than 1 January 2004. They are obliged to communicate to the
Commission the text of the provisions of national law that they have adopted in order to implement this
Directive. The Commission has not yet received such a communication from Germany.

Budgetary implications are considered during the discussion process before adopting the Directive.

2.
Once adopted, this argument cannot be used to justify non-implementation.

3.

The Commission does not have the detailed information requested.

4.
Under national rules and procedures, companies should be able to reclaim any withholding taxes
charged by the German authorities in breach of the Directive. Any revenues derived from this tax that are
not challenged by taxpayers will form part of the general budget.

(1) Council Directive 2003/49/EC of 3 June 2003 on a common system of taxation applicable to interest and royalty

payments made between associated companies of different Member States, OJ L 157, 26.6.2003.