Avis juridique important

|

31994H0390

94/390/EC: Commission Recommendation of 25 May 1994 concerning the taxation of small and medium-sized enterprises (Text with EEA relevance)

Official Journal L 177 , 09/07/1994 P. 0001 - 0019

COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION of 25 May 1994 concerning the taxation of small and medium-sized enterprises (Text with EEA relevance) (94/390/EC)THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular the second indent of Article 155 thereof,  Whereas on 28 July 1989 the Council adopted Decision 89/490/EEC (1) on the improvement of the business environment and the promotion of the development of enterprises, and in particular small and medium-sized enterprises, in the Community, as revised by  Council Decision 91/319/EEC (2);  Whereas in its resolution of 17 June 1992 on Community action to support enterprises, in particular small medium-sized enterprises, including craft-industry enterprises (3), the Council confirmed its undertaking to support the consolidation of the  action taken to help enterprises;  Whereas by its Decision 93/379/EEC (4), the Council adopted, from 1 July 1993, a programme to intensify the priority measures and to ensure the continuity of an enterprise policy; whereas the programme gives priority to improving the legal, fiscal and  administrative environment of enterprises;  Whereas sole proprietorships and partnerships make up a large proportion of small and medium-sized enterprises, whose role in the creation of jobs has been emphasized on a number of occasions in different Commission communications, and, more  particularly, in the White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment; whereas it is necessary to promote the investment capacity of these enterprises;  Whereas the method of taxing sole proprietorships and partnerships, which are generally subject to personal income tax, a tax which is progressive in nature in particular by comparison with corporation tax, hampers the development of the self-financing  capacity of such enterprises and, in an economic environment where access to external financing is becoming more difficult, consequently restricts their investment capacity;  Whereas the current structure of rates of personal income tax and rates of corporation tax distorts competition between enterprises, depending on their legal form, to the detriment of sole proprietorships and partnerships; whereas it is desirable to  work for greater tax neutrality, at least at regards the implications which systems of taxation have for profits reinvested by enterprises and, hence for their self-financing capacity;  Whereas several Member States have already taken measures to limit the existing distortion between taxation systems, according to whether an enterprise's profits are charged to personal income tax or corporation tax, either by granting sole  proprietorships and partnerships the right to opt for payment of corporation tax on reinvested profits, or by limiting the progressiveness of personal income tax by comparison with the rates of corporation tax to incorporated companies;  Whereas the incorporation of sole proprietorships or partnerships is likely to resolve, despite its impact on areas unrelated to taxation which affect the entrepreneur and the enterprise, the problem of the level of taxation of the non-distributed  profits of these enterprises; whereas such an operation must be carried out whithout giving rise to a significant revenue cost,  HEREBY RECOMMENDS:   Article 1  Member States are invited to adopt those tax measures necessary to correct the deterrent effects of the progressive income tax payable by sole proprietorships and partnerships in respect of reinvested profits. In particular, they should  consider the possibility of:  (a) giving these enterprises and partnerships in this respect the right to opt to pay corporation tax;  and/or (b) restrict the tax charge on reinvested profits to a rate comparable to that of corporation tax.   Article 2  Member States are invited to adopt or extend those measures necessary to eliminate the tax obstacle to changes in the legal form of enterprises, in particular the incorporation of sole proprietorships or partnerships.   Article 3  Member States are invited to communicate, by 31 July 1995, the texts of the main laws, regulations and administrative provisions which they adopt in response to this recommendation and inform the Commission of all subsequent changes made in  this field.   Article 4  This recommendation is addressed to the Member States.  Done at Brussels, 25 May 1994.  For the Commission Christiane SCRIVENER Member of the Commission  (1) OJ No L 239, 16. 8. 1989, p. 33.(2) OJ No L 175, 4. 7. 1991, p. 32.(3) OJ No C 178, 15. 7. 1992, p. 8.(4) OJ No L 161, 2. 7. 1993, p. 68.   EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM  The importance of SMEs in creating jobs and stimulating growth has been emphasized on several occasions in declarations and resolutions by the European Council, the Council and Parliament. The European Council in  Edinburgh on 11 and 12 December 1992 made a special call for measures to promote private investment, especially investment by SMEs.  The Commission White Paper on growth, competitiveness and employment stressed the responsibility of governments and the Community in creating an environment which is as conducive as possible to the competitiveness of enterprises, and in particular SMEs,  given that their dynamism, productivity, flexibility and innovation are vital to the European economy.  The need to create a more favourable environment for enterprises is central to the strategic programme for the internal market (1) drawn up by the Commission. Support for the development of SMEs is essential if the internal market is to be fully  effective. And improving the tax environment for SMEs is a key aspect of the initiatives proposed for that purpose.  The Commission has looked into the tax treatment of such enterprises, in line with the thinking put forward in the White Paper, with a view to making it easier for SMEs to meet the new requirements of competitiveness.  A detailed examination of how enterprises are taxed reveals a disparity in tax treatment depending on the legal form under which they operate (see findings in Annex). Because of their legal form, sole proprietorships and partnerships very often have to  pay income tax on the whole of their income. The progressiveness of the tax scale means that the marginal rates of tax, while sometimes lower, are generally higher than the rates of corporation tax. This tends to create distortions of competition  between enterprises on the basis of their legal form, particularly since the self-financing capacity of sole proprietorships and partnerships is likely to be squeezed compared with that of incorporated enterprises of the same size or even larger, owing  to their heavier tax burden. In certain cases this may affect the very development of the enterprise. Given the high proportion of sole proprietorships and partnerships in the European Union (it is often estimated that one out of two firms is not an  incorporated enterprise), this tax feature has a quite significant impact.  Some Member States have themselves introduced tax arrangements based on the concept of tax neutrality between incorporated and unincorporated enterprises. While tax neutrality is never complete, better equivalence is achieved and there is minimal  interference between these arrangements and the general tax system. This special machinery is designed to ensure more equal tax treatment of firms' reinvested profits, irrespective of their legal form (Denmark and Greece), or place a ceiling on the  progressive tax on trading income (Germany).  However, in most Member States, the solution most frequently advocated in such circumstances (even if its implications are complex and affect various fields outside that of taxation, especially the social field) is to turn the sole proprietorship or the  partnership into an incorporated enterprise. Tax-relief measures are often available in order to facilitate such operations.  The Commission wishes to promote such arrangements throughout the Union by inviting the Member States which do not yet have provisions of this kind to adopt them or to take measures with equivalent effect.  The ideas outlined in this paper are based on the available data and the answers supplied by Member States to a questionnaire on how enterprises are taxed and what tax provisions are applied when a sole proprietorship or partnership converts into an  incorporated company.   Conclusions  Given that the vast majority of small and medium-sized enterprises are unincorporated and considering their prime role in keeping economic activity dynamic in the Community and in creating jobs, the Commission is encouraging the Member  States to adopt any measures designed to correct the deterrent effects of current taxation structures on the self-financing of sole proprietorships and partnerships. Greater fairness in the tax treatment of the profits retained or reinvested by those  enterprises should, by giving them a chance to improve their self-financing capacity and strengthen their cash position, enable them to deal better with the difficulties typically encountered by SMEs, particularly at the bottom of the economic cycle,  and to make the best possible use, thanks to increased capacity for investment, of the opportunities available when the economy recovers. These initiatives would also have the advantage of giving entrepreneurs genuine freedom of choice between the  various legal forms under which to carry on their activity reducing the significance of the taxation factor in their choice.  The special systems operated in Denmark and Greece, and the German mechanism, provide an interesting illustration of the possible options. Other measures having equivalent effect are also conceivable (e. g. a special investment reserve). It is for the  Member States to choose those procedures which best suit their domestic taxation systems.  Even if, because of the impact in fields unrelated to taxation, the conversion of sole proprietorships or partnerships into incorporated companies does not necessarily constitute the ideal response to the situation described, it is still a response, and  it is desirable for an entrepreneur to be able to choose, throughout the life of his business, the legal form which is best suited to its evolution. Moreover, this is the preferred approach in an number of Member States. For, while the majority of them  consider that, legally speaking, these operations entail the cessation of a business activity, the repercussions which this normally has in tax terms are often attenuated.  An examination of the situation in the Community thus reveals that the tax provisions applied when sole proprietorships and partnerships are incorporated make it possible overall to guarantee a minimum level of tax neutrality when the legal status is  changed. Isolated changes in tax legislation are nevertheless desirable, particularly in order to generalize the options for imputation of business losses to the owner or partner, when they cannot be carried over because of the change in legal status.  And there is a need for a reduction in transfer taxes levied on contributions of assets which might be modelled on the deferment of taxation of capital gains often granted for the same assets. The Commission invites the Member States to improve the  existing mechanisms or to introduce such mechanisms in order to ensure that, from the taxation point of view, the incorporation of sole proprietorships and partnerships can be undertaken as flexibly as possible.  These two approaches should not be regarded as mutually exclusive and the Member States are, in particular, invited to draw on the original ideas developed in certain Community countries, with a view to devising, in partnership with the interested  parties, those solutions which are best suited to dealing with the problem of self-financing by small and medium-sized enterprises.   (1) COM(93) 632 final of 22 December 1993 - Communication from the Commission to the Council: 'Making the most of the internal market': Strategic programme.    ANNEX   I. CURRENT SITUATION AS REGARDS THE TAXATION OF SMEs' PROFITS  In view of the importance of SMEs for the European economy and their special nature as an economic and social organization, their current tax treatment in the Community should be examined to  see how their profits are taxed and in particular whether or not there are derogation measures in this field under ordinary law that are designed specifically for SMEs.  1.  Taxation of enterprises How an enterprise is taxed generally depends on its legal form rather than on its size.  In the case of sole proprietorships, the enterprise's and the proprietor's income are taxed together, being charged to personal income tax.  Partnerships are usually taxed applying the principle of tax transparency: the profits are taxable in the hands of the partners in proportion to their rights, even if they did not actually draw on those profits. The conditions governing the taxation of  partnerships are in effect very similar to those applying to sole proprietorships. However, in some Member States these firms are either subject de facto to corporation tax if they are engaged in industrial or commercial activities (Belgium, Spain), or  they may opt (France) for the tax regime applicable to incorporated enterprises.  In the case of incorporated enterprises, corporation tax is charged on the profits earned by the enterprise itself. In principle, the shareholders and members of those enterprises are themselves taxable only in respect of the profits distributed to  them.  2.  Establishing the tax base The industrial or commercial profits of sole proprietorships or partnerships subject to income tax are, in principle, determined in the same way as the profits of incorporated enterprises liable for corporation tax.  The rules governing exceptions under ordinary law essentially consist in flat-rate calculation of the taxable amount or simplification of the taxation procedures.  In practice, these arrangements generally concern only sole proprietorships in the craft sector or of very small size, given the thresholds for such measures (in France, for example, the flat-rate arrangements are available only to enterprises with a  turnover of less than FF 500 000, or FF 150 000 in the case of service enterprises) and the fact that they are rarely adjusted. While they offer the heads of small enterprises the advantage of a genuine simplification of their taxation and accounting  obligations, these arrangements have the drawback of not encouraging them to introduce the management tools they might need in order to expand their business. In practice, the enterprises covered are often those operating at a local level.  Enterprises subject to corporation tax are always excluded from the flat-rate arrangements. However, in a number of Member States such companies may, in particular under the fourth accounting Directive, benefit from simplified accounting procedures if  they rank as small enterprises. They may for example submit an abridged version of their balance-sheet and profit-and-loss account and supply tax information in a more condensed form, thus reducing the number of forms to be completed at the end of the  financial year. However, they still have to comply with the usual accounting principles and valuation methods of the tax regime for industrial and commercial profits.  In practice, in the majority of cases, with the exception of the tax treatment applied to proprietor's remuneration in accordance with the transparency or otherwise of the legal form chosen for the enterprise, there are not fundamental differences in  the procedures for determining the basis of assessment for enterprises, large or small, incorporated or unincorporated. There are, however, major differences in the rates applied: the progressive scale of personal income tax, the standard rate of  corporation tax, reduced rates, etc.  3.  Tax rates A look at the tax rates (see Note 1, page 11) shows that, in most Member States, the marginal rates of personal income tax are higher than the standard rate of corporation tax, despite the general trend towards reducing rates for both enterprises and  natural persons. Because of their legal form and the absence of any distinction between distributed and reinvested income, sole proprietorships and partnerships are de facto taxed on the whole of their income at marginal imcome-tax rates which may be  higher than the corporation-tax rates.  This results in a distortion of competition between enterprises on account of their legal form, to the detriment of sole proprietorships and partnerships. That distortion is all the greater the wider the difference between the rates of income tax and  corporation tax.  The system of taxation applying to sole proprietorships and partnerships acts as a brake on their investment-based development. Their self-financing capacity is reduced owing to the higher rates of tax applied to the top slices of income, which are  those which provide the greatest scope for saving and investing.  Yet increasing the self-financing capacity of SMEs is the most viable alternative to their recourse to external sources of finance, access to which can be particularly difficult in the present economic situation, since financial intermediaries sometimes  tend - following the euphoria of the 1980s - to be excessively cautious and reluctant to grant additional funding. It is therefore important that enterprises should be able to generate sufficient own funds in order to weather any transitory difficulties  resulting from external conjonctural or internal factors. When an enterprise is in a phase of major expansion, the shift in balance which may occur in such circumstances makes it more vulnerable, particularly financially.  Given that sole proprietorships represent, on average, almost half of all the enterprises operating in the Member States of the Community, and that they employ 10-20 % of the labour force, the potential impact of this special tax feature is quite  appreciable.  Since the various legal forms are unevently represented in the Community, this tax aspect may influence the optimum level of investment within the single market.  The distribution pattern of incorporated enterprises, partnerships and sole proprietorships varies considerably between the Member States. The number of incorporated enterprises is very low in such countries as Germany and Italy, and particularly high  in France, Belgium and the United Kingdom (see table in Note 3, page 17, on the size of the enterprise sector in the Member States). It is usually small enterprises which adopt unincorporated legal forms, although the situation varies according to the  Member State. In Germany, for example, some large enterprises are run in the form of partnerships; in Belgium, small enterprises do not hesitate to incorporate, while only a limited number of large enterprises use incorporation in Germany.   II. AD HOC SOLUTIONS IN SOME OF THE MEMBER STATES  In Denmark, the sole proprietor may, each year, elect to be taxed at the rate of corporation tax on income retained within the firm. Under this special scheme, which has been in force since 1987  (special business arrangement or 'business rules'), a distinction is made, with regard to the nature of the income withdrawn by the entrepreneur, between income from capital and personal income. Income from capital, which is determined by applying the  average rate of return on bonds for the year to the enterprise's net assets, qualifies for the preferential tax treatment of dividends (traditionally applied to income from shares). Personal income, i. e. the income withdrawn by the entrepreneur in  addition to the return on capital, is taxed applying the sliding scale of income tax. This method, which is used by about 130 000 firms, makes it possible to achieve equality of tax treatment between sole proprietorships, partnerships and incorporated  enterprises as regards income retained within the enterprise, since the latter is taxed at 34 % - the same rate as corporation tax. The scheme is described in more detail in Note 4, page 18.  Norway and Sweden, too, have schemes which are relatively similar in conception to the Danish one. The downside of this tax arrangement is that it imposes more administrative constraints (principally of an accounting nature) on those enterprises which  opt for it.  In Greece, the tax reform of June 1992 introduced a related mechanism for enterprises formed as partnerships, limited partnerships or private limited companies; previously, these had been subject to the progressive scale of income tax, ranging from 5 %  to 40 %. Following the reform, their profits will be taxed at the single rate of 35 % (as in the case of public limited companies) less the remuneration of partners or managers (natural persons holding at least one third of the partnership's/company's  shares). Such remuneration, whether in effect withdrawn or not, is estimated at a flat rate of 50 % of the partnership's/company's net income, with the partner or manager liable for personal income tax on it. The advantage of the reform is that it  provides for neutral treatment of the profits ploughed back by enterprises in the above categories.  In Germany, a provision has been introduced with effect from 1 January 1994 whereby progressiveness of income tax on the profits of sole proprietorships and partnerships is limited, the maximum at marginal rate of tax for this type of income being  capped at 47 %. By contrast, the highest rate (53 %) will continue to apply, where appropriate, to all the other taxable income of taxpayers. The difference between the rate of corporation tax (45 % on undistributed profits (1)) and that of the tax on  the income of non-incorporated enterprises (47 %) will henceforth be only two percentage points; it would have been more than four times greater had it not been capped. While the measure is of a different order to those introduced by Greece and Denmark,  in that it covers all the income, whether distributed or undistributed, of the enterprises concerned, it still shows a similar willingness to limit the differences of tax treatment between the ploughed-back profits of incorporated enterprises and those  of sole partnerships and partnerships.  These few examples illustrate the solutions which can be applied, either without interfering with the general system of taxation (Denmark and Greece) or without jeopardizing the principle of tax transparency traditionally applied to sole proprietorships  and partnerships (Germany).  Possible conclusions at Community level The aim here is not to single out one particular solution as ideal for the Community, since each has its advantages and disadvantages.  Thus, the Danish system, which seeks to ensure tax neutrality, is sophisticated and appropriate but complex to administer. The opportunity which the Danish entrepreneur (sole proprietor or partnership) has, each year, to opt either for the special  scheme or for normal personal income tax enables him to maximize, depending on the year's results, the enterprise's self-financing capacity by adjusting the level of the tax charge. The special scheme means, however, that the entrepreneur must keep  detailed accounts. This is a relative constraint, since the accounting requirement has a pedagogical spin-off: it encourages the entrepreneur to set up the information system necessary for the sound management of the business. Another disadvantage of  this maximum tax flexibility is that it carries a not inconsiderable budgetary cost. The introduction of schemes where the option is irreversible or has to be applied for a mimiumum period (five years or more) would of course make it possible to limit  the budgetary cost of such mechanisms. But it would entail higher administrative costs for the tax authorities, strict supervision having to be exercised in order to prevent abuse of preferential schemes of this type.  The advantage of the Greek system is that it provides partnerships (sole proprietorships are not eligible for the scheme) with equivalent tax treatment of their undistributed profits to that available for incorporated enterprises, the rate of  corporation tax (35 %) applying in both cases. Nevertheless, the scheme, which is applied automatically, has the relative drawback that it does not allow enterprises to choose: in effect, the smallest enterprises, which were previously taxed at low  marginal rates of income tax, may find themselves penalized by the new tax arrangements.  The German mechanism of putting a ceiling on income tax on industrial and commercial income has the advantage that it is simple to implement. On the other hand, it has the drawback that it interferes with the tax system by creating an advantage for the  self-employed, as against the salaried, entrepreneur - even though the latter's responsibilities, in his capacity as manager for example, might be the same - since the tax burden on the self-employed entrepreneur may not exceed 47 %, while it may be as  high as 53 % on the salary earner.  These differences are principally the reflection of technical and political choices made in specific national contexts.  Despite their diversity, however, all the solutions have the common benefit of reducing, in the States which have implemented them, the tax charge on the undistributed profits of sole proprietorships and partnerships by bringing the rate applied closer  to, or aligning it on, the nominal rates of corporation tax applied in the same circumstances to incorporated companies.  Other variants having an equivalent effect are conceivable: thus, sole proprietorships and partnerships could be afforded tax treatment which was more favourable to investment, involving a distinction between retained/reinvested income and the income  withdrawn by the entrepreneur or partners. Income retained within the firm would, on the basis of an option exercised irrevocably or not, by the entrepreneur (or the partners unanimously), be taxed at the rate of corporation tax, and only the income  withdrawn would be charged to income tax in the hands of the entrepreneur (or the partners) as industrial or commercial income.  While the Scandinavian examples - particularly the Danish one - show that it is possible to implement schemes of this nature, it should be remembered that certain Member States have reservations about them. Thus, the experience of Germany in the early  1950s and studies conducted by the Inland Revenue in the United Kingdom have led to doubts in these States about the practicality of an optional system of charging coporation tax on the reinvested profits of sole proprietorships and partnerships,  especially because of the difficulty of monitoring income flows between the entrepreneur and the enterprise and the risk that the scheme might be diverted from its purpose.  One alternative put forward is to allow such enterprises to build up special investment reserves which will have the effect of increasing the enterprise's self-financing capacity while ensuring that the latter is used to undertake (tangible or  intangible) investment. Here again, it is for the Member States to judge how much freedom they want to give enterprises in employing their self-financing capacity and deciding on the use to which it is to be put (e.g. to improve the cash position or to  invest in capital goods).  The approach under the solutions described thus for concentrates on the search for neutral tax treatment of the reinvested profits of the enterprise irrespective of its legal form. The advantage of these mechanisms is that they foster, in tax terms, the  enterprise's internal development potential without calling into question the entrepreneur's initial choice, based on tax (2) or other criteria, of a particular legal form. At present, only a minority of Member States have such arrangements.  Most Member States prefer a different approach, which consists in facilitating, in tax terms, a change in the legal form of the enterprise during its lifetime.   III. TAX RELIEF WHEN THE LEGAL FORM OF AN SME IS CHANGED  This system is quite different from the one just described. The two approaches, moreover, are neither mutually exclusive nor incompatible, since Denmark, Germany and Greece, which have the ad hoc  tax arrangements just described for unincorporated enterprises, also have different facilities in their legislation which are designed to limit tax disadvantages when a sole proprietorship or a partnership incorporates.  These approaches are not really alternatives, either, since they have different effects on the entrepreneur's rights and obligations. An entrepreneur's decision to carry on his trade by (not) forming an incorporated enterprise is based on many other  factors apart from tax. The extent of his personal liability will often be a key element in his decision. Another major factor will be the extent (and cost) of social security cover for the entrepreneur, depending on the legal form chosen. The degree of  'intuitu personae' will also have a part to play if other people are associated with the project.  It should also be stressed that incorporation has a disadvantage for small enterprises in that it imposes on the head of the enterprise a more burdensome administrative structure than necessary-particularly if the only purpose of incorporation is to  improve the firm's tax position-weakening the direct link which exists between entrepreneur and enterprise.  Nevertheless, a solution to the problem of the unequal tax treatment of the profits of enterprises which are not incorporated and the profits of those which are might be to encourage the former to incorporate. While this might seem radical and possibly  disproportionate, it would achieve the objective of improving the competitiveness of the enterprises concerned. If a change in legal form is facilitated or even encouraged so that a corporate form more adapted in tax terms to the enterprise's  development is used, the tax constraints which may be encountered by an enterprise operated as a sole proprietorship or a partnership as a result of the entrepreneur's initial choice may then fall away.  For this reason, it is important that the tax system should generally offer sufficient flexibility as regards the choice of legal form in which the entrepreneur intends to carry on his trade. While the entrepreneur chooses whether or not to go for  incorporation when he starts up his business, a few years later he may want to review his original choice as his business grows.  But it is also true that the tax disadvantage from which the sole proprietorship or the partnership may suffer, as it grows, vis-à-vis an incorporated enterprise materializes when the level of profits generated by the enterprise place it towards the  upper end of the scale of personal income tax. Such a situation occurs more often at the end of a strong period of growth than when the enterprise is first set up, the early years of activity being characterized generally by a low, or even negative,  rate of return.  While the need for the enterprise to be able to adapt its legal form to the requirements of competitive markets, and the benefits of the transformation, are clear, it is important to ensure that such a change does not entail tax costs which could  discourage an enterprise from making it.  In the majority of Member States, however, a change of legal form generally means the cessation of the business, with the tax consequences which that entails, and setting up a new legal person. Immediate taxation of the profits of the financial year, of  hidden capital gains and provisions initially set aside free of tax, loss of the opportunity to carry over losses from previous financial years and liability for capital duty are the tax burdens which any enterprise taking this road will normally have  to face.  It is not often that an enterprise is allowed to continue, since legal formalism usually prevails over the enterprise's economic situation; most Member States, however, make a distinction according to the type of legal transformation concerned and its  precise technicalities. Depending on whether the change is from sole proprietorship to incorporated enterprise, from partnership to incorporated enterprise, or from one form of incorporated enterprise to another, the continuity of the enterprise is  accepted by certain Member States. Tax reliefs are also granted if certain conditions associated with the legal transformation are met.  In the case of the incorporation of sole proprietorships, the notion that the business should automatically be wound up - which is what most Member States would argue - may be favourably modified depending on the circumstances: thus, in Belgium,  'continuity' of the enterprise is accepted for tax purposes if this is what the entrepreneur wants.  Taking the transformation of a partnership into an incorporated enterprise, some Member States (Italy, Portugal) accept continuity, but most consider that this involves cessation of the enterprise and creation of a new legal person.  However, whatever their attitude in terms of legal formalism (the enterprise may continue or should be wound up), most of the Member States have introduced provisions which make it possible to attenuate the tax consequences of transformation. These  measures, the details of which are given in Note 2, page 14 Member State by Member State, basically concern the opportunity to defer taxation of the hidden capital gains recorded at the time of transformation and to carry over the provisions relating to  the activity without changing their purpose. Certain relaxations of registration duty are also provided for.  It is also interesting to note that the possibility which has been created in France for partnerships to opt (irrevocably) for corporation tax has virtually the same tax effects as transformation into an incorporated enterprise. While the relief  procedures are the same, there is the additional advantage that hidden capital gains and profits on which tax has been deferred are not taxed, since no change is made to the accounts and it is still possible to tax capital gains at a later stage.  Possible lessons from these measures for the Community Legal formalism continues to be the dominant factor in the Member States' assessment of whether an enterprise should continue in business when it wishes to change its form of organization; however, the tax effects of formalism, which in virtually all  cases leads to the winding-up of the enterprise and the creation of a new entity, are attenuated by practical measures designed to reduce or defer a number of taxes.  Virtually all of the Member States thus have provisions which allow the taxation of capital gains to be deferred until they are realized (usually on condition that the entrepreneur undertakes to hold on to the securities received in exchange for the  capital contributed to the new entity and that the assets transferred continue to be carried at their accounting value in the new entity's books) or allow the entrepreneur to choose between immediate taxation (which enables the new firm to calculate the  depreciation of the transferred assets applying the value at which they were contributed and not the value at which they were carried in the books of the original enterprise) and deferred taxation. Only one country (Portugal) does not permit such choice  when sole proprietorships are incorporated.  Similarly, all of the Member States except Portugal allow provisions to be maintained if their object remains unchanged. Virtually all of them also maintain the enterprise's normal deadlines for payments.  By contrast, legal formalism and its reflection in taxation do not allow losses to be carried over following a change in an enterprise's legal form. Some countries (Germany, France, Luxembourg, United Kingdom) have indicated, however, that, in such  cases, losses incurred by a sole proprietorship or partnership can be imputed to the entrepreneur or the partners.  As regards capital duties, some Member States still apply relatively high rates to real property contributed to companies (Belgium, Greece, Spain, France, Italy). However, some of these countries have introduced provisions to reduce this tax charge  (Belgium, France, Spain) as long as securities are issued in return for the contributions made. General introduction of such mechanisms in the Union would appear desirable.   NOTE 1  Comparison of rate of corporation tax and rate of personal income tax - incidence on the taxation of enterprises Comparing rates of corporation tax and personal income tax in the Community, we can identify three typical situations, depending on the Member State concerned (see table). The graphs below illustrate the diversity of situations.  The first situation is found in Member States where the rate of corporation tax is not just lower than the top marginal rate of personal income tax, but is actually lower than the bottom marginal rate; the second situation is found in Member States  where the rate of corporation tax is somewhere between the highest and lowest marginal rates of personal income tax; and the third situation is found in Member States where the rate of corporation tax is equal to or higher than the top marginal rate of  persnal income tax.  - The first situation is observed in Denmark, and (in the manufacturing sector, where a reduced rate of corporation tax is applied) in Ireland. It emerges from a simple comparison of the structure of rates that incorporated enterprises paying  corporation tax enjoy a clear advantage, in terms of the tax treatment of their profits, over sole proprietorships and partnerships paying personal income tax. All other things being equal, the tax situation is an undeniable incentive to incorporate  enterprises from the outset (provided the inherent administrative costs are not prohibitive).  - This incentive effect is mitigated in the second type of situation, which is that in majority of Member States (Belgium, Spain, France, Greece, Ireland in sectors other than manufacturing, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom). In this  situation, sole proprietorships are in a favourable position as long as taxable profits remain fairly low (and as long as the sole proprietor has no other income from other sources), but as they rise, the threshold effect and the scissors effect due to  the greater progressiveness of personal income tax in relation to corporation tax work to the disadvantage of sole proprietorships compared to limited companies for example. The same applies to partnerships liable to pay personal income tax.   Among the Member States in the second category, there are three - Belgium, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom - with a progressive scale of corporation tax.  (a) Reduced rates in Belgium are a privilege reserved for SMEs, but elsewhere they are integrated in the normal structures of corporation tax, and are focused more on the low profits of companies whether large or small than on small companies as such,  although in practice small companies are statistically the ones most affected. At all events, their effect is to attenuate the tax burden on small companies, thus making it easier for them to get off the ground.  (b) The progressiveness of corporation tax in the three countries mentioned may seem comparable to the progressive scale of personal income tax applied to sole proprietors in all the Member States. However, although the reduced rates of corporation tax  appear close or equal to the lowest rates of tax on personal incomes in Belgium (28 % compared with 26,75 %) an the United Kingdom (25 % in both cases) (3) the progressiveness of the income brackets to which they apply is quite different. In the three  Member States concerned, the lowest corporation tax bracket is equal to or higher than the bracket taxed at the highest marginal rate of personal income tax. In practice, the tax arrangements for small companies are still more favourable than those for  sole proprietorships.  (c) There is one country in this second category, the Netherlands, that applies a degressive scale of corporation tax; the first Fl 100 000 of profits are taxed at 40 %, the remainder is taxed at 35 %. These rates compare with a top marginal rate of  income tax of 60 % on incomes in excess of Fl 85 530. The reason for this system is to avoid too wide a disparity between tax arrangements for limited companies and those for other types of enterprise.  - Finally, the third type of situation exists in Italy and Portugal, where the gap between effective rates of corporation tax and personal income tax (top bracket) is so small that, beyond a certain level of profits, there is a degree of tax neutrality  between the different legal forms. Germany has recently amended its tax system so as to comply with the unwritten rule of virtual parallelism between top marginal rates of corporation tax and personal income tax. On 1 January 1994, the corporation tax  rate was cut form 36 % to 30 % on distributed profits and from 50 % to 45 % on undistributed profits; this would have increased the gap between the top rate of corporation tax and the top marginal rate of personal income tax (53 %) from 3 to 8 points if  it had not also been decided to limit the rate of personal income tax on commercial and industrial incomes to 47 %, so as to maintain some parallelism between the tax burden on enterprises paying corporation tax and those paying personal income tax.        Comparative table of rates of corporation tax and personal income tax: all levels of government* (1994)  "" ID="1">Germany> ID="2">19> ID="3">53 (47) (***)> ID="4">-  2> ID="5">30/451"> ID="1">Belgium> ID="2">26,75 [25]> ID="3">59 [55]> ID="4">- 20>  ID="5">39 % Reduced rates for SMEs2: 28 % on profits between Bfrs 0 and 1 million, 36 % between 1 and 3,6 million, 41 % between 3,6 and 13 million"> ID="1">Denmark> ID="2">38(+ 5 points social security contribution)> ID="3">58 (+ 5 %)> ID="4">- 24> ID="5">34">  ID="1">Spain> ID="2">20> ID="3">56> ID="4">- 21> ID="5">35"> ID="1">France> ID="2">5> ID="3">56,8> ID="4">- 23,47> ID="5">33,33"> ID="1">Greece> ID="2">5> ID="3">40> ID="4">-  5> ID="5">353"> ID="1">Ireland> ID="2">27> ID="3">48> ID="4">-  9>  ID="5">40 % Reduced rate: 10 % for manufacturing companies in certain areas (Shannon, IFSC)"> ID="1">Italy> ID="2">10> ID="3">51> ID="4">+  1,2> ID="5">52,2 [36]4"> ID="1">Luxembourg> ID="2">10 (+ 2,5 % contribution to Employment Fund)> ID="3">50 (+ 2,5 %)> ID="4">-  9,17> ID="5">43,33 (33)5 Reduced rates: 20 % (profits under Lfrs 0,4); progressive rates from 20 to 30 % (Lfrs 0,4 to 0,6 million); 30 % (Lfrs 0,6 to 1 million); 30-33 % (Lfrs 1 to 1,312 million); 33 % (over Lfrs 1,312 million)"> ID="1">Netherlands> ID="2">136> ID="3">60>  ID="4">- 25> ID="5">35 % (but 40 % for the first Fl 100 000 in profits)"> ID="1">Portugal> ID="2">15> ID="3">40> ID="4">-  0,4> ID="5">39,6 % [36]"> ID="1">United Kingdom> ID="2">257> ID="3">40> ID="4">-  7> ID="5">33 % Reduced rate: 25 % on profits below £ 300 000""(*) Rates shown in square brackets are rates of tax charged by central government. Effective rates include local taxation applied in certain Member States.  (**) The differential between the standard rate of corporation tax applied to undistributed profits and the top marginal rate of personal income tax.  (***) Germany: from 1 January 1994, the rate of personal income tax on commercial or industrial income is limited to 47 %; for other types of income, the top marginal rate of 53 % continues to apply.  (1) Germany: the rate of tax on distributed profits is 36 %, that on undistributed profits 50 %.  (2) Belgium: this reduced rate of taxation applies to incorporated SMEs that fulfil all the following conditions:  (a) taxable income below Bfrs 13 million ;  (b) no more than half their shares held by one or more other incorporated enterprises;  (c) investment value of shares held no more than 50 % of paid-up capital;  (d) distributed profits not exceeding 13 % of paid-up capital.  (3) Greece: for private limited companies, the 35 % rate applies to the net residual profits after deduction of the remuneration of the three main shareholders taking part in the management of the company.  (4) Italy: enterprises with no more than three salaried employees in which the owner and members of the owner's family work are not liable to pay the local tax on profits (ILOR).  (5) Luxembourg: companies pay an additional contribution of 1 % to the Employment Fund and a local profits tax at an average rate of 10 %.  (6) Netherland: a social security contribution of 25,55 % is added to the bottom rate of income tax, making the effective rate 38,55 %.  (7) United Kingdom: a reduced rate of 20 % was recently introduced into the scale of personal income tax, but only on a very narrow band (the first £ 2 000, about ECU 1 500).  > NOTE 2  Measures to alleviate the tax consequences of the conversion of sole proprietorships or partnerships into incorporated enterprises Whatever the attitudes adopted by Member States on a formal legal level (continuation or cessation of the business in question), most have introduced arrangements for alleviating the tax consequences of such conversion operations.  With regard to the immediate taxation of profits, the great majority of Member States do not require early declaration of profits for the conversion of a sole proprietorship into a company but apply the normal deadline for the declaration of income  (France is an exception in that it requires a return to be submitted within 60 days of conversion; Greece also requires almost immediate payment).  Similarly, the great majority of Member States authorize carry-over of provisions where the purpose of such provisions remains unchanged. This kind of arrangement helps to ensure some degree of tax neutrality in the case of changes of legal structure.  By contrast, the benefit of a possible carry-over of losses is frequently lost on a change of legal structure because the activity is deemed to cease. This applies particularly to conversion into a company; however, there are arrangements in some Member  States (e.g. Germany, France, Ireland, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom) for setting such losses against the personal income of the owner (or of the partners in the case of partnership).  With regard to the taxation of latent capital gains on the conversion of a sole proprietorship into a company, the great majority of Member States permit the business either to defer taxation or to be taxed at a preferential rate; others permit  enterprises to choose between immediate and deferred taxation (in France latent capital gains on depreciable assets are automatically taxed on conversion to a company, althought the owner may choose between immediate and deferred taxation of latent  capital gains on intangible assets). In most Member States, these favourable arrangements are subject, in the case of a conversion operation carried out in the form of transfers of assets, to the transfers being remunerated mainly through shares which  the transferor undertakes ot retain for a minimum number of years and to the assets being included in the new entity's accounts at their book value.  It should be pointed out with regard to capital duties that the amount of duty payable on the conversion of an enterprise is far from negligible. Transfer duties are frequently levied on transfers of buildings, property rights and goodwill for  consideration. The rates of these duties can be very high, particularly in the case of transfers for consideration (this is the case, for example, where the company takes on the liabilities of the transferor; under such circumstances, the transfer  operation is normally treated as a sale). Council Directive 69/335/EEC of 17 July 1969  (4) does permit Member States to levy transfer duties on transfers of immovable assets to incorporated enterprises at a rate in excess of the maximum harmonized  capital-duty rate of 1 % applicable to other types of transfers.  However, a number of Member States (for example Belgium, France and Spain) have adopted the principle which is most frequently applied to the taxation of capital gains in connection with a conversion operation: taxation of such gains may be suspended if  the transferor is remunerated in the form of shares; similarly, transfer duties may be reduced substantially (application of a flat-rate amount or reduced rate) if, for example, the transfers are remunerated by securities which the transferor undertakes  to retain for a minimum period.      Country Capital duties Capital gains Immediate taxation of profits Carry-over of losses Carry-over of provisions (*)   Tax treatment applied in the Member States when sole proprietorships or partnerships are converted into incorporated enterprises  "" ID="1">Belgium> ID="2">0,5 %1 (transfer of assets to an incorporated enterprise in exchange for shares> ID="3">16,5 % for tangible assets 33 % for intangible assets (but temporary exemption if the business has not specifically waived application of the 'continuation' arrangements)>  ID="4">no> ID="5">no> ID="6">yes"> ID="1">Denmark> ID="2">1 % rate> ID="3">taxation supended in the case of payment in the form of securities (equal to at least 75 % of transferred assets) and subject to the transferor retaining the securities>  ID="4">no> ID="5">no> ID="6">yes"> ID="1">Germany> ID="2">2 % (Grunderwerbsteuer) on transfers of land or buildings to a company> ID="3">suspension of taxation possible (if historic values are entered in the accounts of the recipient company and if  securities are retained by the transferor)> ID="4">no> ID="5">no (but can be set against the income of the owner or partners)> ID="6">yes"> ID="1">Greece> ID="2">normal rate of 1 % but rate varies between 3 % and 11 % for the transfer of a building for  consideration (frequent occurence in the case of sole proprietorships)> ID="3">no taxation of unrealized capital gains (except for capital gains on property)> ID="4">yes> ID="5">yes (?)> ID="6">yes (except for certain types of provision: for example  provisions for doubtful claims)"> ID="1">Spain> ID="2">normal rate of 1 % (corporate transactions) but 6 % for the transfer of a building for consideration> ID="3">taxation suspended (in the case of transfers of assets, etc.)> ID="4">no> ID="5">no>  ID="6">yes"> ID="1">France> ID="2">fixed duty of FF 500 where the transferor retains for five years the securities received in return for the tranfer (failing that, a special duty of 8,6 % for transfers of property and goodwill)> ID="3">possible  deferral of taxation (capital gains on non- depreciable assets) if securities received in payment for the transfer are retained. In the case of capital gains on depreciable assets (taxation effected in the hands of the recipient company), payment of tax  is spread over five years> ID="4">yes (but the transferor is not taxed on profits relating to stocks if included at their book value in the assets of the recipient company)> ID="5">no (but for sole proprietors and partners the trading deficit of the  business transferred is included in the total deficit that can be carried over for five years for income-tax purposes)> ID="6">yes"> ID="1">Ireland> ID="2">stamp duty of 1 %> ID="3">taxation of capital gains is suspended if remuneration is in the form  of securities provided that the securities are retained by the tansferor> ID="4">no> ID="5">no (but carry-over possible as part of the overall deficit that can be carried over for income-tax purposes> ID="6">yes"> ID="1">Italy> ID="2">transfers of  immovable property to companies (8 %)> ID="3">taxation of capital gains suspended (if assets are carried in the balance sheet at their original value)> ID="4">not available> ID="5">not available> ID="6">not available"> ID="1">Luxembourg> ID="2">real or  personal estate invested: 1 % in the case of assets transferred for consideration : from 0,24 % to 6 % depending on the nature of the assets> ID="3">no taxation of capital gains if the assets are carried at their book value in the account of the  recipient company> ID="4">no> ID="5">no (but deductibility is permitted in the hands of the person who has incurred the loss, even if he is no longer the owner; the same applies to partners in a partnership)> ID="6">yes"> ID="1">Netherlands> ID="2">not  available> ID="3">not available> ID="4">not available> ID="5">not available> ID="6">not available"> ID="1">Portugal> ID="2">duty ('sisa') municipal tax) on transfers of immovable property: 4 % to 10 % depending on the nature and use of the property>  ID="3">- taxation of capital gains (stocks and assets)  (2) - no taxation (tax neutrality) (3)> ID="4">no (2)- (3)> ID="5">no (2)yes (3)> ID="6">no (2)yes (3)"> ID="1">United Kingdom> ID="2">stamp duty of 1 % (land, buildings, etc.)> ID="3">taxation of  companies in principle but relief is available (in the case of payment in the form of shares> ID="4">no> ID="5">yes (on future dividends)> ID="6">yes""(*) This involves the possibility of carrying over provisions whose purpose remains unchanged.  (1) Temporary exemption from capital duty in the case of transfers to companies established in an employment area, to headquarters of multinational companies established in Belgium, to companies undergoing conversion, to innovative companies and to  companies located in a development area.  (2) Tax arrangements applied to the conversion of a sole proprietorship into a company.  (3) Tax treatment applied to the conversion of a partnership into a company.  > NOTE 3    Comparative figures on the size of the corporate sector (The figures in this table are based on 1989 data)  "" ID="1">Belgium> ID="2">  225 640> ID="3">  9 938> ID="4">22,70> ID="5">44,3> ID="6">3,10"> ID="1">Denmark> ID="2">   85 917> ID="3">  5  132> ID="4">16,74> ID="5">49,9> ID="6">2,00"> ID="1">Germany> ID="2">  404 195> ID="3"> 62 063> ID="4"> 6,50> ID="5">38,1> ID="6">1,91"> ID="1">Greece> ID="2">   70 824> ID="3"> 10 033> ID="4"> 7,05> ID="5">33,2> ID="6">1,33"> ID="1">Spain> ID="2">   655 491> ID="3"> 38 888> ID="4">16,86> ID="5">34,4> ID="6">2,06"> ID="1">France> ID="2">  699 170> ID="3"> 56 423> ID="4">12,39> ID="5">43,8> ID="6">2,19"> ID="1">Ireland> ID="2">  110 418> ID="3">  3 515> ID="4">31,41> ID="5">37,6> ID="6">1,50">  ID="1">Italy> ID="2">  300 000> ID="3"> 57 540> ID="4"> 5,21> ID="5">37,8> ID="6">3,40"> ID="1">Luxemburg> ID="2">   11 941> ID="3">    377> ID="4">31,67> ID="5">42,4> ID="6">7,21"> ID="1">Netherlands> ID="2">  257 000> ID="3"> 14 846> ID="4">17,31>  ID="5">46,0> ID="6">3,68"> ID="1">Portugal> ID="2">  171 919> ID="3">  9 793> ID="4">17,55> ID="5">35,1> ID="6">n.a."> ID="1">United Kingdom> ID="2">1 005 300> ID="3"> 57 236> ID="4">17,56> ID="5">36,5> ID="6">4,02"> ID="1">Total> ID="2">3 997 815>  ID="3">325 785"> ID="1">Average> ID="2"" ID="4">12,27> ID="5">39,9> ID="6">2,95"> NOTE 4  Description of the 'business rules' - Denmark 1. Natural persons carrying on business independently (as sole proprietors or partners) can opt for the 'business rules'.  2. The objective of these rules is as follows:  (a) to render the business's interest payments fully tax-deductible (as is the case with its other operational expenditure);  (b) to ensure that that part of the business's profits constituting a return on its equity is taxed in the same way as other capital gains;  (c) to counterbalance cyclical trends;  (d) to offer taxation at 34 % the same rate as corporation tax.  3.1. The rules require independent businessmen to keep their business and personal finances separate for accounting purposes; distinct accounts must be kept for the businesses income and personal finances.  The business income is assessed in accordance with the general rules laid down in the tax legislation.  If, in a particular income year, a business shows a profit, this is divided into an imputed capital gain (i.e. the return on the business's own capital) and the remaining profit. Capital gains are assessed as income from capital, like other return on  capital. The remainder of the profit is assessed as personal income on a sliding scale. However, the profit is only liable to tax when it is withdrawn from the business.  Nevertheless, the taxable person may refrain from withdrawing the profit, or a part thereof, and opt to retain it in the business. In that case it attracts advance tax of 34 % (i.e. at the same rate as corporation tax). It is only when the taxable  person withdraws the accumulated profit in a subsequent year that it is finally taxed as personal income. The advance business tax is set off against the taxable person's and his/her spouse's tax for the year in question and the five succeeding years  but cannot be disbursed as a cash payment.  If the business shows a loss in an income year, the loss must first be set off against any accumulated profit. In the absence of any accumulated profit, the loss is deducted from the taxpayer's other income. Any remaining loss may be carried forward for  deduction against the business's profits and other income in the succeeding five years.  3.2. As a general rule, there are not restrictions on the nature of businesses which can opt for the business rules. Nevertheless, if the business reflects aspects of a private limited company, the option is not available. Income from such companies is  taxed as income from capital. Insolvent businesses are likewise excluded from the business rules.  3.3. If the taxable person operates a number of businesses, they must all be subject to the business rules. Under these rules, all such businesses are treated as one business.  If the taxable person is married and his/her spouse operates his/her own business, the spouse must apply either the business rules or the 'capital gains rules' to his/her business.  3.4. The taxable person is free to determine each year whether the business is to come under the business rules.  If the taxable person ceases to apply the business rules without transferring the business, any accumulated profit is taxed as personal income in the income year following the income year in which he last applied the business rules.  If the taxable person ceases trading in respect of one of a number of businesses without transferring the business, any retained profits are taxed proportionately.  A taxable person who has previously applied the business rules in respect of a business and who, within the immediately succeeding five income years, resumes application of the rules must, when calculating the business's capital account, assess real  property at the value which was indicated when the rules were last applied.  3.5. If the taxable person transfers the business or ceases trading as an independent business, any accumulated profits are taxed as unearned income in the same income year or, if the distinction between the business accounts and the taxpayer's  individual accounts are maintained for the rest of the year, the succeeding income year. If the taxable person acquires another business before the end of the succeeding income year, he may apply the business rules uninterrupted, provided that the  distinction between the business accounts and his personal accounts is maintained throughout the entire period.  If the taxable person applies the business rules without interruption, the purchase price received on the transfer of the business is subject to the business rules. Where one of a number of businesses, a business which has been separated from an existing business, or a notional part of a business is transferred, the purchase price received is subject to the business rules. The taxable person may opt to transfer an  amount not exceeding the net cash consideration outside the business rules to his individual finances, provided that a corresponding part of any accumulated profits is withdrawn and taxed as personal income in the same income year.  3.6. If a taxable person ceases to be liable to tax in Denmark or in any other respect acquires a tax domicile abroad, any accumulated profit is taxed as personal income in the income year in which he ceases to be liable to tax or changes his tax  domicile.  3.7. Businesses subject to the business rules may be transferred and/or transformed in the same way as other businesses. If the business is transferred and deferred taxation applies, taxation of any accumulated profits may also be deferred.   (1) The rate is 30 % for distributed profits.(2) As regards the tax factor, the entrepreneur will assess his overall tax position; depending on his current or anticipated aggregate income, he will prefer to form an incorporated or  non-incorporated enterprise. In all cases, he will make his choice in the light of his personal circumstances without necessarily being aware of the impact of his decision on the cost of subsequent investments and the enterprise's growth potential.(3) A  reduced rate of 20 % was recently introduced into the UK's scale of personal income tax rates, but it applies to a very small income band (the lowest £ 2 000, or about ECU 1 500).(4) OJ No L 249, 3. 10. 1969, p. 25.


title: Recommendation No H1 of 19 June 2013 concerning the Gottardo judgment, according to which the advantages enjoyed by a State's own nationals under a bilateral convention on social security with a non-member country must also be granted to workers who are nationals of other Member States  Text of relevance to the EEA and to the EC/Switzerland Agreement

text:
               27.9.2013

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 279/13

         RECOMMENDATION No H1
   of 19 June 2013
   concerning the Gottardo judgment, according to which the advantages enjoyed by a State's own nationals under a bilateral convention on social security with a non-member country must also be granted to workers who are nationals of other Member States
   (Text of relevance to the EEA and to the EC/Switzerland Agreement)
   2013/C 279/07
   THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION FOR THE COORDINATION OF SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEMS,
   Having regard to Article 72(a) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems (1), under which the Administrative Commission is responsible for dealing with all administrative questions or questions of interpretation arising from the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 and Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 (2),
   Having regard to Article 72(c) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004, under which it shall foster and develop cooperation between Member States and their institutions in social security matters,
   Acting in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 71(2) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               The principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality is an essential safeguard for the freedom of movement of persons, as provided for in Article 21(1) and 45(1) TFEU. This implies the abolition of all discrimination between nationals of Member States.

               (2)

               In the Gottardo (3) judgment, the Court of Justice acted on the principle as set out in Article 45 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) in relation to a person resident in the European Union who had worked in France, Italy and Switzerland. This person did not have sufficient entitlement for a pension in Italy and asked for her periods of insurance completed in Switzerland and Italy to be aggregated, as provided for under the bilateral convention between Italy and Switzerland for the benefit of their nationals.

               (3)

               The Court ruled in this case that when a Member State concludes a bilateral international convention on social security with a third country which provides for account to be taken of periods of insurance completed in that third country for the acquisition of an entitlement to old-age benefits, the fundamental principle of equal treatment requires that that Member State grant nationals of other Member States the same advantages as those which its own nationals enjoy under that convention unless it can provide objective justification for refusing to do so (4).

               (4)

               In this connection, it follows from the Court's ruling that its interpretation of the term ‘legislation’ in Article 1(l) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 cannot affect the obligation of every Member State to comply with the principle of equal treatment laid down in Article 45(2) TFEU.

               (5)

               The Court considered that disturbing the balance and reciprocity of a bilateral international convention concluded between a Member State and a third country did not constitute an objective justification for the refusal by the Member State party to that convention to extend to nationals of other Member States the advantages which its own nationals derive from that convention.

               (6)

               Nor did the Court accept the objections to the effect that a possible increase in the financial burden and administrative difficulties in liaising with the competent authorities of the non-member country in question could justify the Member State which is party to the bilateral convention failing to comply with its Treaty obligations.

               (7)

               It is important that all appropriate conclusions be drawn from this judgment, which is crucial for EU nationals who have exercised their right to move freely to another Member State.

               (8)

               For this reason, it should be made clear that bilateral conventions on social security between a Member State and a third country must be interpreted to the effect that the advantages enjoyed by nationals of the Member State which is party to the convention should in principle also be granted to nationals of another Member State who are in the same situation in objective terms.

               (9)

               Irrespective of the uniform application of the Gottardo ruling to individual cases, the existing bilateral conventions should in principle be reviewed. With regard to agreements concluded previously, Article 351 TFEU states: ‘the Member State or States concerned shall take all appropriate steps to eliminate the incompatibilities established’, and Article 4(3), of the Treaty on European Union requires that ‘The Member States shall take any appropriate measure, general or particular, to ensure fulfilment of the obligations arising out of the Treaties or resulting from the acts of the institutions of the Union.’

               (10)

               With regard to new bilateral conventions on social security concluded between a Member State and a third country, it is important to bear in mind that these should include a specific reference to the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality in relation to nationals of other Member States who have exercised their right to move freely in the Member State which is a party to the convention concerned.

               (11)

               The application of the Gottardo judgment to individual cases depends largely on the cooperation of third countries, especially since they must certify the periods of insurance completed there by the person concerned.

               (12)

               The Administrative Commission should deal with this question, given that the ruling in Gottardo is concerned with the application of the principle of equal treatment in the field of social security,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS to the competent services and institutions that:

               1.

               In accordance with the principle of non-discrimination between a State's own nationals and the nationals of other Member States who have exercised their right to move freely pursuant to Article 21(1) and Article 45(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the provisions under a convention on social security with a third country shall in principle also apply to nationals of the other Member States who find themselves in the same situation as the State's own nationals.

               2.

               New bilateral conventions on social security concluded between a Member State and a third country should in principle make specific reference to the principle of non-discrimination, on the grounds of nationality, against nationals of another Member State who have exercised their right of free movement to or from the Member State which is a party to the convention concerned.

               3.

               The Member States should inform the institutions in the countries with which they have signed social security conventions, whose provisions apply only to their respective nationals, about the implications of this Recommendation. Member States which have concluded bilateral conventions with the same third countries may act jointly in requesting such cooperation. This cooperation is clearly essential if EU law is to be complied with.

               4.

               Recommendation P1 shall be repealed from the day of application of this Recommendation.

               5.

               This Recommendation shall be published in the Official Journal of the European Union. It shall apply from the first day of the second month after its publication.

            The Chair of the Administrative Commission

         Anne McMANUS

      (1)  OJ L 166, 30.4.2004, p. 1.

      (2)  OJ L 284, 30.10.2009, p. 1.

      (3)  Judgment of 15 January 2002 in Case C-55/00, Elide Gottardo v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) (ECR 2002, p. I-00413 et seq.).

      (4)  Judgment of 15 January 2002 in Case C-55/00, Elide Gottardo v Istituto nazionale della previdenza sociale (INPS) (ECR 2002, p. I-00413, paragraph 34).


Avis juridique important

|

31981H0560

81/560/EEC: Council Recommendation of 13 July 1981 on the carriage of express low weight cargo by air

Official Journal L 203 , 23/07/1981 P. 0051 - 0051 Spanish special edition: Chapter 07 Volume 3 P. 0013  Portuguese special edition Chapter 07 Volume 3 P. 0013

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION of 13 July 1981 on the carriage of express low weight cargo by air (81/560/EEC) THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 84 (2) thereof,  Recalling its conclusions on 6 December 1979 in which it took note of the Commission's memorandum on the contribution of the European Communities to the development of air transport services,  HEREBY RECOMMENDS  that Member States should facilitate the carriage of express low weight cargo by air on existing services and treat applications for the introduction of new services in this sector as favourably as possible taking into account the market situation;  HEREBY INVITES  the Commission to examine this subject further and to report to the Council in due course.  Done at Brussels, 13 July 1981.  For the Council  The President  Lord CARRINGTON


Avis juridique important

|

31982K1545

Commission Recommendation No 1545/82/ECSC of 11 June 1982 derogating from Recommendation No 1399/82/ECSC on Community surveillance in respect of the importation into the Community of certain iron and steel products covered by the ECSC Treaty and originating in non-member countries

Official Journal L 171 , 17/06/1982 P. 0026 - 0026

*****COMMISSION  RECOMMENDATION No 1545/82/ECSC  of 11 June 1982  derogating from recommendation No 1399/82/ECSC on Community surveillance in respect of the importation into the Community of certain iron and steel products covered by the ECSC Treaty and originating in non-member countries  THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, and in particular Article 74 thereof,  Having regard to Decision 82/221/ECSC of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Coal and Steel Community meeting within the Council of 16 April 1982 suspending imports of all products originating in Argentina (1), which suspension was last extended by Decision 82/324/ECSC of 24 May 1982 (2),  Whereas recommendation No 1399/82/ECSC (3) obliges importers to obtain an import licence in advance of any importation of iron and steel products covered by the ECSC Treaty and the competent authority must issue such licence within five days of application;  Whereas the abovementioned Decisions of the representatives of the Governments of the Member States suspend the importation of any product covered by the ECSC Treaty, originating in Argentina and intended for free circulation in any Community Member State;  Whereas it is necessary to supplement these general Decisions by certain practical provisions, having regard to the existence of the provisions of the recommendation mentioned above; whereas the automatic granting of import licences for products of Argentine origin must in consequence be suspended,  MAKES THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION:  Article 1  Article 1 (1) of recommendation No 1399/82/ECSC is suspended with respect to any iron and steel product covered by the ECSC Treaty, originating in Argentina, in so far as it prescribes the granting of obligatory import licences. No import licence for such products shall be issued by the Member States unless:  - the product is to be imported in execution of an import contract concluded before the date of entry into force of Decision 82/221/ECSC, or  - the product was in course of shipment to the Community at that date.  Article 2  This recommendation shall be notified to the Member States and published in the Official Journal of the European Communities.  This recommendation shall enter into force on the date of its publication.  It shall apply for so long as Decision 82/221/ECSC remains in force.  Done at Brussels, 11 June 1982.  For the Commission  Wilhelm HAFERKAMP  Vice-President  (1) OJ No L 102, 16. 4. 1982, p. 3.  (2) OJ No L 146, 25. 5. 1982, p. 4.  (3) OJ No L 157, 8. 6. 1982, p. 5.


title: COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION of 20 March 1989 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (1984) (Sixth EDF) for the financial year 1987 #

text:
Avis juridique important

|

31989H0213

COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION of 20 March 1989 concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (1984) (Sixth EDF) for the financial year 1987  -

Official Journal L 080 , 23/03/1989 P. 0082 - 0082

*****COUNCIL  RECOMMENDATION  of 20 March 1989  concerning the discharge to be given to the Commission in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (1984) (Sixth EDF) for the financial year 1987  (89/213/EEC)  THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,  Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, and in particular Article 206b thereof,  Having regard to the Third ACP-EEC Convention, signed at Lomé on 8 December 1984,  Having regard to Council Decision 86/283/EEC of 30 June 1986 on the association of the overseas countries and territories with the European Economic Community (1),  Having regard to the Internal Agreement on the financing and administration of Community aid (1), signed in Brussels on 19 February 1985, as amended by Decision 86/281/EEC (2), and in particular Article 29 (3) thereof,  Having regard to the Financial Regulation of 11 November 1986 applicable to the Sixth European Development Fund (3), and in particular Articles 66 to 73 thereof,  Having examined the revenue and expenditure account and the balance sheet relating to the operations of the European Development Fund (1984) (Sixth EDF) as at 31 December 1987 and the Court of Auditors' report relating to the financial year 1987 together with the Commission's replies (4),  Whereas, pursuant to Article 29 (3) of the Internal Agreement, the discharge for the management of the European Development Fund (1984) (Sixth EDF) must be given to the Commission by the European Parliament on a recommendation from the council;  Whereas the overaal implementation by the Commission of the operations of the European Development Fund (1984) (Sixth EDF) during the financial year 1987 has been satisfactory,  HEREBY RECOMMENDS  that the European Parliament give the Commission a discharge in respect of the implementation of the operations of the European Development Fund (1984) (Sixth EDF) for the financial year 1987.  Done at Brussels, 20 March 1989.  For the Council  The President  F. FERNANDEZ ORDOÑEZ  (1) OJ No L 175, 1. 7. 1986, p. 1.  (2) OJ No L 86, 31. 3. 1986, p. 210.  (3) OJ No L 178, 2. 7. 1986, p. 13.  (4) OJ No L 325, 20. 11. 1986, p. 42.  (5) OJ No C 316, 12. 12. 1988, pp. 173 and 303.


title: Council Recommendation of 14 July 2015 on the 2015 National Reform Programme of the Czech Republic and delivering a Council opinion on the 2015 Convergence Programme of the Czech Republic

text:
               18.8.2015

               EN

               Official Journal of the European Union

               C 272/32

         COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION
   of 14 July 2015
   on the 2015 National Reform Programme of the Czech Republic and delivering a Council opinion on the 2015 Convergence Programme of the Czech Republic
   (2015/C 272/09)
   THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
   Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Articles 121(2) and 148(4) thereof,
   Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1466/97 of 7 July 1997 on the strengthening of the surveillance of budgetary positions and the surveillance and coordination of economic policies (1), and in particular Article 9(2) thereof,
   Having regard to the recommendation of the European Commission,
   Having regard to the resolutions of the European Parliament,
   Having regard to the conclusions of the European Council,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Employment Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic and Financial Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Social Protection Committee,
   Having regard to the opinion of the Economic Policy Committee,
   Whereas:

               (1)

               On 26 March 2010, the European Council agreed to the Commission's proposal to launch a new strategy for growth and jobs, Europe 2020, based on enhanced coordination of economic policies. The strategy focuses on the key areas where action is needed to boost Europe's potential for sustainable growth and competitiveness.

               (2)

               On 14 July 2015, the Council, on the basis of the Commission's proposals, adopted a Recommendation on the broad guidelines for the economic policies of the Member States and the Union and, on 21 October 2010, it adopted a decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States (2). Together these form the ‘integrated guidelines’ which Member States were invited to take into account in their national economic and employment policies.

               (3)

               On 8 July 2014, the Council adopted a Recommendation (3) on the Czech Republic's National Reform Programme for 2014 and delivered its opinion on the Czech Republic's updated Convergence Programme for 2014.

               (4)

               On 28 November 2014, the Commission adopted the Annual Growth Survey, marking the start of the 2015 European Semester for economic policy coordination. On the same day, on the basis of Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4), the Commission adopted the Alert Mechanism Report, in which the Czech Republic was not identified as one of the Member States for which an in-depth review would be carried out.

               (5)

               On 18 December 2014, the European Council endorsed the priorities for fostering investment, intensifying structural reforms and pursuing responsible growth-friendly fiscal consolidation.

               (6)

               On 26 February 2015, the Commission published its 2015 country report for the Czech Republic. This assessed the Czech Republic's progress in addressing the country-specific recommendations adopted on 8 July 2014.

               (7)

               On 30 April 2015, the Czech Republic submitted its 2015 National Reform Programme and its 2015 Convergence Programme. In order to take account of their interlinkages, the two programmes have been assessed at the same time.

               (8)

               The Czech Republic is currently in the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact. In its 2015 Convergence Programme, the Government plans to gradually improve the headline deficit to 1,9 % of GDP in 2015 and further to 0,6 % of GDP in 2018. The Government sets out its intention to meet the medium-term objective — a structural deficit of 1 % of GDP — in 2018, but according to the recalculated structural balance (5) it is expected to be met by 2016. According to the Convergence Programme, the government debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to reach almost 41 % in 2015 and to gradually decline to 40,2 % in 2018. The macroeconomic scenario underpinning these budgetary projections is plausible and the measures to support the planned deficit targets from 2016 onwards are sufficiently specified. However, there is a risk that the impact of the planned revenue measures may be lower than estimated. Based on the Commission's 2015 spring forecast, the expenditure benchmark is expected to be complied with in 2015. In 2016, some deviation is expected as net expenditure growth exceeds the benchmark by 0,3 % of GDP. Therefore, further measures will be needed in 2016.
               Based on its assessment of the Convergence Programme and taking into account the Commission's 2015 spring forecast, the Council is of the opinion that the Czech Republic is expected to broadly comply with the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact. The main elements of the current fiscal framework are in place. However the scope of medium-term budgetary planning and of the numerical fiscal rule is limited, and enforcement has been weak. A draft reform package has been modified and delayed several times and its adoption is currently planned during 2015. The Czech Republic still faces challenges with respect to long-term fiscal sustainability, largely due to projected increases in pension and healthcare expenditure. There has been some improvement in the outlook for the pension system as a result of more favourable demographic projections. The statutory retirement age is legislated to gradually increase, but the change programmed for the medium term is too slow. Changes to the current system of pension indexation are currently being discussed but no measures have yet been adopted. Although some measures have been taken to improve the cost efficiency and governance of the healthcare sector, limited progress has been made in this area. Indicators used to measure the performance of the hospital sector show that medical treatment is not always delivered in a cost-efficient way, while the allocation of resources is hampered by ongoing difficulties in rolling out a reimbursement system for costs incurred by hospitals. There are also signs that general practitioners are not adequately fulfilling their role as gate-keepers. Public procurement in the healthcare sector suffers from a high incidence of irregularities, suggesting insufficient guidance and supervision.

               (9)

               The main challenges in the area of taxation are to reduce tax evasion and to make tax collection less costly and less time-consuming, both for taxpayers and for the authorities. The Czech Republic has identified tax compliance and the fight against tax evasion as priorities, and is taking a number of steps in these areas. Several measures were introduced in 2015, relating to both direct and indirect taxes, and further measures are planned for 2016. The cost of compliance is still, however, too high. Standardising the tax bases for personal income tax, social security and health contributions would help to simplify the tax system, but this change has not been brought in, and there are currently no plans to tackle this issue. Work on simplifying tax returns and increasing the use of pre-filled forms is not being carried out in a systematic way. Rather than simplifying the VAT system, the Czech Republic introduced a third VAT rate in 2014. Limited progress has been made in reducing the discrepancies in the tax treatment of employees and the self-employed. Tax revenue in the Czech Republic still relies heavily on the taxation of labour, and low-income workers, particularly those without children, face a relatively high labour tax burden. Measures entering into force in 2015 somewhat reduce labour taxation for specific groups, but will have a limited impact overall. Property and environmental taxes (except fuel) remain low, indicating potential scope for shifting tax away from labour.

               (10)

               Limited progress was made in 2014 on accelerating the reform of regulated professions but the intermediary national action plan adopted in April 2015 contains a number of concrete measures and actions designed to improve the regulatory framework and to remove unjustified and disproportionate requirements.

               (11)

               Efforts made in recent years to tackle the problem of corruption have met with serious delays. The most recent anti-corruption action plan covered a number of priority areas. It included Acts on financial control, public prosecution, the financing of political parties, the protection of whistle-blowers, a new policy on the management of state-owned companies and an amendment to the Act on free access to information. Nonetheless, it appears that little is being done to bring about the adoption of these Acts. The adoption and implementation of the Civil Service Act and of related measures have seen the Czech Republic start to address problems relating to the efficiency and stability of its public administration. Both the administrative and regulatory barriers related to investment planning, and the lack of transparency and long duration of the procedures for obtaining building and land-use permits hold back public investment. Public procurement has been the focus of a number of initiatives in recent years but concerns about transparency still remain. In particular, public contracts are still not published in a centralised register. The efficiency of public procurement procedures is hampered by the inadequate provision of guidance and training to tendering institutions. Supervision of the system remains weak.

               (12)

               The overall level of employment is currently high, but certain disadvantaged groups remain underrepresented in the labour market. These include parents with young children, low-skilled workers, people with disabilities and Roma. Some steps have been taken towards strengthening the efficiency and effectiveness of public employment services. The level of employment among young people is increasing, and public employment services try to target their services towards young people in particular. The lack of affordable and quality childcare services and the limited use of flexible working-time arrangements make it difficult for women with children to participate in the labour market. Steps have been taken towards increasing the availability of childcare but policies supporting public childcare for the youngest children are still insufficient.

               (13)

               The Czech Republic's educational outcomes have improved in recent years but structural challenges still remain. Participation in tertiary education has increased rapidly, but concerns have emerged in relation to the decline in skills of younger tertiary education graduates. It is hoped that the overdue higher education reform planned to be adopted in 2015 will introduce institutional accreditation, stronger internal quality assurance and greater use of profiling of students, and improve financing systems. More teachers need to be recruited into the compulsory education sector, but low salaries and a negative perception of the profession make it difficult to attract talented candidates. A new career system designed to improve both the recruitment of teachers and their professional development should be finalised in the first half of 2015, to be introduced in September 2016. Its overall impact will, however, largely depend on available funding. A comprehensive approach to evaluating and supporting low-performing schools and pupils is, meanwhile, still lacking. The introduction of such an approach could help improve efficiency and equality in the education sector. Limited progress has been made in making education more inclusive, despite the Government's adoption of a comprehensive strategy for education. Young people from low socioeconomic backgrounds, including Roma, are shown to be less successful in education and on the labour market.

               (14)

               In the context of the European Semester, the Commission has carried out a comprehensive analysis of the Czech Republic's economic policy and published it in the 2015 country report. It has also assessed the Convergence Programme and the National Reform Programme and the follow-up given to the recommendations addressed to the Czech Republic in previous years. It has taken into account not only their relevance for sustainable fiscal and socioeconomic policy in the Czech Republic but also their compliance with EU rules and guidance, given the need to strengthen the overall economic governance of the Union by providing EU-level input into future national decisions. The recommendations under the European Semester are reflected in recommendations 1 to 4 below.

               (15)

               In the light of this assessment, the Council has examined the Convergence Programme, and its opinion (6) is reflected in particular in recommendation 1 below,

         HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the Czech Republic take action in 2015 and 2016 to:

               1.

               Achieve a fiscal adjustment of 0,5 % of GDP in 2016. Further improve the cost-effectiveness and governance of the healthcare sector.

               2.

               Fight tax evasion, simplify the tax system and implement the anti-corruption plan. Take measures to increase the transparency and efficiency of public procurement, in particular by establishing a central register of public contracts and strengthening guidance and supervision.

               3.

               Reduce the high level of taxation levied on low-income earners, by shifting taxation to other areas. Further improve the availability of affordable childcare.

               4.

               Adopt the higher education reform. Ensure adequate training for teachers, support poorly performing schools and take measures to increase participation among disadvantaged children, including Roma.

      Done at Brussels, 14 July 2015.

            For the Council

            The President

         P. GRAMEGNA

      (1)  OJ L 209, 2.8.1997, p. 1.

      (2)  Maintained by Council Decision 2014/322/EU of 6 May 2014 on guidelines for the employment policies of the Member States for 2014 (OJ L 165, 4.6.2014, p. 49).

      (3)  Council Recommendation of 8 July 2014 on the National Reform Programme 2014 of the Czech Republic and delivering a Council opinion on the Convergence Programme of the Czech Republic, 2014 (OJ C 247, 29.7.2014, p. 12).

      (4)  Regulation (EU) No 1176/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 on the prevention and correction of macroeconomic imbalances (OJ L 306, 23.11.2011, p. 25).

      (5)  The structural balance as recalculated by the Commission based on the information in the Convergence Programme, following the commonly agreed methodology.

      (6)  Under Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1466/97.