EU FTT: End of the beginning, or beginning of the end?

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

EU FTT: End of the beginning, or beginning of the end?

van-der-made.jpg

Bob van der Made

The Informal ECOFIN Council meeting on September 13 2014 in Milan included a behind-closed-doors political discussion among the EU-28 finance ministers on the way forward with the EU financial transaction tax (FTT) under enhanced cooperation (no minutes or conclusions of these informal council meetings are published). It is understood that although no substantial progress has been made or communicated after the informal ECOFIN, it seems that the participating EU-11 member states in the enhanced cooperation procedure (EU-11; Austria, Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain) are now closer to a compromise agreement than they have been. The project now seems to go in the direction of a UK-style stamp duty but with revenue sharing among the participating member states to keep the smaller EU-11 on board.

The provisional agenda of the (formal) ECOFIN Council of November 7 2014 includes a (public) political orientation debate on EU FTT among the EU-28 finance ministers. The EU FTT is a big political dossier for the Italian presidency so there seems to be momentum. The Italians will try their utmost to stick to the EU-10/11 commitment and timetable announced on May 6 2014, and to achieve meaningful progress during their presidency which runs until January 1 2015.

It is understood that the EU-11 finance ministers met separately on the eve of the Informal ECOFIN Council, and, not unimportantly, that the EU-28 ministers also already met informally in the margins of the Eurozone meeting the day before. However, at the technical level, there is still a considerable lack of agreement. There still seems to be strong disagreement around the purpose and technical design of the tax (for example, scope and inclusion of derivatives, issuance principle and/or residence principle, risk of relocation, collection mechanism and revenue sharing mechanism). These technical issues should be solved per the self-imposed EU-11 deadline by the end of this year. This seems an ambitious deadline, and the January 1 2016 starting date for step 1 of the EU FTT remains uncertain. However, the EU FTT project is one of the most politicised legislative projects to date and one to which four of the big five EU member states are committed, which are all part of the Eurozone grouping. The EU FTT is therefore unlikely to go away and initially will converge to the lowest common denominator. Recent developments may mark the end of the beginning rather than the beginning of the end for the EU FTT project.

Bob van der Made (bob.van.der.made@nl.pwc.com)

PwC

Tel: +31 88 792 3696

Website: www.pwc.com/eudtg

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Kingsley Napley’s claimants are arguing that taxing the provision of education breaches the European Convention on Human Rights
While pillar two can progress without the US, it won’t reach the same heights without American involvement, argues Renáta Bláhová, founding partner of BMB Partners Taxand
There are unanswered questions as to how foreign investors could reclaim money via tax credits, advisers suggested
Amid an ever-changing tax environment, India’s advisory market is bustling with competition ahead of the 2025 World Tax rankings and ITR Awards
The deal comes after PwC had accused Paul McNab of using confidential information; in other news, McDermott hired a new London tax head from a US rival
Looking at transfer pricing simplification is “obviously helpful”, but it should be done in line with current standards, a senior government figure reportedly said
The UK Government’s plans to close the tax gap via increased HM Revenue and Customs investment have failed to impress local tax advisers
Under the merged scheme for R&D tax relief introduced last year, rules on contracted out R&D have changed. James Dudbridge argues for a proactive approach when reviewing companies’ commercial arrangements
Cultural nuances could account for tax advisers’ perceived poor cost management, a local partner told ITR
Updated rules represent a significant shift in the Luxembourg TP landscape and emphasise the need for robust arm’s-length calculations, says Vanessa Ramos Ferrin of TransFair Pricing Solutions
Gift this article