EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL TAXATION AND CUSTOMS UNION Indirect Taxation and Tax administration Tax Tax administration administration and and fight fight against against tax tax fraud fraud Brussels, 2 February 2015 EU VAT FORUM WORKING DOCUMENT VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE AND RELATED ISSUES Introduction 1. This point has been raised for discussion, taking into account the wish to promote an environment where business are encouraged to disclose mistakes in "genuine" cases, without impact on VAT revenues. 2. It has been agreed that voluntary disclosure programs could be beneficial for business and Member States. 3. It has been made clear that the features and conditions of voluntary disclosure schemes in so far as they exist in the Member States are quite different. 4. Particular attention has been paid to national practices with regard to sanctions imposed in case of voluntary disclosure. Part 2 of this document provides a more detailed list of potential recommendations with regard to sanctions in relation to the use of voluntary disclosure programs. 1
Part 1 General considerations concerning the features and conditions of voluntary disclosure programs 1. Voluntary disclosure of errors as an incentive for a correct application of the VAT rules 1.1. The VAT legislation is complex and multiple obligations are imposed on the taxable persons. Even attentive taxable persons can make mistakes (just as attentive VAT officials). 1.2. As taxable persons play an important role in the collection of VAT, they should be encouraged in their efforts to be compliant with the VAT rules. A voluntary disclosure scheme, encouraging the taxable persons to correct previous mistakes on their own initiative, contributes to a climate of good cooperation between the taxable persons and the VAT authorities. 1 1.3. Voluntary disclosure schemes should be clearly distinguished from tax amnesty measures. 1.4. The principle of equal treatment does not require that a taxable person applying a voluntary disclosure scheme should automatically be treated exactly as a taxable person who has been compliant from the start, since these persons are not in a comparable situation. 2 1.5. Member States should not allow an abuse of a voluntary disclosure scheme. Therefore it shouldn t dispense taxable persons from their VAT obligations in general (due diligence) and it should ensure that taxpayers cannot unduly obtain an advantage from their earlier non-compliance (for instance: cash flow benefit). 1.6. It is for the internal legal order of each Member State to lay down the conditions and consequences relating to voluntary disclosure. But when determining these conditions and consequences, Member States should take into account the principle of proportionality. Member States should distinguish different situations, taking account of (e.g.) the behavior of the taxable person concerned, the type of mistake committed (genuine errors or negligence), and the financial impact on the Member State revenue (interest). It appears that some Member States have chosen not to levy any sanction in case of voluntary disclosure (of 'genuine' errors?), while others seem to apply a (small or a larger) penalty, interest or a fee for late disclosure in all circumstances. 1 Cf. M. Cadesky, I. Hayes and D. Russell, Towards greater fairness in taxation. A model taxpayer charter. Preliminary report, AOTCA, CFE, STEP, 2013, p. 180-181; OECD, Voluntary disclosure regarding past non-compliance (in Offshore voluntary disclosure, comparative analysis, guidance end policy advice, part II, September 2010). 2 Cf. EUCJ 17.09.2014, C-3/13, Baltic Agro, point 44 (concerning customs). 2
Imposing fees (not having the character of a sanction) may be considered as an incentive to promote compliant behaviour. However, such fees should be set at a reasonable level, taking into consideration the specific circumstances of the case, the actions taken by the taxpayer, whether there were any revenue impacts for the Member States and if yes to which extent. For example, in a scenario where both the supplier and customer are businesses with full entitlement to deduct input VAT being in agreement, based on the interpretation of the law, to treat a transaction as not subject to VAT but it turns out later on as the transaction is complex and the law leaves room for interpretation - that the transaction was vat-able (for example an asset sale of a business was treated as a transfer of a going concern, which later on was found as being incorrect, so VAT is now charged retroactively on the asset sale and paid to the tax authorities by the supplier and deducted as input VAT by the customer upon receipt of the invoice from the supplier). In such a scenario, if assessed at all, a fee should be set at a reasonable level and should rather have a character of a handling/administrative fee and not of a sanction. 2. Time frame for making a voluntary disclosure? 2.1. Discussions have revealed that some Member States do not allow the benefit of the voluntary disclosure scheme after (the announcement of) a tax audit or a tax assessment for a certain tax period. It is considered that in case of prompted disclosures, triggered by an audit (announcement) or a tax assessment, Member States can refuse a (full) waiver of penalties. A Member State however indicated that taxable persons under investigation can anyhow sign an agreement acknowledging non-compliance elements and obtain a reduced penalty (under the condition of full settlement in one month time). In other situations where the error was not reported as soon as it was detected by the person concerned, and where the person who detected it did not take due care to report the error timely after detection (there was no good reason for not reporting the error timely after detection), Member States may also take this into account in their decision about applying a penalty, a fee or interest. 2.2. At the same time, it has been observed that errors can remain unnoticed for years, both for the tax payer acting in good faith as for the tax authorities. For instance, errors can be revealed by a judgment delivered much later. Therefore, the fact that a voluntary disclosure is made a long time after the occurrence of the error should not automatically exclude the benefit of the voluntary disclosure scheme. 2.3. This question is also influenced by the following aspects: - the length of the VAT return periods in each Member State; - the fact that when tax authorities and business have regular electronic exchanges, also in certain cases with a specific account for each taxpayer, correction of errors is part of the electronic return and payment process. So, changes in the tax return would not be considered as part of a voluntary disclosure scheme but as part of the normal business process. 3
Part 2 Voluntary disclosure and sanctions 1. General considerations 1.1. In the absence of harmonisation of European Union legislation in the field of the penalties applicable in cases where conditions laid down by arrangements under such legislation are not complied with, Member States retain the power to choose the penalties which seem to them to be appropriate (see EUCJ 06.02.2014, C-424/12, Fatorie, point 50). 1.2. When exercising this competence, Member States should ensure that their sanctions have a deterrent effect, in particular when VAT fraud is concerned. This implies that voluntary disclosure schemes are not meant to mitigate sanctions in case of fraud. - EUCJ 06.07.2006, C-439/04 and C-440/04 Kittel & Recolta: 54 As the Court has already observed, preventing tax evasion, avoidance and abuse is an objective recognised and encouraged by the Sixth Directive (see Joined Cases C-487/01 and C-7/02 Gemeente Leusden and Holin Groep [2004] ECR I-5337, paragraph 76). Community law cannot be relied on for abusive or fraudulent ends (see, inter alia, Case C-367/96 Kefalas and Others [1998] ECR I-2843, paragraph 20; Case C-373/97 Diamantis [2000] ECR I-1705, paragraph 33; and Case C-32/03 Fini H [2005] ECR I- 1599, paragraph 32). 1.3. When exercising this competence to choose penalties, Member States should also ensure that their penalties system encourages taxable persons to be compliant. At the same time, it was noted that voluntary disclosure schemes are not meant to put a taxable person in a better position than if he would have been compliant from the start (for instance: cash flow advantage). 2. Proportionality of sanctions 2.1. Principle: In each case, sanctions should respect the proportionality requirement. - EUCJ 06.02.2014, C-424/12, Fatorie: 50 Concerning the default interest, it must be observed that, in the absence of harmonisation of European Union legislation in the field of the penalties applicable in cases where conditions laid down by arrangements under such legislation are not complied with, Member States retain the power to choose the penalties which seem to them to be appropriate. They must, however, exercise that power in accordance with European Union law and its general principles, and, consequently, in accordance with the principle of proportionality (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C-210/91 Commission v Greece [1992] ECR I-6735, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited; Case C-213/99 de Andrade [2000] ECR I-11083, paragraph 20; and Rodopi-M 91, paragraph 31). 4
2.2. Recommendation: Member States should have a voluntary disclosure scheme allowing taxable persons to correct simple errors without incurring a sanction. However, the following restrictions could be applied: 3 4 a) This should not be guaranteed in situations of negligence, fraud or evasion or abuse (e.g. if a taxable person regularly makes the same errors, leading to a late payment of the VAT due on his transactions). b) It should not prevent the authorities from imposing interest (at a reasonable rate 3 ), in so far as the error led to a financial disadvantage for the authorities (e.g. such a financial disadvantage could result from the deduction of non-deductible input VAT, or the erroneous application of a reduced VAT rate). When assessing this financial disadvantage, the situation of the taxable person's customer could be taken into account as well (e.g. if the VAT concerned would be immediately deductible for the customer, this would influence the financial disadvantage for the Member State). Therefore before imposing interest (either on the supplier or on the customer), tax authorities need to look at the overall picture of the underlying transaction and need to assess whether the VAT treatment applied by the taxpayer on this transaction has caused any financial disadvantage for the tax authorities, which is normally not the case if both parties to a transaction the supplier and the customer are fully entitled to recover input VAT. 4 Note: Even if there is no (or only a limited) financial disadvantage for the Member State, this does not imply that no interest can be charged. But in that case, the default interest would have the character of a penalty, which would imply that the proportionality principle has to be taken into account. - EUCJ, 06.02.2014, C-424/12, Fatorie: 50 Concerning the default interest, it must be observed that, in the absence of harmonisation of European Union legislation in the field of the penalties applicable in cases where conditions laid down by arrangements under such legislation are not complied with, Member States retain the power to choose the penalties which seem to them to be appropriate. They must, however, exercise that power in accordance with European Union law and its general principles, and, consequently, in accordance with the principle of proportionality (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C-210/91 Commission v Greece [1992] ECR I-6735, paragraph 19 and the case-law cited; Case C-213/99 de Andrade [2000] ECR I-11083, paragraph 20; and Rodopi- M 91, paragraph 31). c) It should not prevent the authorities from imposing an administrative fee (also at a reasonable rate or amount) if the correction could imply possible additional administrative costs linked to the control of the correction. This interest rate should not be diverging too much from the normal commercial interest rates. If the interest rate were too high, a question could be raised about its conformity with Art. 1 of the First protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the property right. (If the person concerned would bear a disproportionate and excessive burden, this would be inconsistent with the need to preserve a fair balance between his interests and the interests of the State). See also Lucerne Communique of the OECD dated September 9 th /10 th 2009 where it is referred to that tax administrations are encouraged to ensure that penalties for genuine mistakes made by business have regard to the net amount of revenue lost. 5
2.3. Recommendation: the sanctions should take account of the gravity of the offence. In this regard, the following should be observed: a) Sanctions can be more severe if the same offence is repeated or if there are multiple offences. But sanctions should not be aggravated for the reason of repeated/multiple offences if the previous "offences" related to situations where the legislation was not clear, precise and foreseeable, or where the taxable person could rely on his legitimate expectations. A "continued" offence (e.g. a reporting error with regard to specific transactions that is always repeated) should not automatically be considered as a situation of "repeated or multiple" errors, implying an accumulation of sanctions for each of these offences or the automatic exclusion from the voluntary disclosure scheme. b) The amount of the VAT at stake should not be the (only) decisive criterion to assess the gravity of the offence. c) The precise circumstances of the case and the actions of the person concerned should be taken into account (simple error in good faith by a person (cf. supra) vs. situations of negligence, tax fraud or evasion or abuse). If the tax authorities are not required to make this distinction on their own initiative, the person concerned should at least have the right to demonstrate that he was acting in good faith. 2.4. Recommendation: the need to ensure proportionality implies that the tax authorities possess the authority to exercise discretion and waive penalties in duly justified circumstances, in order to guarantee fairness, and that the same competence is attributed to the judge who is competent to control the validity and the proportionality of the administrative sanctions. 3. No penalty if the legislation is not clear 3.1. Principle: a penalty should only be imposed if there is a clear and unambiguous legal basis. The taxable person should not be punished if the rules of law are not clear and precise and if their application is not foreseeable. - EUCJ 21.02.2006, C-255/02, Halifax: 93 It must also be borne in mind that a finding of abusive practice must not lead to a penalty, for which a clear and unambiguous legal basis would be necessary, but rather to an obligation to repay, simply as a consequence of that finding, which rendered undue all or part of the deductions of input VAT (see, to that effect, Emsland Stärke, paragraph 56). - EUCJ, 14.12.2000, C-110/99, Emsland-Stärke: 56. Contrary to the assertions of Emsland-Stärke, the obligation to repay refunds received in the event that the two constituent elements of an abuse are established would not breach the principle of lawfulness. The obligation to repay is not a penalty for which a clear and unambiguous legal basis would be necessary, but simply the consequence of a finding that the conditions required to obtain the advantage derived from the Community rules were created artificially, thereby rendering the refunds granted undue payments and thus justifying the obligation to repay them. 6
3.2. Recommendation: a taxable person should not be punished if he demonstrates his good faith (= the criterion "he didn't know and he didn't have to know", implying that he conducted his business with appropriate due diligence, having sincere reasons to think that he was acting in accordance with the law). Example: if it was reasonable to interpret a legal provision in the way it was interpreted by the taxable person. 3.3. Recommendation: a taxable person should not be punished if he informed the authorities about a discrepancy or an uncertainty in the law, and took a provisional position, waiting for the authorities' instructions or guidance. Example: there was doubt on the VAT There was doubt on the VAT treatment of a big indemnification claim paid to a subcontractor for not ordering enough pieces on yearly basis. The subcontractor worked exclusively for this client. Question was whether this payment was to be seen as out of scope VAT (indemnification) or a consideration for the exclusiveness commitment. Taxpayer took position, invoiced, filed return and marked in a special box in its VAT return the uncertainty. The use of this special box made penalties legally impossible and obliges tax authorities to take position within 3 months. A letter explaining the case and position was sent to tax authorities. Tax authorities confirmed in writing the taxpayers position within a three month delay. During audit, the topic was addressed as debatable but accepted immediately after showing the confirmation letter. 4. No punishment in case of legitimate expectations 4.1. Principle: tax authorities have to respect the legitimate and reasonable expectations that they have created themselves. This applies in situations where the conduct of the authorities gives rise to a reasonable expectation in the mind of a reasonably prudent economic agent. - EUCJ 9 October 2014, C-492/13, Traum EOOD: 28 The principle of legal certainty, the corollary of which is the principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, requires, on the one hand, that rules of law must be clear and precise and, on the other, that their application must be foreseeable by those subject to them (judgment in Plantanol, C-201/08, EU:C:2009:539, paragraph 46 and the case-law cited). - EUCJ 14.09.2006, C-181/04 to C-183/04, Elmeka: 31 Under the settled case-law of the Court, the principles of protection of legitimate expectations and legal certainty form part of the Community legal order. On that basis, these principles must be respected by the institutions of the Community, but also by Member States in the exercise of the powers conferred on them by Community directives (see in particular Case C-381/97 Belgocodex [1998] ECR I-8153, paragraph 26, and Case C-376/02 Goed Wonen [2005] ECR I-3445, paragraph 32). It follows that national authorities are obliged to respect the principle of protection of the legitimate expectations of economic agents. 7
32 As regards the principle of protection of the legitimate expectations of the beneficiary of the favourable conduct, it is appropriate, first, to determine whether the conduct of the administrative authorities gave rise to a reasonable expectation in the mind of a reasonably prudent economic agent (see, to that effect, Joined Cases 95/74 to 98/74, 15/75 and 100/75 Union nationale des coopératives agricoles de céréales and Others v Commission and Council [1975] ECR 1615, paragraphs 43 to 45, and Case 78/77 Lührs [1978] ECR 169, paragraph 6). If it did, the legitimate nature of this expectation must then be established. 4.2. Recommendation: no penalty (not a fine nor any other "sanction", such as a limitation or a refusal of the right to deduction) should be applied if the taxable person was in a position where he could rely on his legitimate expectation that he was acting in accordance with the law. 8