Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2018)148 - Common system of a digital services tax on revenues resulting from the provision of certain digital services - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2018)148 - Common system of a digital services tax on revenues resulting from the provision of certain digital services. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2018)148  |
| date | 21-03-2018 |
1. CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL
• Reasons for and objectives of the proposal
The Digital Single Market is one of the main political priorities of the European Commission 1 , which aims at opening up digital opportunities for people and businesses in a market of over 500 million EU consumers. In order to deliver on its potential, the Digital Single Market needs a modern and stable tax framework which stimulates innovation, tackles market fragmentation and allows all players to tap into the new market dynamics under fair and balanced conditions. Ensuring fair taxation of the digital economy is also part of the European Commission's agenda on a fair and efficient tax system in the European Union 2 .
The digital economy is transforming the way we interact, consume and do business. Digital companies are growing far faster than the economy at large, and this trend is only set to continue. Digital technologies bring many benefits to society and, from a tax perspective, they create opportunities for tax administrations and offer solutions to reduce administrative burdens, facilitate collaboration between tax authorities, as well as addressing tax evasion.
However, policy makers are currently struggling to find solutions which can ensure a fair and effective taxation as the digital transformation of the economy accelerates, given that the existing corporate taxation rules are outdated and do not capture this evolution. In particular, the current rules no longer fit the present context where online trading across borders with no physical presence has been facilitated, where businesses largely rely on hard-to-value intangible assets, and where user generated contents and data collection have become core activities for the value creation of digital businesses.
At the international level, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) already recognised, in its Action 1 report 3 which was released in 2015 as part of the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) project, that digitalisation and some of the resulting business models present challenges for international taxation. Following that report, the G20 Finance Ministers reiterated their support for the OECD's work on taxation and digitalisation. Hence, the OECD has been working on an interim report 4 on the taxation of the digital economy which was presented to the G20 Finance Ministers in March 2018. The interim report examines the need to adapt the international tax system to the digitalisation of the economy and identifies the elements to be taken into account by those countries wishing to introduce interim measures to address the tax challenges arising from digitalisation.
At Union level, such challenges were identified in the Communication of the Commission 'A Fair and Efficient Tax System in the European Union for the Digital Single Market' 5 , adopted on 21 September 2017. The current initiative was also mentioned in President Juncker's letter of intent accompanying the State of the Union Address 2017 6 . As regards Member States, several EU Finance Ministers co-signed a political statement ("Joint initiative on the taxation of companies operating in the digital economy") that supported EU law compatible and effective solutions "based on the concept of establishing a so-called equalisation tax on the turnover generated in Europe by the digital companies" 7 . This was followed by the conclusions adopted on 19 October 2017 by the European Council 8 that underlined the 'need for an effective and fair taxation system fit for the digital era'. Furthermore, the ECOFIN Council Conclusions of 5 December 2017 9 noted the interest of many Member States for temporary measures, such as a levy based on revenues from digital activities in the Union, and considered that these measures could be assessed by the Commission.
This proposal answers these calls for action, and addresses in an interim way the problem that the current corporate tax rules are inadequate for the digital economy.
The current corporate tax rules were conceived for traditional businesses. The existing tax rules are built on the principle that profits should be taxed where the value is created. However, they were mainly conceived in the early 20th century for traditional 'brick and mortar' businesses and define what triggers a right to tax in a country (where to tax) and how much of corporate income is allocated to a country (how much to tax) largely based on having a physical presence in that country. That means that non-tax residents become liable to tax in a country only if they have a presence that amounts to a permanent establishment there. However, such rules fail to capture the global reach of digital activities where physical presence is not a requirement anymore in order to be able to supply digital services. Moreover, digital business have different characteristics than traditional ones in terms of how value is created, due to their ability to conduct activities remotely, the contribution of end-users in their value creation, the importance of intangible assets, as well as a tendency towards winner-takes-most market structures rooted in the strong presence of network effects and the value of big data.
The application of the current corporate tax rules to the digital economy has led to a misalignment between the place where the profits are taxed and the place where value is created, notably in the case of business models heavily reliant on user participation. This poses a double challenge from a tax perspective. Firstly, the input obtained by a business from users, which actually constitutes the creation of value for the company, could be located in a tax jurisdiction where the company carrying out a digital activity is not physically established (and thus not established for tax purposes according to the current rules) and where therefore the profits generated from such activities cannot be taxed. Secondly, even where a company has a permanent establishment in the jurisdiction where the users are located, the value created by user participation is not taken into account when deciding how much tax should be paid in each country. This has also consequences from the perspective of the risk to artificially avoid permanent establishment rules, creates distortion of competition between digital market players, and has a negative impact on revenues.
The Commission has acknowledged that the ideal approach would be to find multilateral, international solutions to taxing the digital economy given the global nature of this challenge. The Commission is working closely with the OECD to support the development of an international solution. However, progress at international level is challenging, due to the complex nature of the problem and the wide variety of issues that need to be addressed, and reaching international consensus may take time. This is why the Commission has decided to take action and is proposing today to adapt the corporate tax rules at Union level so that they are fit for the characteristics of digital businesses 10 and to recommend that Member States extend this comprehensive solution to their double taxation treaties with non-Union jurisdictions 11 . Whilst the ECOFIN Council also stressed in its conclusions of 5 December 2017 its preference for a global solution endeavouring to closely monitor future international developments and consider appropriate responses, it welcomed EU action. Despite the present proposals, work at the OECD level is essential in order to reach a global consensus on this topic. The Commission will closely follow the developments.
In the wait of the comprehensive solution, which may take time to adopt and implement, Member States face pressure to act on this issue, given the risk that their corporate tax bases are significantly eroded over time, and also due to the perceived unfairness of the situation. While unilateral measures are in place or are concretely planned in 10 Member States for addressing this problem in a limited way, the trend has been increasing and the measures adopted are very diverse in terms of scope and their rationale. Such uncoordinated measures taken by Member States individually risk further fragmenting the Single Market and distort competition, hampering the development of new digital solutions and the Union's competitiveness as a whole.
Hence, it is necessary for the Commission to act and to propose a harmonised approach on an interim solution that tackles this problem in a targeted way. To this extent, this proposal sets out the common system of a tax on the revenues derived from the supply of certain digital services by taxable persons (hereinafter 'Digital Services Tax' or 'DST'). The specific objective of this proposal is to put forward a measure that targets the revenues stemming from the supply of certain digital services and that is easy to implement and helps to level the playing field in the interim period until a comprehensive solution is in place.
This is in line with the general objectives of this proposal, whose aim is:
–to protect the integrity of the Single Market and to ensure its proper functioning;
–to make sure that the public finances within the Union are sustainable and that the national tax bases are not eroded;
–to ensure that social fairness is preserved and that there is a level playing field for all businesses operating in the Union; and
–to fight against aggressive tax planning and to close the gaps that currently exist in the international rules which makes it possible for some digital companies to escape taxation in countries where they operate and create value.
• Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area
This proposal is part of the efforts being undertaken at Union and international level in order to adapt the current tax framework to the digital economy.
At international level, the challenge of ensuring that all actors in the digital economy are fairly taxed on their income was already identified under the Action 1 of the OECD/G20 BEPS project and the OECD has been working on an interim report on the taxation of the digital economy which was presented to the G20 Finance Ministers in March 2018.
At Union level, fair tax rules for the taxation of the digital economy are part of the Commission's fair taxation agenda, which will complement the improvements of the corporate tax framework achieved in recent years. In this respect, the Commission relaunched in 2016 the proposal on a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) 12 , which will provide a competitive, fair and robust framework for taxing companies in the Single Market. In the area of VAT, the Commission is also addressing the challenges posed by the digital economy with its proposal on e-commerce which the Council adopted in December 2017 13 , which is in line with other legislative measures laid down in the 2016 Action Plan on VAT 14 .
This proposal is part of a package which also includes a proposal for a Directive on a comprehensive solution 15 , a Recommendation to Member States to reflect the comprehensive solution in their double taxation treaties with non-Union jurisdictions 16 and a Communication setting the context and explaining the articulation between the proposals 17 . The principles underpinning this proposal and, in particular, the notion of user value creation are aligned with the proposal for a Directive on a comprehensive solution and the Recommendation, as explained in the Communication. Notably, this interim measure covers those cases where the contribution of users to the creation of value for a company is more significant, while the concept of user value creation is also the factor which the comprehensive solution aims to reflect in the corporate tax framework.
• Consistency with other Union policies
This proposal is also consistent with the Digital Single Market strategy 18 , where the Commission committed to ensure access to online activities for individuals and businesses under conditions of fair competition, as well as to open up digital opportunities for people and business and enhance Europe's position as a world leader in the digital economy.
2. LEGAL BASIS, SUBSIDIARITY AND PROPORTIONALITY
• Legal basis
The proposed Directive is based on Article 113 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This provision enables the Council, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee, to adopt provisions for the harmonisation of Member States' legislation concerning other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market and to avoid distortion of competition.
• Subsidiarity (for non-exclusive competence)
The proposal is consistent with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). In the wait of a common and coordinated action at Union level to reform the corporate tax framework to cover the digital activities of companies, Member States may introduce unilateral interim measures to address the challenges of taxing the digital economy companies. Some of such measures, which can be of a very diverse nature, are already in place or are being planned by Member States. In this respect, EU action is necessary in order to mitigate the fragmentation of the Single Market and the creation of distortions of competition within the Union due to the adoption of such divergent unilateral actions at national level. Moreover, an EU solution rather than different national policies entails a reduction in the compliance burden for businesses subject to the new rules, and also gives a strong sign to the international community as to the commitment of the EU to act when it comes to ensuring the fair taxation of the digital economy.
• Proportionality
The preferred option is consistent with the principle of proportionality, that is, it does not go beyond what is necessary to meet the objectives of the Treaties, in particular the smooth functioning of the Single Market. As follows from the subsidiarity test, it is not possible for Member States to address the problem without hampering the Single Market. Moreover, the present proposal aims at setting a common structure of the tax, while leaving sufficient margin of manoeuvre for Member States when it comes to actual setting of certain administrative aspects related to the measure, such as accounting, record-keeping and other obligations intended to ensure that the DST due is effectively paid. Member States can also adopt measures concerning the prevention of evasion, avoidance and abuse with respect to DST, and they retain the capacity to enforce payment of DST and to carry out tax audits according to their own rules and procedures. See also section 9.4.2 of the impact assessment accompanying this proposal 19 .
• Choice of the instrument
A Directive is proposed, which is the only available instrument under Article 113 of the TFEU.
3. RESULTS OF EX-POST EVALUATIONS, STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENTS
• Stakeholder consultations
The consultation strategy has focused on three main groups of stakeholders: Member States' tax administrations, businesses, and citizens. The two main consultation activities consisted in the open public consultation, which received a total of 446 replies over 12 weeks (from 26 October 2017 to 3 January 2018), and a targeted survey sent to all tax administrations within the Union. The members of the Platform for Tax Good Governance (made up of all tax authorities within the Union and 15 organisations representing businesses, civil society, and tax practitioners) have also been informed about this initiative and their opinions sought out. Spontaneous contributions have also been taken into account. As can be seen in Annex 2 of the impact assessment accompanying this proposal, a tax on the revenues stemming from the provision of certain digital services was found to be the preferred option for an interim solution by stakeholders (10 out of 21 national tax authorities, as well as 53% of the respondents to the open public consultation).
• Impact assessment
The impact assessment for the proposal was considered by the Commission's Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 7 February 2018. The Board issued a positive opinion on the proposal together with some recommendations, which have been taken into account in the final version of the impact assessment. The opinion of the Board, the recommendations and an explanation of how they have been taken into account are included in Annex 1 of the Staff Working Document accompanying this proposal 20 . See Annex 3 of that document for an overview of who would be affected by this proposal and how.
The impact assessment of this proposal examined several possible options for an interim solution. Due to several legal constraints it became nonetheless clear that the focus ought to be on a tax on revenues resulting from the provision of certain digital services. Several options were considered as regards the design of such DST (see section 9.2 of the impact assessment), and in particular its scope (which services are covered), the application of a turnover threshold (which businesses are covered), the tax rate, and the collection of the tax.
As explained in the impact assessment, the preferred design of this option is a tax with a narrow scope, levied on the gross revenues of a business resulting from the provision of certain digital services where user value creation is central, and where only businesses above two revenue-related thresholds would qualify as taxable persons liable for the payment of the tax.
4. BUDGETARY IMPLICATIONS
The proposal will have no implications for the EU budget.
5. OTHER ELEMENTS
• Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements
The Commission will monitor the implementation of the Directive once adopted and its application in close cooperation with Member States and evaluate whether this initiative is functioning properly and the extent to which its objectives have been achieved, based on the indicators set out in section 10 of the impact assessment accompanying this proposal.
• Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal
Contents
This Article provides definitions of various concepts necessary for applying the provisions in the Directive.
This Article defines which revenues qualify as taxable revenues for the purposes of this Directive.
DST is a tax with a targeted scope, levied on the revenues resulting from the supply of certain digital services characterised by user value creation. The services falling within the scope of DST are those where the participation of a user in a digital activity constitutes an essential input for the business carrying out that activity and which enable that business to obtain revenues therefrom. In other words, the business models captured by this Directive are those which would not be able to exist in their current form without user involvement. The role played by the users of these digital services is unique and more complex than that traditionally adopted by a customer. These services can be provided remotely, without the provider of the services necessarily being physically established in the jurisdiction where the users are and value is created. Therefore, such business models are responsible for the greatest difference between where profits are taxed and where value is created. However, what is subject to taxation are the revenues obtained from the monetisation of the user input, not the user participation in itself.
There are several ways in which user participation can contribute to the value of a business. For instance, digital businesses can derive data about users' activities on digital interfaces, which is typically used in order to target advertising at such users, or which can be transmitted to third parties for consideration. Another way is through the active and sustained engagement of users in multi-sided digital interfaces, which build on network effects where, broadly speaking, the value of the service increases with the number of users using the interface. The value for such interfaces lies with the connections between users and the interaction between them, which may often imply users uploading and sharing information within the network. Such multi-sided digital interfaces may also facilitate the provision of underlying supplies of goods or services directly between users, which constitutes another clear form of user participation.
Based on the several forms of user participation described above, the revenues included in the scope of this tax (taxable revenues) would be those derived from the provision of any of the following services (taxable services), as set out in Article 3(1):
–services consisting in the placing on a digital interface of advertising targeted at users of that interface; as well as the transmission of data collected about users which has been generated from such users' activities on digital interfaces;
–services consisting in the making available of multi-sided digital interfaces to users, which may also be referred to as 'intermediation services', which allow users to find other users and to interact with them, and which may also facilitate the provision of underlying supplies of goods or services directly between users.
The supply of advertising services consisting in the placing on a digital interface of a client's advertising targeted at users of that interface is defined in Article 3(1)(a) in a broad sense in line with the business models examined. This is because the placing of such advertising in a digital context constitutes the way in which the company enabling the advertising to appear on a digital interface typically monetises user traffic and the user data taken into account for the purposes of the placement. The definition of the service does not take into account whether the supplier of the advertising service owns the digital interface on which the advertisement appears. However, it is clarified in Article 3(3) that in cases where the supplier of the advertising service and the owner of the digital interface are different entities, the latter is not considered to have provided a taxable service falling within Article 3(1)(a). This is in order to avoid possible cascading effects or double taxation of the same revenues (part of the revenues obtained by the entity placing a client's advertising will be paid to the owner of the digital interface where such an advertisement is to appear, in exchange for the renting of digital space in that interface).
Intermediation services are defined in Article 3(1)(b) by reference to multi-sided digital interfaces enabling users to find other users and to interact with them, which is the aspect allowing the providers of such services to profit from network effects. The capacity of these interfaces to create a link between users distinguishes intermediation services from other services which may also be seen as facilitating the interaction between users, but where users cannot get in touch with each other unless they have already established contact by other means, such as instant messaging services. The value creation for such other services, which can be generally defined as communication or payment services, lies with the development and sale of support software which enables that interaction to take place, and it is less attached to the users' involvement. Therefore, communication or payment services remain outside the scope of the tax, as clarified in Article 3(4)(a).
For cases involving multi-sided digital interfaces that facilitate an underlying supply of goods or services directly between the users of the interface, the revenues obtained by users from those transactions remain outside the scope of the tax. The revenues resulting from retail activities consisting in the sale of goods or services which are contracted online via the website of the supplier of such goods or services (which may involve what is usually referred to as 'e-commerce') are also outside the scope of DST, because the value creation for the retailer lies with the goods or services provided and the digital interface is simply used as a means of communication.
Article 3(4)(a) also clarifies that services by an entity to users through a digital interface consisting in the supply of digital content such as video, audio or text, either owned by that entity or which that entity has acquired the rights to distribute, are not to be regarded as intermediation services and should therefore be excluded from the scope of the tax, given that it is less certain the extent to which user participation plays a central role in the creation of value for the company. It is necessary to clarify this point because some suppliers of digital content through a digital interface might allow some sort of interaction between the recipients of such content and could thus be seen as falling within the definition of multi-sided digital interfaces providing intermediary services. However, in such circumstances the interaction between users remains ancillary to a supply of digital content where the sole or main purpose for a user is to receive the digital content from the entity making available the digital interface (e.g. the supply of a video game by an entity to a user through a digital interface would constitute a supply of digital content by that entity falling outside the scope of DST, regardless of whether such a user is able to play against other users and therefore some sort of interaction is allowed between them).
The supply of digital content by an entity to users through a digital interface, which is a service outside the scope of DST, should be distinguished from the making available of a multi-sided digital interface through which users can upload and share digital content with other users, or the making available of an interface that facilitates an underlying supply of digital content directly between users. These latter services constitute a service of intermediation by the entity making available the multi-sided digital interface and therefore fall within the scope of DST, regardless of the nature of the underlying transaction. Hence, Article 3(4)(a) emphasises that the supply of digital content falling outside the scope of DST must be made by the entity making available the digital interface through which the digital content is supplied, not by users of that interface to other users.
Taxable services consisting in the transmission of data collected about users are defined in Article 3(1)(c) by reference to data which has been generated from such users' activities on digital interfaces. This is because the services within the scope of DST are those using digital interfaces as a way to create user input, rather than those services using interfaces as a way to transmit data generated otherwise. DST is therefore not a tax on the collection of data, or the use of data collected by a business for the internal purposes of that business, or the sharing of data collected by a business with other parties for free. What DST targets is the transmission for consideration of data obtained from a very specific activity (users' activities on digital interfaces).
Points (b) and (c) of Article 3 i explain that services regulated in points (1) to (9) of Section A of Annex I to Directive 2014/65/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council 21 and provided by trading venues or systematic internalisers, as defined in that Directive, or by regulated crowdfunding service providers do not fall within the scope of DST. In addition, services consisting in the facilitation of the granting of loans and provided by regulated crowdfunding service providers do not fall within the scope of DST. Regulated crowdfunding service providers refers to providers of services who are subject to any future Union rules adopted under Article 114 of the TFUE for the regulation of crowdfunding services.
Multi-sided digital interfaces which allow users to receive or to know about the existence of trade execution services, investment services or investment research services, such as those made available by the entities referred to above, often imply user interaction. However, the user does not play a central role in the creation of value for the entity making available a digital interface. Instead, the value lies with the capacity of such an entity to bring together buyers and sellers of financial products under specific and distinctive conditions which would not occur otherwise (compared, for instance, to transactions concluded outside such interfaces directly between the counterparties). A service consisting in making available a digital interface by such an entity goes beyond the mere facilitation of transactions in financial instruments between users of such an interface. In particular, the regulated services which are excluded from the scope of this Directive aim at providing a safe environment for financial transactions. The entity providing these services therefore determines the specific conditions under which such financial transactions can be executed in order to guarantee essential elements such as the quality of execution of the transactions, the level of transparency in the market and fair treatment of investors. Finally, such services have the essential and distinct objective of facilitating funding, investments or savings.
As regards crowdfunding platforms, investment and lending based crowdfunding is outside the scope of the tax because the providers of such services play the same role as that of trading venues and systematic internalisers, and hence do not constitute mere intermediation. However, services provided by crowdfunding platforms which are not investment and lending based and constitute intermediation, such as donation or reward based crowdfunding, or services provided by such platforms consisting in the placing of advertising, fall within the scope of this Directive.
Since data transmission by trading venues, systematic internalisers and regulated crowdfunding service providers is limited to and forms part of the provision of the regulated financial services described above and is regulated as such under Union law, the provision of data transmission services by those entities should also be excluded from the scope of DST, as laid down in Article 3(5).
Article 3(2) clarifies that DST is levied on the gross revenues of a business resulting from the provision of the services falling within the scope of the tax, net of value added tax and other similar taxes.
Article 3(7) clarifies that revenues resulting from the provision of taxable services between entities of a consolidated group for financial accounting purposes do not qualify as taxable revenues.
In accordance with Article 3(8), where an entity of a consolidated group for financial accounting purposes provides a taxable service to a third party but the remuneration for such a service is obtained by another entity within the group, the remuneration is deemed to have been obtained by the entity providing the taxable services. This provision is a safeguard in order to preclude an entity providing taxable services and obtaining the revenues derived from such services through another entity of the same group from escaping DST liability.
In accordance with Article 4(1), an entity above both of the following thresholds qualifies as a taxable person for the purposes of the DST:
–the total amount of worldwide revenues reported by the entity for the latest complete financial year for which a financial statement is available exceeds EUR 750 000 000; and
–the total amount of taxable revenues obtained by the entity within the Union during that financial year exceeds EUR 50 000 000.
The first threshold (total annual worldwide revenues) limits the application of the tax to companies of a certain scale, which are those which have established strong market positions that allow them to benefit relatively more from network effects and exploitation of big data and thus build their business models around user participation. Such business models, which lead to higher differences between where profits are taxed and where value is created, are those falling within the scope of the tax. The economic capacity of the businesses qualifying as taxable persons should be seen as indicating their capacity to attract a high volume of users, which is necessary for such business models to be viable. Moreover, the opportunity of engaging in aggressive tax planning lies with larger companies. That is why the same threshold has been proposed in other Union initiatives, such as the CCCTB. Such a threshold is also intended to bring legal certainty and make it easier and less costly for businesses and tax authorities to determine whether an entity is liable to DST, especially given that some of them may not record separately the revenues from the activities falling within the scope of this tax. This threshold should also exclude small enterprises and start-ups for which the compliance burdens of the new tax would be likely to have a disproportionate effect.
The second threshold (total annual taxable revenues in the Union), in contrast, limits the application of the tax to cases where there is a significant digital footprint at Union level in relation to the revenues covered by DST. This threshold is set at Union level in order to disregard differences in market sizes which may exist within the Union.
If the business belongs to a consolidated group for financial accounting purposes, the thresholds have to be applied in respect of total consolidated group revenues, as set out in Article 4(6).
Whether established in a Member State or in a non-Union jurisdiction, a business meeting both conditions above would qualify as a taxable person. Depending on where the taxable person is established, the scenarios where DST liability may arise can involve a taxable person established in a non-Union jurisdiction having to pay DST in a Member State, a taxable person established in a Member State having to pay DST in another Member State, or a taxable person established in a Member State having to pay DST in that same Member State.
Article 5 determines which proportion of the taxable revenues obtained by an entity has to be treated as obtained in a Member State for the purposes of this tax. In line with the concept of user value creation that underpins the objective scope of DST, this provision determines that DST is due in the Member State or Member States where the users are located.
This approach follows the logic that it is the user involvement in the digital activities of a company the one generating the value for that company, which may not necessarily entail a payment from the users' side (e.g. viewers of advertising on a digital interface); or which may involve payment from some users only (e.g. multi-sided digital interfaces where only certain users have to pay for accessing the interface, while other users have free access). Therefore, it is the Member State where the user is located the one with taxing rights in respect of DST, regardless of whether the user has contributed in money to the generation of revenue for the company. Specific rules to determine when a user is deemed to be located in a Member State are provided.
The taxable revenues resulting from the provision of a taxable service have to be treated for the purposes of this Directive as obtained in a Member State in a tax period if a user with respect to such services is deemed to be located in that Member State in that tax period according to the rules in Article 5(2), which have to be applied for each type of taxable service. In the case of users involved in a taxable service which are located in different Member States or non-Union jurisdictions, the taxable revenues obtained by an entity from the provision of that service would have to be distributed to each Member State proportionally and according to the several allocation keys laid down in Article 5(3) for each type of taxable service. Such allocation keys have been set out taking into account the nature of each of the taxable services and, in particular, what triggers the receipt of revenues for the provider of the service.
In the case of a taxable service consisting in the placing of advertising on a digital interface, the number of times an advertisement has appeared on users' devices in a tax period in a Member State is taken into account for the purposes of determining the proportion of revenues to be allocated in that tax period to that Member State.
As regards the making available of multi-sided digital interfaces, in order to determine the proportion of taxable revenues to be allocated to a Member State, a distinction is made between cases where the interface facilitates underlying transactions directly between users and cases where it does not. In cases involving the facilitation of underlying transactions, the allocation of taxable revenues in a tax period to a Member State is carried out on the basis of the number of users who conclude such a transaction in that tax period while using a device in that Member State. This is because that is the action usually generating revenues for the entity making the interface available. Taxing rights over the revenues of the business making available the interface are allocated to Member States where the users concluding underlying transactions are located, irrespective of whether the users are the sellers of the underlying goods or services or the buyers. This is because both of them generate value for the multi-sided digital interface through their participation, given that the role of the interface is to match supply and demand. However, if the intermediation service does not involve the facilitation of underlying transactions, revenues are typically obtained through periodic payments after having registered or opened an account on a digital interface. Hence, for the purposes of allocating taxable revenues to a Member State in a tax period, the number of users in that tax period holding an account which was opened using a device in that Member State, whether opened during that tax year or an earlier one, is taken into account.
As regards the transmission of data collected about users, the allocation of taxable revenues in a tax period to a Member State takes into account the number of users from whom data transmitted in that tax period has been generated as a result of such users having used a device in that Member State.
Article 5 i further clarifies that, for the purposes of determining the place of taxation, the place from which the payment for the taxable services is made is not to be taken into account. For cases involving the provision of underlying goods or services directly between the users of a multi-sided digital interface, the place where such underlying transactions take place is not taken into account either.
Based on the provision in Article 5(5), the users are deemed to be located in the Member State of the Internet Protocol (IP) address of the device used by them or, if more accurate, any other method of geolocation. The IP address is a simple and effective proxy for determining the user location. Moreover, if the taxable person is aware by other means of geolocation that the user is not located in the Member State where the IP address indicates, that taxable person would still be able to rely on that other means of geolocation to determine the place of taxation.
In accordance with Article 6, the new tax will be chargeable in a Member State on the proportion of taxable revenues obtained by a taxable person in a tax period that is treated as obtained in that Member State.
Article 7 lays down the rule on how DST should be calculated.
Article 8 sets out a single rate across the Union of 3%.
Articles 9 to 19 provide the set of obligations which would have to be fulfilled by taxable persons with DST liability.
Article 9 clarifies that the taxable person providing taxable services is liable for the payment of the tax and the fulfilment of the obligations set out in Chapter 3. It also sets out that a consolidated group for financial accounting purposes has the option to nominate a single entity within that group for the purposes of paying DST and fulfilling the obligations in Chapter 3 on behalf of each taxable person in that group who is liable to DST.
In order to manage the administrative aspects related to this tax, a One-Stop-Shop (OSS) simplification mechanism is made available to all taxable persons. The functioning of the OSS is based on the idea that a taxable person with DST liability in one or more Member State should enjoy a single contact point (the Member State of identification) through which all his DST obligations can be fulfilled (identification, submission of the DST return, and payment). That Member State of identification is responsible to share that information with the other Member States where DST is due, as well as to transfer the proportion of DST collected on behalf of such other Member States.
As explained in Article 10, 'Member State of identification' means the Member State where a taxable person is liable for the payment of DST, unless he has DST liability in more than one Member State, in which case he may choose the Member State of identification among them.
The fact that a taxable person may be resident for corporate income tax purposes in a Member State has no impact in determining the Member State of identification for the purposes of the DST, given the different nature of the tax. This also intends not to impose a disproportionate administrative burden on Member States where a taxable person may be established for corporate taxation purposes, but where he may not have any DST liability. Therefore, a taxable person with DST liability in several Member States will be able to make use of the OSS in his Member State of identification in respect of all his DST obligations, and regardless of whether he is tax resident for corporate income tax purposes there. For instance, a taxable person with DST liability in two Member States (Member State A, where he is resident for corporate income tax purposes, and Member State B, where he is not resident for corporate income tax purposes) which has chosen Member State B as Member State of identification, will be able to fulfil his DST obligations in respect of both Member States A and B through the OSS.
Article 10 establishes an obligation for a taxable person to notify via a self-declaration system the Member State of identification that he is liable for the payment of DST in the Union, as well as the details to be notified. That taxable person will obtain an identification number in accordance with Article 11. If a taxable person ceases to be liable to DST in the Union, he has to notify the Member State of identification that information in accordance with Article 12, and the Member State of identification will delete that taxable person from their identification register. Article 13 clarifies the rules concerning a possible change in the Member State of identification.
Moreover, that taxable person must submit a DST return in the Member State of identification under Article 14, with the details specified in Article 15. In particular, that means having to declare, for each Member State where DST is due for the relevant tax period, the total amount of taxable revenues treated as obtained by a taxable person in that Member State together with the DST due on that amount. The total DST due in all Member States and the information about the thresholds applicable for the purposes of Article 4 will also have to be reported.
Payment arrangements are governed by Article 16, which also specifies that possible refunds of the tax to taxpayers, once the DST due has been already transferred from the Member State of identification to the Member State where that DST was due, should be made by the latter directly to that taxable person. In order to avoid discrepancies in the functioning of the OSS, a provision regulating possible DST return amendments has been introduced in Article 17. Article 18 concerns accounting, record-keeping and anti-fraud measures which are for Member States to set up. This provision also clarifies that the existence of a OSS and a Member State of identification does not change the fact that DST is owed by the taxable person directly to each Member State where DST is due, and that such a Member State is entitled to enforce the payment of DST directly against the taxable person liable for it and to carry out tax audits and control measures.
Article 19 establishes that every Member State has to appoint a competent authority for the purposes of managing all administrative obligations in respect of DST, as well as the administrative cooperation requirements set out in Chapter 4.
Provisions laid down in Articles 20-23 govern the necessary exchanges between Member States as regards the identification of taxable persons and the submission of DST returns, as well as the transfer of funds corresponding to DST payments by the Member State of identification to the other Member States where DST is due.