Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V.

Statement EU COMMISSION’S 2024 REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OF THE GDPR Transparency register number: 1771817758-48 Federation of German Industries (BDI) 8 Feb 2024 Ref. Ares(2024)962946 - 08/02/2024 BDI contribution on the GDPR evaluation 2024 www.bdi.eu Page 2 from 22 Questionnaire 1. General comments a. What is your overall assessment (benefits / challenges, increase in trust and awareness, etc.) of the application of the GDPR since May 2018? Are there priority issues to be addressed? Overall, BDI members appreciate that the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) led to an increased awareness of data protection, increased knowledge on providing and on processing personal data. The freedom to conduct business is compatible with data protection, and interpretation of the GDPR should refrain from creating the opposite impression.

…compatible with data protection, and interpretation of the GDPR should refrain from creating the opposite impression. The data protection culture in the enterprises is increasing; it is based on the premise of finding out how requirements can be met in a compliant manner. The high sanctions can however have a discouraging effect for enterprises, especially for SMEs, to test new ideas and approaches. While still in a maturing phase, there is an incremental improvement of internal procedures for data discovery and audit trails (this is higher in the sectors with a high uptake of digital technologies). Regardless of the size of the companies, making sure that new staff members are kept well-informed and trained to ensure that human error would not lead to any problems is a continuous challenge. Significant investments (relatively higher for the SMEs) have been made for GDPR compliance.

…is a continuous challenge. Significant investments (relatively higher for the SMEs) have been made for GDPR compliance. Reducing compliance requirements and complexity for small and medium sized business should be an important consideration for this update. Challenges persist, particularly in the coexistence of outdated sector-specific rules like the old ePrivacy Directive alongside GDPR. The GDPR provides for a technology-neutral, risk-based framework that allows data controllers to apply appropriate safeguards and risk mitigation measures based on an assessment of the risks posed to individuals by the processing in question. Given the significant compliance work by industry including many small businesses, and the efforts by nations around the world to mirror many of the key provisions of the GDPR, it would be very disruptive to make widescale changes to the law as drafted.

…many of the key provisions of the GDPR, it would be very disruptive to make widescale changes to the law as drafted. The focus must be on the implementation and guidance, the capacity building across the board, the increasing of experience of Data Protection Officers (DPOs), the maturity of the Data Protection Authorities (DPAs) and their familiarity with private sector and new economic models. Businesses suffer from interpretations of GDPR that are based on a lack of understanding of a specific market sector and an incomplete or one-sided balancing of relevant interests and fundamental rights.

…of a specific market sector and an incomplete or one-sided balancing of relevant interests and fundamental rights. This situation unnecessarily blocks innovation, delays product Federation Of German Industries German Lobbyregister Number R000534 Address Breite Straße 29 10178 Berlin Postal address 11053 Berlin Germany Contact Dr Michael Dose T: +4930 2028 1560 F: +4930 2028 2560 E-mail: [email protected] Internet www.bdi.eu BDI contribution on the GDPR evaluation 2024 www.bdi.eu Page 3 from 22 developments and creates an immense bureaucratic overhead for businesses. It is paramount to resolve this effect. For example, the quality and the applicability of guidance from the authorities must be improved.

…resolve this effect. For example, the quality and the applicability of guidance from the authorities must be improved. This can be achieved by a much stronger and earlier involvement of all relevant stakeholders when guidelines are intended to be developed in order to achieve a more balanced and society-wide accepted interpretation of GDPR. The interpretation of the GDPR principles is still fragmented within Germany and across the EU. A closer cooperation between competent authorities for GDPR and other legislation is needed to avoid conflicting requirements. Further awareness raising on the data subjects’ rights is necessary especially when it comes to their limitations. This way the GDPR will serve better the data subjects and decrease frustration from thinking that these were absolute rights when they are not.

…better the data subjects and decrease frustration from thinking that these were absolute rights when they are not. The often-antagonising narrative when non- compliance cases are found damages the reputation of the GDPR as a legislation – not as a principle, but as feasibility of the rules. In the business world, it is leaving the impression in companies, which are doing their utmost efforts within the framework of their resourcing and capacity, that “no matter how much effort was made, it will be found non-compliant”, and that “it will never be enough”. Going forward, the role of the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and national DPAs will be a significant one for striking the balance of protection and freedom to conduct business. 2. Exercise of data subject rights a.

…one for striking the balance of protection and freedom to conduct business. 2. Exercise of data subject rights a. From the controllers and processors’ perspective: please provide information on the compliance with the data subject rights listed below, including on possible challenges (e.g. manifestly unfounded or excessive requests, difficulty meeting deadlines, identification of data subjects, etc.). On the one hand, many enterprises list all data subjects’ rights within their privacy notices but lack the understanding what these rights are in the context of the GDPR and how they can be satisfied should a data subject rights request (DSR) be received. While this is a clear sign of awareness of the legal obligation to provide for those rights, the underlying problem of different operationalisations of the measures to meet the DSRs often leads to delays and frustration on both ends.

…of different operationalisations of the measures to meet the DSRs often leads to delays and frustration on both ends. On the other hand, our member point at insufficient awareness on behalf of the data subjects regarding the limitations of the data protection rights under the GDPR, which are not absolute and are balanced against the rights of others. Furthermore, there is use of GDPR rights out of the context to protect a fundamental right, but rather for general complaints about a product or a service, which do not clearly relate to the processing of personal data. BDI contribution on the GDPR evaluation 2024 www.bdi.eu Page 4 from 22 There is a noticeable difference regarding the amount of received data subject right requests depending on the business area, and not necessarily related to risks of processing.

…data subject right requests depending on the business area, and not necessarily related to risks of processing. The identification of the data subject who is making a DSR request and the clarity of the request must be improved. Otherwise, it is a disproportionate burden for controllers and processors to clarify the request (automated tools for data subjects’ request often produce unclear requests for the receiving end). ▪ Information obligations, including the type and level of detail of the information to be provided (Articles 12 to 14) (Where possible please provide a quantification and information on the evolution of the exercise of these rights since the entry into application of the GDPR) Right to access and right to erasure are the two most common rights exercised by the data subject, within the limits of the experiences of our membership.

…are the two most common rights exercised by the data subject, within the limits of the experiences of our membership. The EDPB-Guidelines approach of a layered privacy notice seemed to have become a commonly accepted standard for informing customers, website users and all other data subjects that interact with the controller from “the outside”. However, there is difficulty in providing privacy notices to data subjects in cases where the entities are collecting personal data from third parties, and where the entity has no direct relationship with the data subject. The GDPR does not sufficiently consider the cost of compliance which is generated in order to satisfy a request: it is not always a simple process for a controller to compile a copy of all the relevant data and send it to the data subject.

…always a simple process for a controller to compile a copy of all the relevant data and send it to the data subject. A considerable amount of time is required to determine what information or documents are to be provided (depending on the phrasing of the data subject’s request) and the time is required to redact the information of third parties from those documents once they have been correctly identified. More clarity will be welcome regarding when a completion of a data subject request is achieved, especially as the economy gets more digitalized and data is flowing in interconnected IT-systems. Absolutist interpretations will not be realistic in technology nor in infrastructure context. From a processors’ view the process of generating meaningful statistics is hindered by the stringent regulations, impacting the ability to derive valuable insights for optimizing e. g.

77 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗

Call for Evidence BDI contribution to the public consulta- tion on the Recast of the Directive on Administrative Cooperation in the field of direct taxation (Directive 2011/16/EU) Date: 10 February 2026 Federation of German Industries e.V. Ref. Ares(2026)1507697 - 10/02/2026 Call for Evidence – BDI on DAC Recast Contents Summary .......................................................................................... 3 1. DAC 6 – Targeted Reporting .................................................... 4 2. More Targeted Scope for DAC 7 .............................................. 6 3. Merge DAC 4 and DAC 9 .......................................................... 7 4. EU Tax ID: Avoid Additional Burden on Companies ............. 7 5. No Reintroduction of “Unshell” ...............................................

Burden on Companies ............. 7 5. No Reintroduction of “Unshell” ............................................... 8 About BDI ......................................................................................... 9 Imprint .............................................................................................. 9 Call for Evidence – BDI on DAC Recast Summary We would like to thank the European Commission for the opportunity to pro- vide input in the context of the Call for Evidence on Directive 2011/16/EU on administrative cooperation in the field of direct taxation (DAC), as well as its subsequent amendments. The proposed DAC recast offers numerous opportunities to improve the efficiency of data reporting.

…amendments. The proposed DAC recast offers numerous opportunities to improve the efficiency of data reporting. The DAC reforms implemented in recent years have, in some cases, resulted in significant costs for businesses, without clear evidence so far that all re- ported data is being systematically used by tax authorities. In particular, the very broadly defined reporting obligations under DAC 6 and DAC 7 have led to a substantial expansion of internal compliance structures, the benefits of which are not proportionate to the effort involved. Some companies with cross border activities report that, solely for the im- plementation and ongoing operation of DAC6 and DAC7 obligations, group-wide resources equivalent to up to two full-time employees are tied up. Costs (excluding personnel costs) can amount to a high five-figure sum.

…to up to two full-time employees are tied up. Costs (excluding personnel costs) can amount to a high five-figure sum. This burden is ongoing, without any clear indication so far that all reported data is being systematically used by tax authorities. From a business perspective, it is crucial that a DAC recast does not create additional bureaucratic burdens. Instead, the focus should be on declut- tering, improving efficiency and simplification. In this context, we would like to highlight the following priorities: 1. DAC 6: A More Targeted Scope and Streamlined Reporting Obligations 2. DAC 7: A More Targeted Scope and Simplified Procedures 3. DAC 4 and DAC 9: Merge the two directives 4. EU Tax Identification Number: No Additional Burdens for Companies

DAC 4 and DAC 9: Merge the two directives 4. EU Tax Identification Number: No Additional Burdens for Companies 5. No reintroduction of Unshell Federation of German Industries German Lobbyregister Number R000534 Address Breite Straße 29 10178 Berlin Postal address 11053 Berlin Contact Nadine Fetzer E-Mail: [email protected] Internet www.bdi.eu Call for Evidence – BDI on DAC Recast www.bdi.eu Seite 4 von 9 1. DAC 6 – Targeted Reporting DAC 6 was introduced to give tax authorities greater transparency in inter- national tax planning. The DAC 6 regulations are a prime example of exces- sive bureaucratic burden. Companies are required, among other things, to im- plement and maintain complex compliance structures, including specialized IT tools, internal policies, training programs, and control systems.

…compliance structures, including specialized IT tools, internal policies, training programs, and control systems. In addi- tion, elaborate screening and initial analysis processes must be carried out for all relevant transactions to even identify potentially reportable cases. This is further compounded by ongoing costs for external or internal DAC tools and related support. Finally, the technical implementation of reporting to the tax authorities involves significant investments. These compliance efforts for taxpayers are not matched by any (notable) benefits for tax authorities. It is likely for this reason that DAC 6 was not included in the cost-benefit analysis of the European Commission in its most recent DAC report.

…that DAC 6 was not included in the cost-benefit analysis of the European Commission in its most recent DAC report. The priorities of the German industry are: ▪ Reassessment of Reporting Obligations Although not a direct part of ATAD or Pillar 2, the obligations to report cross-border tax arrangements should be reassessed due to their substan- tive proximity. The question arises as to why companies already subject to the global minimum tax should still be required to report cross-border tax arrangements – potentially low-taxed structures are already largely captured and taxed under the strict German outbound taxation rules as well as the global minimum tax. Against this background, DAC6 – par- ticularly the A Hallmarks and the Main Benefit Test – loses relevance, while the administrative burden remains unchanged.

…the A Hallmarks and the Main Benefit Test – loses relevance, while the administrative burden remains unchanged. DAC6 obligations should be eliminated for companies falling within the scope of Pillar II. For all remaining companies still subject to the rules, the adminis- trative burden should be substantially reduced. ▪ Clarification of Reporting Obligations - Uniform EU Guidelines: To reduce legal uncertainty, consistent guidelines should be developed for the application of the Hallmarks. - Clear determination of the reporting party: Existing legal uncer- tainty often leads to multiple filings and overly defensive reporting in practice. Clear rules on responsibility would improve the quality of reporting and avoid unnecessary effort.

…in practice. Clear rules on responsibility would improve the quality of reporting and avoid unnecessary effort. Against this background, it Call for Evidence – BDI on DAC Recast www.bdi.eu Seite 5 von 9 should also be clearly defined when an in-house tax department “de- signs” a reportable arrangement. In particular, merely outlining the applicable law or explaining the tax implications of different options should not trigger a reporting obligation. - More precise legal definition of the main purpose for tax ad- vantage (Main-Benefit Test, Annex IV): The Main-Benefit Test should not be considered satisfied if tax advantages in one jurisdiction are offset or overcompensated by tax disadvantages in others. The key criterion should be whether achieving an overall, cross-border tax benefit is decisive for the implementation decision.

…should be whether achieving an overall, cross-border tax benefit is decisive for the implementation decision. Alternatively, the Main-Benefit Test could be abolished, in conjunction with the re- moval of A1 Hallmarks and clarification of the remaining hallmarks. ▪ Introduce more practical deadlines for reporting: The current 30-day deadline (Article 8ab) is unrealistic in practice and creates unnecessary time pressure without increasing the informational value for tax authori- ties. It should be extended to 90 days. ▪ Eliminate routine transactions: Many Hallmarks capture purely routine business transactions that are unrelated to aggressive tax planning. These generate significant additional compliance costs without any discernible tax policy benefit.

…tax planning. These generate significant additional compliance costs without any discernible tax policy benefit. Hallmarks and reporting obligations without clear added value should be consistently removed (alternatively, a white list could be introduced). The goal should be that only information that gen- uinely contributes to combating undesirable tax avoidance is reported. Particularly error-prone Hallmarks, such as the general “Confidentiality,” “Fee Structure,” and “Standardized Documentation” hallmarks, should be removed, as they primarily encourage defensive reporting and are therefore ineffective. 2 1 A large proportion of the reviewed cases that ultimately did not require reporting by companies were based on A Hallmarks, where reporting was eliminated following a negative Main-Benefit Test.

…by companies were based on A Hallmarks, where reporting was eliminated following a negative Main-Benefit Test. Removing these Hallmarks would significantly reduce internal review and reporting efforts without materially diminishing the benefit to tax authorities. 2 Examples: A.1 Confidentiality: Confidentiality is a common compliance requirement and does not constitute a reliable indicator of aggressive tax planning. // A.2 Fee Structure: Contingent fees (success fees) are market standard and do not provide a reliable signal of potential aggressive tax arrangements. If Hallmark A.2 is retained, it would require clear specification and a more case-specific assessment. Moreover, potential benefits are already neutralized by Pillar II and the German Foreign Tax Act (AStG).

25 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗

Position Anti-tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) – evaluation Federation of German Industries e.V. Date: 11/09/2024 Ref. Ares(2024)6450948 - 11/09/2024 Anti-tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) – evaluation Contents Summary ................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4 1. Interest limitation rule (Article 4 ATAD) ............................................... 5 2. Exit taxation (Article 5 ATAD) ............................................................... 5 3. Controlled foreign company rule (Article 7 ATAD) ............................. 6 4. Hybrid mismatches (Article 9 ATAD) .................................................

............................. 6 4. Hybrid mismatches (Article 9 ATAD) ................................................. 12 About BDI ................................................................................................................ 14 Imprint ..................................................................................................................... 14 Anti-tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) – evaluation Summary The Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) was introduced to harmonize tax rules across the EU and prevent tax avoidance. However, its implementation as minimum standards has led to significant discrepancies among member states, particularly in areas such as interest deduction restrictions, exit taxation, and Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules.

…in areas such as interest deduction restrictions, exit taxation, and Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) rules. Germany, in particular, has imposed stricter regulations than required, known as "gold-plating," resulting in competitive imbalances and increased administrative burdens for businesses. These variations contradict ATAD's goal of creating a level playing field within the EU. To address these issues, it is critical to push for a more harmonized application of ATAD across all member states. This includes uniform definitions of interest expenses and passive income, clearer rules for exit taxation, and alignment of CFC rules with the global minimum tax framework under OECD Pillar 2. Preventing gold-plating and introducing clear, consistent standards would reduce complexity, enhance fairness, and foster a more integrated EU internal market.

…consistent standards would reduce complexity, enhance fairness, and foster a more integrated EU internal market. Federation of German Industries Member Association of BUSINESSEUROPE Address Breite Straße 29 10178 Berlin Postal Address 11053 Berlin Germany Contact David Gajda T: +493020281413 F: +493020281413 Internet www.bdi.eu E-Mail [email protected] Anti-tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) – evaluation www.bdi.eu page 4 of 14 Introduction Dear Sir or Madam, We are pleased to respond to the request for evaluation of ATAD. According to paragraph (2) of the preamble, the ATAD Directive aims, among other things, to provide a common framework to prevent market fragmentation/distortions in the EU internal market.

…other things, to provide a common framework to prevent market fragmentation/distortions in the EU internal market. However, due to the nature of the directive's provisions as minimum standards (which are implemented very differently at the local level) even in highly technical terms (e.g., the definition of interest expenses for interest deduction restrictions/interest barriers), it is questionable whether this goal is being met. We hope that our feedback provides valuable insights for the evaluation of the ATAD Directives and contributes to shaping a more harmonized and competitive tax framework across the European Union. Should you have any further questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us at any time. Thank you for considering our input. Best regards, Federation of German Industries e.V.

…to contact us at any time. Thank you for considering our input. Best regards, Federation of German Industries e.V. Anti-tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) – evaluation www.bdi.eu page 5 of 14 1. Interest limitation rule (Article 4 ATAD) Several simplification rules have been introduced as optional (e.g., the safe harbor rule, which allows interest expenses of up to EUR 3 million per year to remain deductible). The German tax authorities have adopted this simplification – however, a mandatory application of such a rule would have been desirable across the entire EU tax landscape. The same applies to allowable EBITDA quotas or comparable options. The definition of the term “interest” has been significantly expanded in ATAD compared to, for instance, German legislation and court rulings. For example, arrangement fees are also considered part of interest expenses.

German legislation and court rulings. For example, arrangement fees are also considered part of interest expenses. A more specific definition or alignment with national regulations would have been useful to maintain existing national interest limitation rules with minimal adjustments. The definition of net interest expenses according to ATAD may need to be aligned with GloBE rules for intra-group financing. BDI Petition: To ensure a consistent and fair application of interest deduction restrictions across the EU, it is critical that the safe harbor rule and other simplification measures be applied uniformly by all member states. Additionally, a clearer and more specific definition of "interest" is needed, one that aligns with national rules to prevent unnecessary adjustments and administrative burdens.

…is needed, one that aligns with national rules to prevent unnecessary adjustments and administrative burdens. Uniformity in the definition of net interest expenses across the EU, potentially in alignment with international frameworks would enhance consistency and clarity for businesses operating in multiple jurisdictions. 2. Exit taxation (Article 5 ATAD) Article 5 of ATAD addresses exit taxation, which aims to prevent the erosion of the tax base when assets or business functions are transferred across borders. However, the scope of these provisions is insufficiently clear, particularly with regard to intra-group transfers and the relocation of business functions within corporate groups. The directive mandates that the market value of transferred assets be used as the basis for exit taxation, but it fails to provide a standardized method for determining market value.

…be used as the basis for exit taxation, but it fails to provide a standardized method for determining market value. This leaves room for inconsistent interpretations across member states, further complicating cross-border transactions. The lack of a common standard for determining the market value of assets in cross-border transfers further complicates compliance. Without a uniform method for valuing assets, businesses are left to reconcile conflicting interpretations of market value, leading to potential disputes with tax Anti-tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) – evaluation www.bdi.eu page 6 of 14 authorities in multiple jurisdictions. This stands in stark contrast to ATAD’s goal of creating a harmonized and predictable tax environment within the EU.

This stands in stark contrast to ATAD’s goal of creating a harmonized and predictable tax environment within the EU. BDI Petition: To eliminate ambiguity and reduce the administrative burden associated with exit taxation, it is essential that the scope of Article 5 be clarified, particularly with regard to intra-group transfers of functions. Additionally, the introduction of a common standard for determining the market value of assets in cross-border transfers would ensure uniformity across the EU and facilitate smoother implementation of exit taxation rules. This would provide businesses with much-needed legal certainty and reduce the complexity of cross-border transactions. 3.

…would provide businesses with much-needed legal certainty and reduce the complexity of cross-border transactions. 3. Controlled foreign company rule (Article 7 ATAD) Rather than providing a comprehensive statement of all potentially critical aspects associated with the below topics, our aim is to flag rules and interpretations that operationally harm German-based multinational enterprises, carrying out their business activities with substance. Control concept: In principle, it is to be welcomed that according to Art. 7 ATAD I Directive i) CFC rules do not apply when income of the foreign company is taxed in the respective Member State and that ii) an actual direct or indirect control of more than 50% of the voting rights, capital or profits of the foreign entity is required for CFC purposes. a) However, the wording of Art.

…voting rights, capital or profits of the foreign entity is required for CFC purposes. a) However, the wording of Art. 7 (1) ATAD I Directive should be more precise regarding which Member State shall apply the CFC rules. It is not made explicitly clear whether the rules in Art. 7, 8 ATAD I Directive shall apply only to taxpayers with unlimited tax liability in the respective Member State or if they also encompass taxpayers with a limited tax liability due to a permanent establishment in the Member State concerned. If the latter was to be the case, the Directive should also contain rules as to when a participation is considered pertaining to a permanent establishment (legal vs. functional allocation criteria). However, from our point of view solely taxpayers with unlimited tax liability should be subject to CFC rules since only they have a genuine link to the respective Member State.

42 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗

Stellungnahme Überarbeitung des Zollkodex der Union Vorschlag für eine Verordnung des Europäi- schen Parlaments und des Rates zur Festle- gung des Zollkodex der Union und zur Ein- richtung der Zollbehörde der Europäischen Union sowie zur Aufhebung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 952/2013 Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V. Stand: 30. Oktober 2023 Ref. Ares(2023)7522287 - 06/11/2023 Inhaltsverzeichnis Kernforderungen ............................................................................... 3 Einleitende Anmerkungen ................................................................. 4 Trust & Check Trader ........................................................................ 5 EU Customs Data Hub ...................................................................... 8 EU Customs Authority .......................................................................

…8 EU Customs Authority ....................................................................... 9 Änderungen in Zollverfahren und weitere Aspekte .......................... 10 Über den BDI .................................................................................. 13 Impressum ...................................................................................... 13 Kernforderungen ▪ Grundsätzlich enthält der im Mai vorgelegte Revisionsvorschlag der Europäischen Kommission viele gute und richtige Ansätze und Vor- schläge, die vom BDI teils schon lange gefordert und daher unter- stützt werden. Bei der Reform sollte schon frühzeitig mitgedacht wer- den, dass die Umsetzung für die Wirtschaftsbeteiligten machbar ist und die Zollprozesse die logistischen Prozesse in den Unternehmen widerspiegeln.

…die Wirtschaftsbeteiligten machbar ist und die Zollprozesse die logistischen Prozesse in den Unternehmen widerspiegeln. ▪ Aus Sicht des BDI muss die Reform des UZK echte Fortschritte im Bereich der Digitalisierung und des Bürokratieabbaus bringen und deutliche Vereinfachungen für alle Wirtschaftsbeteiligten erreichen. So sollten künftig anstelle von transaktionsbezogenen Kontrollen prozessbasierte Kontrollen erfolgen. Auch muss die Revision darauf hinwirken, dass das Zollrecht in allen 27 EU-Mitgliedstaaten harmo- nisiert angewendet wird. ▪ Trust & Check Trader: Für Trust & Check Trader muss endlich das richtige Verhältnis zwischen Vereinfachungen und Kontrollen herge- stellt werden. Es muss sichergestellt werden, dass mit der Zertifizie- rung spürbare Vereinfachungen für alle Trust & Check Trader in der EU garantiert werden.

…dass mit der Zertifizie- rung spürbare Vereinfachungen für alle Trust & Check Trader in der EU garantiert werden. ▪ EU Customs Data Hub: Der BDI begrüßt die Schaffung eines zent- ralen und EU-einheitlichen IT-Systems. Dabei ist unbedingt zu be- achten, dass es zu einer wirklichen Vereinfachung und nicht zu einem bürokratischen Mehraufwand führt. Datenschutz und Datensicherheit müssen eine übergeordnete Rolle spielen und unbefugter Zugriff auf sensible Unternehmensdaten muss unbedingt verhindert werden. ▪ EU Customs Authority: Die EU Customs Authority kann einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Harmonisierung der Anwendung des EU-Zoll- rechts leisten. Auf keinen Fall darf eine weitere Bürokratieebene für Wirtschaftsbeteiligte geschaffen werden, die Zollverfahren unnötig verkompliziert und verlängert.

Bürokratieebene für Wirtschaftsbeteiligte geschaffen werden, die Zollverfahren unnötig verkompliziert und verlängert. ▪ Anpassung der Mehrwertsteuervorschriften: Die Reform der Zoll- vorschriften läuft ohne gleichzeitige Anpassung der Mehrwertsteuer- systemrichtlinie im Hinblick auf die Einfuhrumsatzsteuer größtenteils ins Leere, wenn mehrere Mitgliedstaaten beteiligt sind. Der Ort, an dem die Zollschuld und der Ort, an dem die Einfuhrumsatzsteuer- schuld entsteht, müssen identisch sein. Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V.

Ort, an dem die Einfuhrumsatzsteuer- schuld entsteht, müssen identisch sein. Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V. Lobbyregisternummer R000534 Hausanschrift Breite Straße 29 10178 Berlin Postanschrift 11053 Berlin Ansprechpartner Anna Kantrup T: +493020281526 F: +493020282526 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet www.bdi.eu www.bdi.eu Seite 4 von 13 Einleitende Anmerkungen Der Zollkodex der Union (UZK) ist ein wichtiger Pfeiler für die Zollunion und damit auch für den gemeinsamen europäischen Binnenmarkt. Eine ex- portorientierte deutsche und europäische Wirtschaft braucht effiziente und straffe Zollverfahren, um international wettbewerbsfähig zu sein. Von effek- tiven und gezielten Verfahren und einer schnellen Abwicklung können nicht nur Unternehmen profitieren.

…sein. Von effek- tiven und gezielten Verfahren und einer schnellen Abwicklung können nicht nur Unternehmen profitieren. Auch die europäischen Zollbehörden können dringend benötigte Ressourcen einsparen, die an anderer Stelle besser genutzt werden könnten, gerade in Anbetracht steigender Handelsvolumina und stei- gender Aufgaben, die vom Zoll erledigt werden müssen. Derzeit müssen Gü- ter, die in den Binnenmarkt gelangen, Anforderungen aus weit mehr als 300 Rechtsvorschriften erfüllen, die von den Zollbehörden überprüft werden müssen und für die Wirtschaftsbeteiligten große bürokratische Hürden dar- stellen. Bei der Revision des UZK muss diese steigende Komplexität unbe- dingt mitbedacht werden und eine kohärente Verknüpfung mit anderen EU- Verordnungen ermöglicht und geschaffen werden. Zudem hat das internationale Handelssystem in den letzten Jahren einen deut- lichen Wandel durchlebt.

…werden. Zudem hat das internationale Handelssystem in den letzten Jahren einen deut- lichen Wandel durchlebt. Neue geopolitische Herausforderungen machen eine Überarbeitung des europäischen Zollrechts somit dringend notwendig, damit Wirtschaftsbeteiligte und Zollbehörden effektiv mit den neuen Reali- täten und Rahmenbedingungen umgehen können und der Binnenmarkt effek- tiv geschützt werden kann. Grundsätzlich enthält der im Mai vorgelegte Revisionsvorschlag der Europä- ischen Kommission viele gute und richtige Ansätze und Vorschläge, die vom BDI teils schon lange gefordert und daher unterstützt werden. Häufig bleibt der Legislativvorschlag allerdings noch zu vage und detaillierte Regelungen sollen erst in delegierten Verordnungen und Durchführungsverordnungen ge- schaffen werden.

…und detaillierte Regelungen sollen erst in delegierten Verordnungen und Durchführungsverordnungen ge- schaffen werden. Somit gibt es aus Sicht der deutschen Industrie aktuell noch eine Vielzahl offener Fragen, die im Rahmen des Gesetzgebungsprozesses diskutiert werden müssen. Dabei sollte schon frühzeitig mitgedacht werden, dass die Umsetzung für die Wirtschaftsbeteiligten machbar ist und die Zoll- prozesse die logistischen Prozesse in den Unternehmen widerspiegeln. Aus Sicht des BDI muss die Reform des UZK echte Fortschritte im Bereich der Digitalisierung und des Bürokratieabbaus bringen und deutliche Verein- fachungen für alle Wirtschaftsbeteiligten erreichen. So sollten künftig an- stelle von transaktionsbezogenen Kontrollen prozessbasierte Kontrollen er- folgen.

…erreichen. So sollten künftig an- stelle von transaktionsbezogenen Kontrollen prozessbasierte Kontrollen er- folgen. Insbesondere für besonders vertrauenswürdige Wirtschaftsbeteiligte www.bdi.eu Seite 5 von 13 (AEO/Trust & Check Trader) muss endlich das richtige Verhältnis zwischen Vereinfachungen und Kontrollen hergestellt werden. Auch muss die Revi- sion darauf hinwirken, dass das Zollrecht in allen 27 EU-Mitgliedstaaten har- monisiert angewendet wird und so ein Level-Playing-Field hergestellt wird. Eines der Kernziele der Reform, nämlich die Verwirklichung einer generel- len zentralen Zollabwicklung über den neuen EU Customs Data Hub, lässt sich nicht allein durch die Änderung des UZK realisieren.

Zollabwicklung über den neuen EU Customs Data Hub, lässt sich nicht allein durch die Änderung des UZK realisieren. Ohne gleichzeitige Anpassung anderer Rechtsvorschriften, wie insbesondere der Mehrwertsteu- ersystemrichtlinie, wird die zentrale Zollabwicklung bei Beteiligung von mehr als einem Mitgliedstaat in der Wirtschaft bei Einfuhren kaum umgesetzt werden. Die Unternehmen werden stattdessen die Waren weiterhin in dem Mitgliedstaat in den freien Verkehr überführen, in dem auch die Einfuhrum- satzsteuerschuld entsteht. Die im Reformpaket in Aussicht gestellte Verfah- renskostenentlastung durch den möglichen Entfall eines Versandverfahrens von der EU-Außengrenze bis zum Bestimmungsort wird es dadurch praktisch nicht geben.

Entfall eines Versandverfahrens von der EU-Außengrenze bis zum Bestimmungsort wird es dadurch praktisch nicht geben. Trust & Check Trader Sollte ein neues Programm für vertrauenswürdige Wirtschaftsbeteiligte ein- geführt werden, wie im aktuellen UZK-Revisionsentwurf mit dem Trust & Check Trader vorgesehen, muss dieser Status endlich spürbare Vereinfa- chungen für zertifizierte Unternehmen mit sich bringen. Der Trust & Check Trader soll auf dem Programm für zugelassene Wirtschaftsbeteiligte (Autho- rized Economic Operator, AEO) aufbauen und Vereinfachungen ermögli- chen, darunter auch Eigenkontrolle und prozessbasierte Kontrollen. Neben den Anforderungen, die heute an den AEO-S gestellt werden, müssen Trust & Check Trader den Zollbehörden Echtzeitzugriff auf relevante Unterneh- mensdaten ermöglichen (vgl. Art. 25 Abs. 3).

72 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗

Tax and Finance | T: +49 30 2028-1430 | [email protected] | www.bdi.eu 3 April 2023 Introductory remarks The proposals by the Commission have three objectives which aim to adapt the VAT rules to digitali- sation: (1) Modernising VAT reporting obligations by introducing Digital Reporting Requirements, (2) Addressing the challenges of the platform economy by updating the VAT rules; and (3) Avoiding the need for multiple VAT registrations in the EU. BDI as representative of German Industries will focus on the proposals for the Digital Reporting Requirements and the single VAT registration. Summary of the BDI Position The BDI welcomes the European Commission's proposal on VAT in the Digital Age (VIDA) to modern- ise VAT reporting obligations by introducing Digital Reporting Requirements (DRR) by 2028.

Age (VIDA) to modern- ise VAT reporting obligations by introducing Digital Reporting Requirements (DRR) by 2028. According to the EU Commission this is an important step to overcome the fragmentation of the European VAT system and to complete the single market by adequately combating fraud using the possibilities of digitalisation. The introduction of a mandatory electronic invoice based on the existing CEN Norm EN 16931 for intra-Community transactions and the mandatory interoperability of national reporting sys- tems is key to allow businesses to fully standardise B2B transactions and reporting obligations, which is an important step towards digitalisation. Full standardisation requires a workable framework for business. To assure standardisation for B2B transactions EN 19631 needs further development on the European level.

…for business. To assure standardisation for B2B transactions EN 19631 needs further development on the European level. Realistic rules for e-invoicing and reporting in terms of timelines and the type and amount of data are crucial. The evidence of combating fraud should lead the proposals for the Digital Reporting System. This is key for the success of the new system, as there are important investments needed by business to implement e-invoicing and to fulfil the new reporting requirements.

…are important investments needed by business to implement e-invoicing and to fulfil the new reporting requirements. The most important features of the Digital Reporting Requirements are: - Maximum level of standardization and harmonization - Urgent need to limit the mandatory invoice elements and reporting requirements - Urgent need to prolong the timelines for issuing e-invoices and for reporting - Urgent need for more realistic implementation dates - Urgent need to balance impacts on business and the contribution to combat of fraud POSITION PAPER | VAT IN THE DIGITAG AGE | VIDA New VAT rules for the digital Age COM (2022) 701 final – Proposals amending Directive 2006/112/EC Ref.

AGE | VIDA New VAT rules for the digital Age COM (2022) 701 final – Proposals amending Directive 2006/112/EC Ref. Ares(2023)2412488 - 03/04/2023 New VAT rules for the digital Age 2 Contents Introductory remarks .......................................................................................................................... 1 Summary of the BDI Position ............................................................................................................. 1 The proposals on Digital Reporting Requirements (DRR) .............................................................. 3 E-invoicing and reporting rules ......................................................................................................... 3 The European system of e-invoicing ................................................................................................

…system of e-invoicing ................................................................................................ 3 The digital reporting system for intra-Community transactions .................................................... 8 General remarks on the fight against fraud .................................................................................... 11 Single VAT Registration ................................................................................................................... 12 Imprint ................................................................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................ 13 New VAT rules for the digital Age 3 The proposals on Digital Reporting Requirements (DRR) The main objectives of the proposals are the digitalisation of the reporting requirements for intra-Com- munity trade to overcome the fragmentation of existing national reporting systems with different elec- tronic invoice formats. This fragmentation places a heavy burden on businesses operating in different Member States, creating barriers within the internal market, and hindering the development of efficient digital structures. In our view, the Commission has taken the right approach by proposing a mandatory harmonised e-invoicing format. For businesses, the technical features of mandatory e-invoicing are of key importance.

…e-invoicing format. For businesses, the technical features of mandatory e-invoicing are of key importance. In addition to the fragmentation of e-invoicing systems, excessive data collection by tax authorities to the detriment of business processes hinders business development. The Commission has taken the right approach by proposing harmonised reporting requirements based on e-invoicing. For businesses, the practical impact of the new system on business processes and systems is crucial. The digital reporting requirements, building on the e-invoicing system, will have to provide evidence of the fight against fraud. Business supports the objective of combating fraud, but measures must be effective and proportionate, not to penalise honest businesses. The reported success of the various systems in increasing VAT collection needs to be questioned.

…honest businesses. The reported success of the various systems in increasing VAT collection needs to be questioned. Often better administration of tax collec- tion is a reason for increasing VAT amounts. It must be demonstrated that the proposals address existing fraud problems. E-invoicing and reporting rules The European system of e-invoicing Articles 217 and 218 of the proposal amending Directive 2006/112/EC (in the following VAT-D-E) de- fine the future e-invoicing system. From 1 January 2024, general rules will be established for the issu- ing of invoices in line with Directive 2014/55/EU on electronic invoicing in public procurement (EN 16931). The proposal defines an electronic invoice as an invoice transmitted and received in a struc- tured electronic format.

The proposal defines an electronic invoice as an invoice transmitted and received in a struc- tured electronic format. Without prior authorisation or verification, Member States will be able to intro- duce national e-invoicing in line with EN 16931 from 2024. While we understand that Member States want to be free to implement national e-invoicing at their own discretion without having to seek a derogation from the Commission, we see a risk that some Member States may try to rush through e-invoicing mandates without adequate lead time or consultation with stakeholders, and without adequate time to adapt EN 19631 to B2B transactions at European level. This poses a serious risk to business continuity, given the fundamental role that invoices play in day- to-day commercial operations.

…risk to business continuity, given the fundamental role that invoices play in day- to-day commercial operations. It is essential that all parties (businesses, e-invoicing service providers and Member States) have sufficient time to prepare for new e-invoicing rules. We therefore call on the Commission to add guardrails to the proposed legislation, setting a lead time for the introduction of new national e-invoicing obligations, ideally a minimum period of at least 12 months from the date of publication of the legislation and technical guidance. Overall, the BDI welcomes the provision that invoices must generally be issued in structured electronic format from 1 January 2028. This can lead to considerable efficiency gains, especially at the level of the invoice recipient, due to the automated processing of invoices.

…efficiency gains, especially at the level of the invoice recipient, due to the automated processing of invoices. The issuance of invoices on paper New VAT rules for the digital Age 4 or in other formats should be limited to invoices to private customers (B2C) to fully ensure efficiency gains in the processing of incoming invoices. Other electronic formats must remain possible (Art. 217 VAT-D-E and Abolishment of Art. 232 VAT-D-E) as from 2024 The proposal defines an electronic invoice as a structured electronic format which allows for its auto- matic and electronic processing. Accordingly, invoices issued transmitted and received in another elec- tronic format and not containing structured data will not qualify as electronic invoices anymore. It would thus seem that these invoices are not acceptable anymore as from 1 January 2024.

61 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗

Stellungnahme Überarbeitung des Zollkodex der Union Sondierung zu einer Folgenabschätzung - Ares(2022)5239631 Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V. Stand: 14. September 2022 Ref. Ares(2022)6356844 - 14/09/2022 Inhaltsverzeichnis Einleitende Anmerkungen .............................................................. 3 Digitalisierung ................................................................................. 3 Datenanforderungen in Zollanmeldungen ................................... 4 Keine Zollunion ohne IT-Union.................................................... 6 Richtiges Maß zwischen Kontrollen und Entlastung ................... 7 Über den BDI.................................................................................... 9 Impressum .......................................................................................

…9 Impressum ....................................................................................... 9 Einleitende Anmerkungen Der Zollkodex der Union (UZK) ist ein wichtiger Pfeiler für die Zollunion und damit auch für den gemeinsamen europäischen Binnenmarkt. Eine ex- portorientierte europäische Wirtschaft braucht effiziente und straffe Zollver- fahren, um international wettbewerbsfähig zu sein. Von effektiven und ge- zielten Verfahren und einer schnellen Abwicklung können nicht nur Unter- nehmen profitieren. Auch die europäischen Zollverwaltungen können Res- sourcen einsparen, die an anderer Stelle besser genutzt werden könnten. Die Revision des UZK sollte zu einer pragmatischen und gleichzeitig harmo- nisierten Anwendung des Zollrechts in den Mitgliedstaaten führen.

…sollte zu einer pragmatischen und gleichzeitig harmo- nisierten Anwendung des Zollrechts in den Mitgliedstaaten führen. Zudem sollte der UZK die logistischen Prozesse der Wirtschaftsbeteiligten wider- spiegeln und so eine effiziente Anwendung ermöglichen. Die Revision sollte in jedem Fall Vereinfachungen für die Wirtschaftsbeteiligten mit sich brin- gen und sie nicht unverhältnismäßig belasten, beispielsweise durch übermä- ßige Bürokratie- und Datenanforderungen sowie unnötige Formalitäten. Auch Vereinfachungen – vor allem für Zugelassene Wirtschaftsbeteiligte (Authorized Economic Operators, AEOs) –, die der UZK Wirtschaftsbetei- ligten theoretisch schon jetzt erlaubt, wie zum Beispiel Self-Assessment (Ei- genkontrolle), müssen nun endlich praktisch umgesetzt werden.

…jetzt erlaubt, wie zum Beispiel Self-Assessment (Ei- genkontrolle), müssen nun endlich praktisch umgesetzt werden. Digitalisierung Die Digitalisierung mit einheitlichen und miteinander vernetzten Verfahren bietet eine wichtige Chance zur Vereinfachung von Zollverfahren, effizien- teren Datennutzung sowie für einen Bürokratieabbau. Davon profitieren nicht nur die Wirtschaftsbeteiligten, sondern auch die Zollbehörden. Eine Di- gitalisierung von Zollverfahren muss daher auf allen Ebenen konsequent um- gesetzt werden und sollte in der Revision des UZK eine zentrale Rolle spie- len. Diese bietet auch die Möglichkeit zu einer effizienteren und zielgerich- teteren Risikoanalyse, die durch die daraus resultierende Verbesserung der Kontrollen zu einer Entlastung der Behörden und Wirtschaftsbeteiligten füh- ren kann.

…resultierende Verbesserung der Kontrollen zu einer Entlastung der Behörden und Wirtschaftsbeteiligten füh- ren kann. Die vollständige Implementierung der bereits jetzt im UZK vorgesehenen elektronischen Systeme sollte wie geplant im Jahr 2025 abgeschlossen sein. Eine weitere Verschiebung ist unbedingt zu vermeiden. Verfahrenserleichte- rungen sollten den Wirtschaftsbeteiligten trotz der Revision nicht weiter vor- enthalten werden, da sonst weiterhin ein Wettbewerbsnachteil für die deut- sche und europäische Industrie besteht. Gerade kleinen und mittelständischen Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V.

…und europäische Industrie besteht. Gerade kleinen und mittelständischen Bundesverband der Deutschen Industrie e.V. Lobbyregisternummer R000534 Hausanschrift Breite Straße 29 10178 Berlin Postanschrift 11053 Berlin Ansprechpartner Anna Kantrup T: +49 30 2028 1526 F: +49 30 2028 2526 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet www.bdi.eu www.bdi.eu Seite 4 von 9 Unternehmen fehlen häufig personelle und finanzielle Ressourcen, um kom- plizierte Zollformalitäten zu erfüllen. Je weniger Waren ein Unternehmen ex- portiert, desto stärker fallen Zölle und bürokratische Kosten ins Gewicht und desto schwerer fällt ein Einstieg ins Exportgeschäft. Die Ausarbeitung und Implementierung digitaler Lösungen sowohl auf EU- als auch auf nationaler Ebene sollte in enger Zusammenarbeit mit den Wirt- schaftsbeteiligten erfolgen.

…sowohl auf EU- als auch auf nationaler Ebene sollte in enger Zusammenarbeit mit den Wirt- schaftsbeteiligten erfolgen. Nur so kann sichergestellt werden, dass die Digi- talisierung zu wirklichen Vereinfachungen auf Seiten der Wirtschaft führt. Zudem bedarf es pragmatischer Übergangsregelungen, die es den Wirt- schaftsbeteiligten erlauben, Zollverfahren und zollrechtliche Vereinfachun- gen effizient anzuwenden. Zur Begleitung der Ausarbeitung und Implemen- tierung digitaler Verfahren sollte eine strukturierte und stetige Kooperation zwischen der Zollverwaltung und den Wirtschaftsbeteiligten angestrebt wer- den. Für die Umsetzung und Implementierung der digitalen Lösungen müs- sen alle Beteiligten über ausreichende Zeit verfügen.

Für die Umsetzung und Implementierung der digitalen Lösungen müs- sen alle Beteiligten über ausreichende Zeit verfügen. Datenanforderungen in Zollanmeldungen Obwohl der Umfang der erforderlichen Daten in Zollanmeldungen kontinu- ierlich zunimmt und die Angaben der Wirtschaftsbeteiligten den angegebe- nen Anforderungen entsprechen, bezeichnet die Wise Persons Group in ih- rem jüngsten Bericht beispielsweise die Datenqualität als mangelhaft und die EU-weiten IT-tools als unterentwickelt. Des Weiteren führt die Wise Persons Group aus, dass „trotz erheblicher Anstrengungen der Kommission und der Mitgliedstaaten, die Zollsysteme immer noch hauptsächlich dazu verwendet werden, die traditionelle Zollabfertigung effizienter zu gestalten.

Zollsysteme immer noch hauptsächlich dazu verwendet werden, die traditionelle Zollabfertigung effizienter zu gestalten. Die derzeit verwendeten Daten sind deklarativ, oft fehlerhaft, lassen sich nicht ohne wei- teres mit anderen Datenquellen abgleichen, werden manchmal uneinheitlich weitergegeben und stehen nicht allen Teilen des Systems bei Bedarf zur Ver- fügung.“1 Aus Sicht der Wirtschaftsbeteiligten ist festzuhalten, dass seitens der Zollbe- hörden versucht wird, das Problem mangelhafter Daten so zu lösen, dass bei der Abgabe der Zollanmeldung immer mehr Daten von den Wirtschaftsbe- teiligten abgefragt werden. So sind in der jüngsten Anpassung des 1 Wise Persons Group on the Reform of the EU Customs Union, Putting more Union in the European Customs.

Anpassung des 1 Wise Persons Group on the Reform of the EU Customs Union, Putting more Union in the European Customs. Ten Proposals to make the EU Customs Union fit for a Geopolitical Europe, März 2022, <https://taxation-customs.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2022-03/TAX-20- 002-Future%20customs-REPORT_BIS_v5%20%28WEB%29.pdf>. www.bdi.eu Seite 5 von 9 Anhangs B des UZK-DA Datenanforderungen aufgenommen worden, die von den Wirtschaftsbeteiligten nicht oder nur mit erheblichen Anstrengungen erfüllt werden können. Bevor Änderungen bezüglich der Datenanforderun- gen gemacht werden, sollte genau definiert werden, welche Daten aus wel- chem Grund und zu welchem Zweck benötigt werden. Die Sammlung von Daten nur um des Daten Sammelns willen ist nicht zielführend. Als konkretes Beispiel kann hier das „Kennzeichen des Beförderungsmittels beim Abgang“ im Bereich Ausfuhr dienen.

Als konkretes Beispiel kann hier das „Kennzeichen des Beförderungsmittels beim Abgang“ im Bereich Ausfuhr dienen. Zum Zeitpunkt der Überlassung zur Ausfuhr liegt diese Information regelmäßig noch nicht vor, da die Erstel- lung des Ausfuhrbegleitdokuments je nach Transportart bereits Tage oder teilweise sogar Wochen vor dem tatsächlichen Abgang des grenzüberschrei- tenden Beförderungsmittels geschieht. Mit welchem exakten Beförderungs- mittel der Ausgang tatsächlich erfolgen wird, ist zu diesem Zeitpunkt eben- falls noch völlig unklar. Selbst wenn die Information vorliegen würde, wäre weiterhin der Informationsinhaber (Beförderer) nicht die Person, die die Aus- fuhranmeldung erstellt (Ausführer).

…wäre weiterhin der Informationsinhaber (Beförderer) nicht die Person, die die Aus- fuhranmeldung erstellt (Ausführer). Dieses Beispiel bestätigt die Einschätzung der Wise Persons Group, dass die Mitgliedstaaten selbst nicht in der Lage seien, einen Informationsfluss zwi- schen Ausfuhrzollstellen und Ausgangszollstellen adäquat zu gewährleisten. Denn auch dort liegen diese Informationen vor, da der Beförderer zur erneu- ten Gestellung bei der Ausgangszollstelle verpflichtet ist. Gleichzeitig wird jedoch erwartet, dass ein elektronischer Informationsaustausch zwischen Ausführer und Beförderer vorhanden sei, obwohl hierfür keine standardisier- ten Systeme existieren, wie dies zwischen den Zollstellen der Fall ist. Die Konsequenzen aus diesem mangelhaften Datenmanagement der Mitglied- staaten werden dadurch auf die Wirtschaft transferiert.

24 → 12

originalus šaltinis (PDF) ↗