EU: Update on the EU Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation)

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

EU: Update on the EU Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation)

van-der-made.jpg

Bob van der Made

The Lithuanian EU Presidency presented its end-of-term six-monthly progress report on the EU Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation) to the ECOFIN Council. With regard to the code group, the ECOFIN Council (the EU-28 finance ministers) of December 10 2013 subsequently:

  • Welcomed the progress achieved by the code group during the Lithuanian Presidency as set out in its six-monthly progress report;

  • Asked the group to continue monitoring standstill and the implementation of the rollback as well as its work under the Work Package 2011;

  • Invited the Commission to continue and conclude the dialogue with Switzerland by June 30 2014;

  • Invited the group to continue its consideration of the draft guidance on hybrid entity and hybrid permanent establishment mismatches;

  • Invited the group to analyse the third criterion of the Code of Conduct (presence or not of real economic activity) by the end of June 2014;

  • Invited the group to assess or consider all patent boxes in the EU, including those already assessed or considered before, by the end of 2014, ensuring consistency with the principle of equal treatment, against the background of BEPS;

  • Invited the group to report back on its work to the Council by the end of the Greek Presidency in June 2014.

The code group is a political, inter-governmental peer pressure group which brings together on a fairly regular basis the 28 directors-general of the national Ministries of Finance, Brussels-based national fiscal attachés, as well as direct tax officials from the European Commission.

The code group is therefore not a formal EU institutional / Council legislative working group. Decision-making is based on consensus minus one (if necessary) to ensure that progress can be made. While its recommendations are soft law, they are nevertheless quite binding on member states. As an illustration of the code group's prowess, for instance, the political agreement reached in the code group in 2010 on tackling hybrid loan mismatches (PPLs) will now be codified in the revised EU Parent-Subsidiary (legislative) Directive this year. The code remains essentially under the radar as an obscure, opaque process and that is exactly why it is so successful. The only real substantial reporting on this group are six-monthly progress reports to the EU's finance ministers by each outgoing EU Presidency, and even these reports are usually only made available to the general public after three weeks or so. No other formal announcements and no official minutes of the code group are published.

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

PwC

Tel: +31 88 792 3696

Website: www.pwc.com

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The levies extended beyond the president’s ‘legitimate reach’, the Supreme Court ruled
While Brazil’s consumption tax overhaul led to a short-term spike in tax advisory demand, we are now in a period of ‘normalisation’ marked by decreased recruitment
The expanded firm will comprise roughly 8,500 employees, including 550 partners; in other news, Paul Hastings and Macfarlanes made senior tax hires
Meanwhile, one expert highlights the importance of separating Venezuela’s tax authority from direct political control after ‘lost decades and isolation’
With PMK 108, Indonesia has upgraded its tax transparency regime for the digital era, focusing on data quality, governance, and cross border exchange rather than expanding regulatory reach
In a popular LinkedIn post, Jeremie Beitel encouraged firms to invest in junior talent even if it doesn’t lead to their loyalty, though recruiters offered ITR a mixed assessment
Advisers who do not register for the new regime in time could be prevented from interacting with HMRC, the tax authority said
Valid pillar two objectives are still intact after the side-by-side agreement, but whether the framework is now settled is ‘a $64,000 question’, Morrison Foerster’s tax chair told ITR
Ian Halligan previously led Baker Tilly’s international tax services in the US
Exclusive ITR data emphasises that DEI does not affect in-house buying decisions – and it’s nothing to do with the US president
Gift this article