EU: June ECOFIN Council debates mandatory AEoI, tax rulings and Interest & Royalties Directive

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: June ECOFIN Council debates mandatory AEoI, tax rulings and Interest & Royalties Directive

van-der-made.jpg

Bob van der Made

Proposal for mandatory automatic exchange of information (AEoI) with regard to tax rulings (DAC3)

Selected issues discussed:

  • The scope and timing of information to be exchanged, and further alignment with work carried out by the OECD;

  • The exemption of bilateral and multilateral advance pricing agreements (APAs) with third countries; and

  • The European Commission's role in the new mechanism with regard to DAC3, since the Commission is not a competent tax authority.

A number of finance ministers intervened in the ECOFIN public session: France, Germany, Ireland, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and the UK. Most member states came out publicly in favour of the proposal, even though Council working group negotiations on the proposal apparently made very little progress in July.

Luxemburg said during the ECOFIN debate that it is an absolute priority for the Luxembourg EU Council presidency to adopt this proposal before the end of its presidency term (December 31 2015).

Interest & Royalties Directive Recast Proposal

To make progress on this 2011 Recast Proposal, the six-monthly rotating Latvian EU Council Presidency (January 1 2015 – June 30 2015) proposed to split up the Commission proposal in order to focus first on incorporating a GAAR clause, similar to the one added in January 2015 to the EU's Parent-Subsidiary Directive (that is, acting as a de minimis rule), while Council work would continue, in the meantime, on other remaining elements of the Directive, including:

  • a minimum effective level of taxation (not foreseen in the Commission's original proposal);and

  • a requirement for member states to inform each other in the event of the GAAR being invoked.

The Latvian presidency suggested that the above elements should be dealt with as part of the Recast Proposal, but it found no real traction on this during the ECOFIN meeting. Germany, France, Austria, Czech Republic, Greece and Italy insisted during the meeting that discussions in the Council should continue on the Interest & Royalties Directive Recast Proposal as a whole.

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

PwC Brussels

Tel: +31 88 792 3696

Website: www.pwc.com/eudtg

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Partners are divided on Italy vs PDM D’s analytical depth, evidentiary standards, and what the judgment signals for future intra-group financing cases
As GCCs increasingly become strategic hubs, multinationals face heightened risks around permanent establishment and place of effective management
While all options presented ‘drawbacks’, European Commission tax leader Wopke Hoekstra said the controversial US carve-out deal has ‘many benefits’
From tech preparations to competitiveness concerns, Tax Systems’ Russell Gammon addresses the most pressing client considerations arising from the SbS deal
Despite estimates that the US/OECD agreement will cost countries billions, the Fair Tax Foundation’s Paul Monaghan believes the deal is a ‘necessary evil’
The firm’s eye-catching UK launch is a major statement of intent, but it will face stern opposition in its quest to be the top global tax player
The postponement came after industry representatives flagged implementation issues with the registration regime; in other news, firms made key tax partner additions
Despite the increased yield, the time taken to resolve enquiries was at a six-year high, new HMRC statistics have revealed
The High Court’s dismissal of barrister Setu Kamal’s legal challenge represents the first successful strike-out under a new law on SLAPPs
IP lawyers, who say they are encouraging clients to build up ‘tariff resilience’, should treat the risks posed by recent orders as a core consideration in cross-border licensing
Gift this article