EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 52011SC1318
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
/* SEC/2011/1318 final */
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT /* SEC/2011/1318 final */
PART I: CUSTOMS
SECTOR
1.
Problem Definition
The world economy is characterised by change, which leads to the
emergence of new problems for customs authorities. The customs union and its
supporting instruments need to adapt to these changes. Problem 1: Pressure on customs authorities to process
growing volumes of trade, and difficulty to apply measures to balance
facilitation and control International trade
returned to pre-recession levels by mid-year 2010 and is expected to continue
growing. This is reflected in a clear growth in the numbers of consignments
and customs declarations. Due to globalisation the
EU is relying on the rest of the world for more and more of its production
inputs. New business models, such as e-Commerce and e-business, change the nature
of trade and increase the complexity of business. These changes require
appropriate customs control measures. Problem 2: Gap in skills, competencies,
resources as well as experience and best working practices Customs authorities are in
the frontline for the protection of life, health and the environment.
The number and the importance of such measures increased requiring the customs
authorities to perform additional specialised tasks. Public demand for security
also multiplied. Specific policies for internal security result in a considerable
safety and security agenda for customs to implement. Customs face the
complexity of working together with many other authorities and bodies and the
pressure to acquire and use specialised technical equipment. Currently, in both
mentioned areas, customs authorities often lack the skills, resources and
experience to achieve this efficiently. Problem 3: Incoherent and inefficient
application of EU policies in the context of safety and security In light of the ongoing
modernisation, the customs authorities are responsible for the implementation
of EU legislation in the field of safety and security which is not always
directly compatible with existing processes and procedures. This makes the
implementation difficult and results in incoherent and inefficient practices. Problem 4: Shortcomings in the uniform
implementation of EU law by the 27 EU customs authorities The uniform
implementation of customs legislation and working methods has been
difficult. The existence of 27 separate processes and procedures is often
inefficient and distorts competition. This undermines the financial
interests of the Union and hinders the protection of the society. A
legislative response to these issues was the adoption of a Modernised Community
Customs Code[1] and a Decision on implementation of Electronic Customs[2] in 2008. Problem 5: Difficulties in uniform
implementation of interconnected IT systems Despite the fact that the
Member State administrations have access to a European wide secure network
(CCN/CSI[3]) supporting the key ‘e-customs’ systems, the Customs Union faces
problems of interoperability and excessive complexity. The businesses
have to connect to multiple systems in the Member States where the customs
activities take place. This increases the administrative burden and compliance
costs. Exchange of information with third countries also requires
development of secure, consistent, and EU-wide IT solutions. Problem 6: Heavier and increasingly
unsustainable burden for some EU customs authorities to implement policies in
the interest of the union Member States face
different levels of burden in terms of control activities for safety and
security. The imbalance is particularly heavy in terms of investment in infrastructure capacity building and
technology.
2.
Objectives
General Objective: to support EU customs by increasing cooperation between
participating countries, their customs administrations, their officials and
other relevant stakeholders. Specific Objectives will be: 1.
to support EU Customs in its role in
facilitating legitimate trade by automating and speeding up customs processes
(related to problem 1, 3, 4, 5) 2.
to support EU customs in strengthening the
competitiveness of European business and the protection of citizens' safety and
security, as well as the environment (related to problem 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) 3.
to support EU customs in protecting the
financial and economic interest of the EU and the Member States (Related to
problem 4, 5, 6) 4.
to support the preparation, implementation and
application of EU law and initiatives with view of strengthening the EU customs
in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and uniformity. (related to problem 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6) Operational objectives will be: 1. to identify, develop and
apply best working practices in all areas of customs processes 2. to support a pan-European
electronic customs environment 3. to share information and
expertise to support the organisation of customs controls 4. to boost customs
cooperation within the EU and in relation to third countries as well as
cooperation between customs and other government authorities and third parties 5. to set up joint
activities/teams to perform specific operational tasks together 6. to support the
modernisation process of the EU Customs Union in a harmonised way 7. to sustain and monitor
correct understanding and harmonised application of EU law and policies 8. to reinforce skills and
competencies 9. to ensure appropriate
allocation of infrastructure in view of surveillance and control
responsibilities
2.1.
Necessity of EU intervention
With the customs union being
an exclusive competence of the EU, the Member States ipso facto agreed
that actions in the customs area will be better implemented at the EU level. The
EU legal framework alone does not ensure sufficiently the proper functioning of
the Customs Union. Supporting measures as provided by the Customs Programme
secure that the EU customs legislation is applied in a convergent and
harmonised way. Also, many activities in the customs area are of a cross-border
nature, and therefore they cannot be effectively and efficiently delivered
by individual Member States. Solidarity and
responsibility sharing are the core principles
underlying funding for the Customs Union. The EU intervention is required to
preserve the EU public good where EU 'demand' (e.g. for security) cannot be
adequately serviced by the 'supply' of particular Member State. The EU action
translates in the joint funding of technical capacity building.
2.2.
EU Added Value
Builpding
further upon the strengths of the Customs 2013 Programme, the main EU added
value of the Customs 2020 Programme initiative lies in the provision of
concrete results with an Europe-wide impact that could have not be produced as
effectively and efficiently by individual Member States. The programme will: (a)
boost the effectiveness of the Member States’ customs administrations’ operational work and
provide economies of scale, (b)
enable the effective and uniform functioning
of the EU Customs Union in the form of networks, synergies in best
practices, pooling of resources and platforms to develop collaboration and
trust among administrations. The EU is
therefore better placed to act for boosting the customs union policy.
3.
Policy Options
Five options have been analysed in the impact
assessment.
3.1.
Option 1: Baseline Scenario - " Status
Quo"
The baseline scenario is the
continuation of the Customs 2013 Programme with no changes in financing,
objectives or available instruments. In this scenario, the programme will
support the same activities and tools as in the past.
3.2.
Option 2: Increased support to EU legal
obligations such as the Modernised Customs Code (MCC)
This option is based on
the baseline scenario and addresses the new needs deriving from the evolving EU
customs environment. The option implies a stronger focus on the achieving operational
objectives 2, 4, 5, 6 and 8. The option assumes the continuation
of existing European Information Systems and deploying new ones as defined in the
EU customs legislation through gradual introduction of a more shared IT
development model and modernisation of the governance, architecture and
technology. The option adds innovative
joint action tools to better meet the objectives. More streamlined
cooperation is envisaged within the EU and with international actors
through reinforcement of common training and setting up of EU expert teams. It
supports joint activities between customs and other authorities to
reinforce common risk management in non-fiscal areas. Policy
option 2 will have greater impacts in terms of supporting all specified
objectives compared to option 1, since it includes provision for increased
cooperation (IT and human).
3.3.
Option 3: Option 2 with financial support for
technical capacity building
This option adds to option
2 a financial support scheme allowing Member States to request support
for the acquisition of any type of equipment to support control activities to
meet the demands for speeding up and streamlining controls in a context of
evolving technologies. The option implies a significant budget increase in
comparison to option 2.
3.4.
Option 4: Option 2 with a maximised shared IT
environment
This
option proposes higher scale shared development and operation of
trans-European IT systems. It will support the public authorities to develop and
deploy the systems for a pan-European electronic customs environment and businesses
to connect to those systems. Compared to option 2,
option 4 allows customs to extend the capability of sharing common developments
in all areas of its business. This option would address the problems of implementing interconnected IT systems to speed up customs
procedures more adequately.
3.5.
Option 5: Discontinuation of the programme
This option envisages the
discontinuation of the Customs Programme, meaning not to provide funding for
operating existing or new trans-European IT systems neither for joint actions
and common training activities.
4.
Assessment of Impacts
The benchmark for the
impact assessment is the baseline scenario. The primary effect of any of the
options relates to the functioning of public authorities but secondary effects
on business and consumers are also identified.
4.1.
Option 1: Baseline Scenario - " Status
Quo"
In this scenario, the
agility of the Customs Union facing the new problems and new implementation requirements
for upcoming EU legislation is limited and leads to severe shortcomings. Without a refocus of
the objectives, an additional set of new tools and increased funding, the
Customs Programme will no longer provide an adequate response to the problems
lying ahead. The new evolving policy
context and the current weaknesses in interpretation of EU law and in its
implementation as well as the issue of non-harmonised procedures are likely to
remain inadequately tackled in the baseline scenario. The baseline scenario does
NOT enable an efficient IT approach, nor enhanced customs cooperation and
pooling of resources, expertise and skills to support Member States in their operational
tasks. The problems customs faces, are likely to become aggravated in a status
quo continuation of the programme. This would impact the EU budget (economic
impact) and seriously affect the security and safety of the EU, its citizens
and the environment.
4.2.
Option 2: Increased support to EU legal
obligations such as the Modernised Customs Code (MCC)
This option will support
the Member States' customs authorities to protect the financial and economic
interests of the EU and Member States through enhanced customs cooperation.
The effective collection of the customs duties will directly influence the EU
Budget and the national budgets. Indirectly, this will influence the income
distribution as well as the production of public goods. The economies of scale derived
from the upgraded shared development approach for the TEIT systems
will reduce the costs for Member States' governments. The impacts of a
shared IT development approach are also to be sought in the harmonisation of
the interface to traders. Legitimate trade will be facilitated through the
speeding up of automated customs procedures and control measures. The resulting
reduction in administrative burden will have a spill-over effect on costs for
economic operators and consumers. Strengthened cooperation will
contribute to a better protection of the financial interests[4]. Reinforced cooperation among customs and with other authorities will support the
effective, efficient and uniform implementation of legislation, for
instance on the safety of the products imported into the EU or on IPR. More
streamlined cooperation will avoid gaps in the protection of the supply chain.
Developing joint priority control areas will support the proper
management of the EU border, assisting the protection of citizens and the
environment from risks posed by international trade. Customs authorities would be
more effective in implementing Customs action
and EU cooperation in the areas of environmental crime, illegal
movements of waste, chemicals or animal and plant health legislation.
4.3.
Option 3: Option 2 with financial support for
technical capacity building
The enhanced technical
capacities of Member States will lead to improved non-fiscal controls and thus a
better protection of EU citizens in terms of product safety and health. This
option will further enhance the protection of the financial and economic interests
of the EU and Member States, reducing the competition distortion for
businesses allowing faster and more streamlined control of merchandise
across the EU. Distributional impact for the support to control equipment is relevant because Member
States located at the external EU-border face higher investments than the
others.
4.4.
Option 4: Option 2 with a maximised shared IT
environment
This option will lead to the
largest economies of scale as IT resources will be used in a fully
integrated way. For Member States making use of the common systems, the effort
reduction will be between 60% and 80% for the system updates and 30% for the
supporting system. The Member States who choose not to use the common systems
will have no effort reduction on systems updates but do have 30% effort
reduction on the supporting system[5]. The introduction of
innovative technologies will reduce the costs of businesses. More Member
States working with the same IT applications will lead to more harmonised
customs processes and bring direct benefits to economic operators. Under this option, the new
IT environment will result in a full service to customs authorities and
business.
4.5.
Option 5: Discontinuation of the programme
This option will negatively
impact the customs administrations in their responsibility to implement
EU legislation in the domain of customs. It will reduce the
ability to prevent and detect fraud, which will deteriorate further over
time. EU and Member States will suffer a loss in the collection of EU duties
and charges. It is likely that there
will be greater divergence in interpretation of customs law without sharing
best practices, common training or guidelines and exchange of digitised
information. This will lead to divergent treatment of traders and insufficient
fight against illegitimate trade causing negative impacts on
competitiveness, growth and jobs. The consumers and citizens
within the EU will be less protected against safety and security risks.
The standard of controls will become variable; the opportunities for “shopping”
for the best to or exit point from the EU will increase. The ability to fight
criminal activities will be impaired.
5.
Compare the options
Option 2 is the preferred
option and fits in the envelope foreseen in the next Multi-Annual Financial
Framework[6]. Criteria || Effectiveness in achieving objectives and impacts || Efficiency || Coherence || Other || Overall assessment || Objective 1 || Objective 2 || Objective 3 || Objective 4 || Objective 5 || Objective 6 || Objective 7 || Objective 8 || Objective 9 || Output orientation || Efficiency gains/solidarity || Coherence with other EU initiatives || Within budget for Europe 2020 || Buy-in by Member States || Rating of options Option 1 Baseline scenario || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || Yes || MEDIUM || 0 Option 2 Increased support to EU legal obligations such as the MCC || + || ++ (innovative= new IT systems + shared development) || + || ++ || +++ (innovative = EU expert teams || + || + || +++ (innovative= reinforced training) || 0 || +++ || ++ || ++ || Yes || HIGH || +++ = PREFERRED OPTION Option 3 Option 2 plus Technical capacity building || + || ++ (as in option 2) || + || ++ || +++ (as in option 2) || + || + || +++ (as in option 2) || +++ (new) || +++ || +++ || - (overlap with other EU funds) || Yes || HIGH || ++ Option 4 Option 2 plus a maximised shared IT environment || + || +++ (as in option 2 + full scale sharing) || + || ++ || +++ (as in option 2) || + || + || +++ (as in option 2) || 0 || +++ || +++ || ++ || No || LOW || ++ Option 5 No programme || --- || --- || --- || --- || --- || --- || --- || --- || 0 || NA || LOW || 0 || NA || LOW || --- PART II: FISCALIS
SECTOR
1.
Problem Definition
National tax authorities are
becoming more and more the "victim" of the success of the European
integration process: successive enlargements, Single Market establishment and
the creation of a single European currency in the Eurozone have significantly
reduced previous risks to and costs of economic cross-border transactions.
Thus, divergences in tax regimes have become more important in relative
terms. Along with exponential
growth in cross-border transactions, the successive enlargements of the EU
and the increasingly complex national tax rules in the 27 jurisdictions
make it more challenging to deal efficiently and effectively with cross-border
transactions that give rise to the application of tax legislation. (Problem
1: Divergent application and implementation of EU tax law) Combating cross-border
fraud still remains a major area of concern despite
recent successes. It is generally accepted that fraud levels would rapidly
increase if no coordinated action would be undertaken by the tax authorities. (Problem
2: Inadequate response to tax fraud, avoidance and evasion) Information on taxable goods
within the EU territory cannot come from controls at internal borders anymore.
Thus national tax authorities rely on an EU-wide secured information network
for exchanging information, which is expected to grow further due to increased
trade flows and legislative changes, not only within the internal market, but
also with third countries. (Problem 3: Pressure on national tax
administrations to exchange increasing quantities of data and information in a
secure and rapid way.) An effective tax system
should ensure sustainable revenues while not adversely affecting growth
and jobs. At present, too many tax obstacles make cross-border activities more
complicated, while citizens face difficulties in obtaining information or
claiming tax reliefs from foreign tax administrations[7].
(Problem 4: High administrative burden
for taxpayers and tax administrations) Technical progress has
dramatically changed the technologies underlying cross-border transactions.
However, technical progress in public administrations is typically much slower
than in the private sector. This changing tax environment increases the need
for effective and efficient e-government services. (Problem 5: Slower technical progress in
the public sector)
2.
Objectives
In view of the problems
identified for the upcoming decade, the existing objectives of the Fiscalis
2013 programme remain valid, but have to be refocused on fighting fraud and adapting
to the changing tax environment. Moreover, two new objectives need to be added
to the new programme: reducing administrative burden on tax administrations and
taxpayers (both individuals and business) and enhancing cooperation with third
countries and third parties. The general objective of
the programme will be to improve the proper functioning of the taxation systems
in the Internal Market by increasing cooperation and support to EU tax policy between
Participating Countries, their tax administrations, and relevant stakeholders. The specific objectives (SO) will be: (1)
Facilitate a coherent application and implementation
of EU tax law (2)
Provide a framework for cooperation enhancing
coordination and coherence of EU tax policy application and implementation (3)
Enhance effective and efficient information
exchange and administrative cooperation (4)
Contribute to the reduction of administrative
burden on tax administrations and taxpayers (5)
Enhance cooperation with third countries and
third parties (6)
To strengthen the administrative capacity of tax
administrations and increase their efficiency
Necessity
of EU intervention
Tax policies remain
predominantly a nationally reserved policy area. The proposed programme however
cannot be considered to be a tax policy measure falling under national
competences. The programme aims to improve cooperation between tax
administrations and provide tools for improving cooperation and achieving the
objectives. The proposed measure is therefore a clear Internal Market support
measure, under Article 114 of the TFEU, allowing improvement in functioning of
the various tax systems within the Internal Market. Action at EU level rather than at national
level is necessary for the following reasons: –
It is not sufficient to adopt legislation at
European level, taking it for granted that its implementation will run smoothly
and if not, the infringement procedure will be sufficient. In order to
efficiently implement EU and national tax law, cooperation and coordination at
the European level are necessary. Through the different Fiscalis programmes,
the Commission and Member States have built a strong relationship of trust to
provide this guidance and steering. –
The challenges identified cannot be tackled
without a steering role executed by the Commission and without encouraging
Member states to look beyond the borders of their administrative territory.
2.1.
EU Value Added
From an economic point of
view, action at EU level is much more efficient. Interconnecting national
customs and tax administrations in approximately 5 000 connection points ensures
that national administrations only need to connect once, and not 26 times, to exchange
information with each other. Other cornerstones are
activities that bring taxation officials together to exchange best practices
and learn from each other. It is more efficient to have, under the programme
umbrella, the Commission is acting as activity broker between the
participating countries to allow synergies between activities, ensuring that
Member States do not need to develop their own set of tools and ways of work
and not losing the systematic implementation at EU level.. Stakeholders of the
programme have confirmed that most activities that were
necessary to achieve progress in taxation cooperation would not have happened
at all, or would have only happened much later and/or at a higher cost and with
less optimal results if the cooperation framework of the programme had not
existed.[8]
3.
Description of policy options
Considering the overall
policy context and the problems ahead of taxation policy in the next decade, a
number of alternative policy options have been considered.
3.1.
Option 1 – Baseline Scenario: "Status
Quo"
The baseline scenario of
this impact assessment will be the continuation of the Fiscalis 2013 programme
without any changes in terms of financing, objectives or instruments. In this
option, the Fiscalis programme would not be adapted to the changing economic
and technological environment and would not provide for an additional focus on
the fight against fraud, reduction of administrative burden for business and
tax administrations and enhanced cooperation with third countries and parties. With constant budget, this
option will only ensure the business continuity of the IT systems that will be
available by 2013. This option will have to choose priorities among the issues
that need to be tackled. The baseline scenario will not introduce the suggestions for improvement raised in the midterm
evaluation[9].
3.2.
Option 2 – Upgrade the baseline scenario
This option will be the
continuation of the baseline scenario but will tailor
the specific objectives to allow the programme to address all the challenges
identified in the problem description. This policy option will
have only a marginally higher budget. This implies that this option will have
to choose priorities among the issues that will be tackled and will only
support the taxation administrations within the current policy context. Any new
policy initiatives will fall outside the scope of this option. Exception could
be made for those initiatives that have a marginal budgetary impact, meaning
the programme could limit its support to a very low number of joint actions.
This option will introduce the suggestions for
improvement raised[10] by the stakeholders
because of their low budgetary impact.
3.3.
Option 3 – Upgrade and cater for new policies
Policy option 3 will
provide taxation with a solid framework to address the challenges of the next
decade. Besides addressing option 2, this policy option will extend cooperation
to new areas stemming from policy evolvement. This policy option will have a
substantially higher budget compared to the present programme. This option will
ensure both business continuity of the IT systems and the entry in operation of
any IT system required by new legal initiatives.
3.4.
Option 4 – No continuation of the programme
This policy option
envisages the discontinuation of the Fiscalis programme. No successor would be launched
in 2014 and there will be no funding to support the existing trans-European IT systems, set up joint
actions or training activities to support the functioning of taxation systems
in the EU.
4.
Assessment of Impacts
The assessment criteria used were: effectiveness, efficiency and
coherence with other EU initiatives, complemented by
the acceptability of each option for Member States, as policy options have
direct impact on taxation authorities in participating countries. Indirect impacts are also identified. Given the nature of the
options, no direct environmental impacts are expected. Indirect
environmental impacts concern the reduction of paper based information and
energy consumption. The impact on SMEs relates to the creation of a
situation allowing reduction of administrative burden on business and is as
such also of an indirect nature and influenced by other triggers. The social impact
is also indirect as the programme creates the framework to support tax
administrations to improve tax collection, leading indirectly to a better
income distribution. However, also in this respect, the programme is only one
of the triggers to generate this impact.
4.1.
Option 1: Baseline Scenario
This policy option will
not be able to address all challenges facing the tax administrations, and
will not provide the means to upgrade the cooperation and exchange best
practices amongst tax administrations compared with today. The baseline scenario will
not alter any of the shortcomings regarding Member States' differences in using
taxation IT systems, higher tax collection costs, or higher administrative
burden on taxpayers[11]. Due to the lack of budget
increase, the baseline scenario only supports the taxation administrations
within the current policy context. Under this option, choice between priorities
to be tackled must be done and any new policy initiatives fall outside the
scope of the option. The option will only
ensure the business continuity the IT systems that will be available by 2013,
and will not reduce the differences in using taxation IT systems namely the
different interfaces with the final users of the systems and the different
implementations of the systems. This option will not
introduce suggestions from the Midterm Evaluation[12],
such as reinforcing cooperation in a more systematic way,
and will not optimise the use of experts at operational level in Member States.[13].
4.2.
Option 2: Upgrade the baseline scenario
Combining efficiency
improvements with widened objectives, this option will give new impetus to tax
cooperation in the next decade and support an integrated coordination and
coherence of tax policy implementation. The changes in the instruments and the
enlarged set of objectives will allow the tax administration to face adequately
the challenges identified in the problem definition. This policy option will tailor the objectives to the needs by
focusing on the changing tax environment, reduction of administrative
burden on tax administrations and taxpayers[14]
and enhanced cooperation with third countries and third parties. By
building further on experience of VIES on the web, the option will provide
means to contribute to the reduction of administrative burden on taxpayers and of
the costs of tax collection for tax administrations. The fight against fraud will
be strengthened by providing a framework for enhancing coordination and
coherence of EU tax policy application and implementation. This will build for
instance on the experiences gained with Eurofisc, which could lead to new
working fields for controls. Like the baseline option,
option 2 will only have the budgetary means to support the taxation
administrations within the current policy context. Any new policy initiatives
will fall outside the scope of this option. The continuity of the
existing IT systems will be secured and allow some – albeit not major -
technology alignments. It provides room to develop common specifications and
offer shared services to shortened deployment time. The entry in operation of
any new IT system required by policy evolution and involving significant
expenditure will be either lengthened by several years or not supported.
4.3.
Option 3 – Upgrade and cater for new policy
needs
This policy option will
give the tax administrations in the EU full scope to cooperate to improve the
functioning of the taxation systems in the internal market and support EU tax
policy developments. This option introduces the necessary efficiency
improvements and addresses all the objectives without the need to prioritise
and provide scope to include new areas for cooperation, at a wider scale in a
shorter time period. New IT systems required by policy evolution may be
developed if required within the required time period. Based on the experience
with the previous programmes, such implementation would require a substantial budgetary
increase compared to the baseline scenario. Taking into account the present
economical difficulties, constraints on budgets and unambiguous signals from
some Member States; the acceptability of the option is rated low. This option
equally falls outside the provisions made in the Budget for Europe 2020[15].
4.4.
Option 4 – No continuation of the programme
In this scenario the
programme will be discontinued and no EU funding will be provided for IT tools,
joint actions or training activities. Taxation cooperation will be seriously
hampered and will therefore have a serious negative impact on the efficiency
and effectiveness of taxation cooperation. Member States may have to look for
alternative ways to substitute the cooperation driven by the programme.[16]
Digitised information exchange between tax authorities will become more
cumbersome and costly. Without joint actions, exchange of good practices is
expected to become more fragmented and more costly, and lack of coordinated
training programmes will lead to duplication of efforts. It is expected that
the current differences in efficiency and effectiveness of tax activities
between Member States will increase.
4.5.
Economic Impacts of the programme
The programme has a
positive economic impact as it supports activities that pursue the reduction of
administrative burdens. Already in the baseline option, automation has a
positive impact. This impact will be strengthened in option 2 and 3 where the
contribution to the reduction of administrative burden is an explicitly
mentioned. The programme provides a
framework for tax administrations to perform better tax collection and reduces tax
fraud and evasion, leading to better services and lower compliance costs, but also
enhance efficiency of tax administrations and increase revenues[17].
This impact is expected to be reinforced with focus on fight against fraud
under option 2 and 3. By reducing the divergence in interpretations of tax law,
the programme decreases unfair competition and possibly unjustified double
taxation faced by taxpayers.
4.6.
Preferred option
The impacts of the
different options, selected in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and
acceptability are summarized in Table 1. The impact assessment leads to the following recommendation: The preferred option is
policy option 2: Upgrade the baseline scenario Option 2 is preferred
despite a lower score on effectiveness, but has much higher acceptability by
Member States. The option fits in the envelope foreseen in the next
Multi-Annual Financial Framework[18]. Table 1: Summary comparison of options Criteria || Effectiveness and relevance || Efficiency || Coherence || Other || Overall Assessment || SO 1 || SO 2 || SO 3 || SO 4 || SO 5 || SO 6 || Future Policies || Output orientation || Efficiency gains || Coherence with other EU initiatives || Within Budget for Europe 2020 || Acceptability by Member States || Rating of options || Option 1: Baseline Scenario || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || Yes || MEDIUM || 0 || Option 2: Upgrade the baseline option || ++ || 0 || ++ || 0 || + || ++ || 0 || ++ || + || ++ || Yes || HIGH || +++ = PREFERRED OPTION || Option 3: Upgrade and cater for new policy || +++ || ++ || +++ || ++ || ++ || +++ || + || ++ || +++ || ++ || No || LOW || ++ || Option 4: No programme || -- || -- || -- || -- || -- || -- || 0 || NA || LOW || LOW || NA || LOW || -- || Annotation: Magnitude
of impact indicated compared to the baseline scenario:
+++ strongly positive, ++ quite positive, + positive, 0 like baseline scenario,
- negative, -- quite negative, --- strongly negative, NA not applicable Source: DG TAXUD [1] Regulation No 450/2008/EC of 23 April 2008 — OJ L145,
4 June 2008 [2] Decision No 70/2008/EC of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 15 January 2008 on a paperless environment for customs and
trade [3] CCN/CSI = Common Communication Network, Common System
Interface [4] Thematic Report of the Directorate-general for Budget
on customs control strategy in Member States in view of the Control of
traditional own resources. [5] MCC and eCustoms Master IT Plan Iteration 1 Global
Estimation Study Document, p 53 [6] COM(2011)500 of 29 June 2011, A budget for Europe
2020 [7] Communication on removing cross-border tax obstacles
for citizens; COM(2010) 769 [8] RAMBOLL, Fiscalis 2013 midterm evaluation, paragraphs
396-424 [9] RAMBOLL, Fiscalis 2013 midterm Evaluation, paragraphs
268-328 [10] Ibid, paragraphs 268-328 [11] RAMBOLL,
Fiscalis 2013 midterm evaluation, paragraph 359. [12] During the midterm evaluation, the roundtable Fiscalis
2013 Committee meeting and the June workshop [13] DELOITTE, Alternatives for taxation cooperation, p. 39. [14] Ibid, p. 17-18 [15] COM(2011) 500 of 29 June 2011. [16] DELOITTE, Analysis of different scenarios for tax
cooperation, p. 47-52 [17] DELOITTE, Alternatives for taxation cooperation, p 21-22. [18] COM(2011) 500 of 29 June 2011, "A budget for
Europe 2020".