Parltrack

Le Conseil a adopté des conclusions sur le rapport spécial n° 13/2011 de la Cour des comptes intitulé "Le contrôle relatif au régime douanier 42 permet-il d'éviter et de détecter l'évasion en matière de TVA?".

Prenant note des réponses de la Commission européenne au rapport de la Cour, en particulier des explications fournies par la Commission en réponse aux observations spécifiques émises par la Cour en ce qui concerne les insuffisances qui ont été relevées sur le plan réglementaire, et constatant que la Cour avait émis des recommandations sur cette question, tout en signalant que depuis la période de référence (2009) les mesures visant à améliorer le cadre réglementaire ont été renforcées (entre autres, l'article 143, paragraphe 2, de la directive TVA modifié et, dans le domaine douanier, dispositif administratif adopté à l'unanimité pour le document administratif unique qui sera mis en œuvre par tous les États membres au plus tard le 1^er janvier 2013), le Conseil encourage les États membres à continuer de renforcer la coopération dans ce domaine et à demeurer vigilants quant à la prévention et à la détection de l'évasion en matière de TVA liée au régime douanier 42.

La commission du contrôle budgétaire a adopté à l’unanimité le rapport de Bart STAES (Verts/ALE, BE) sur le rapport spécial n° 13/2011 (Décharge 2011) intitulé : "Le contrôle relatif au régime douanier 42 permet-il d'éviter et de détecter l'évasion en matière de TVA ?"

Les députés indiquent que, dans le climat économique actuel, il s’avère important de renforcer les systèmes de perception des recettes, sachant que la fraude à la TVA représente le chiffre pharaonique de 1.400 milliards EUR et entraîne des pertes exorbitantes pour le budget de l'Union et les économies des États membres.

Les députés regrettent en outre que l'écart moyen de TVA dans l'UE soit de 12% en raison principalement de l'évasion fiscale et des pertes dues aux cas d'insolvabilité, mais aussi à la fraude, à des règles non transparentes, à des systèmes de contrôle incohérents et à la non-mise en œuvre, ou à la mise en œuvre partielle, de la législation de l'Union dans les États membres.

Dans ce contexte, les députés s'inquiètent des conclusions de la Cour des comptes, en particulier du fait que l’application du régime douanier 42 représente à elle seule des pertes extrapolées d’approximativement 2,2 milliards EUR dans les 7 États membres contrôlés en 2009, soit 29% de la TVA qui est en théorie applicable sur la part imposable de toutes les importations effectuées en vertu du régime douanier 42 en 2009 dans ces États membres.

Ils s’inquiètent en particulier des conclusions de la Cour des comptes, qui indiquent clairement que le cadre réglementaire de l'Union ne permet pas d’assurer un traitement parfaitement uniforme de cette exonération de la TVA par les autorités douanières des États membres et entraîne des abus dont profite principalement la criminalité organisée. Ils déplorent également la qualité médiocre des audits qui ont entraîné des pertes injustifiées pour le budget de l'Union sans réel investissement de la Commission pour régler ce problème depuis 10 ans.

D’une manière générale, les députés soulignent que le modèle de perception de la TVA n’a pas changé depuis son introduction, qu’il est obsolète, et qu’il convient de le réformer pour apporter une réponse effective tant aux fraudes existantes qu'aux nouvelles tendances de la fraude. C’est pourquoi, ils appellent la Commission à informer d’ici à septembre 2013 des mesures prises pour remédier à cette situation.

Les députés demandent en particulier :

• une simplification de la législation des États membres en matière de TVA,
• l'introduction d’un formulaire type pour la notification de l'application de la TVA aux autorités fiscales,
• une gestion uniforme des cas d'exonération de la TVA par les autorités douanières des États membres.

Plus de coordination entre les États membres : les députés insistent en particulier sur une coordination plus poussée entre les États membres, d'une amélioration de la surveillance des échanges d'informations et de contacts plus directs entre les administrations locales des impôts et des douanes ainsi qu'au niveau du système d'échange d'informations en ligne en matière de TVA (VIES), de manière à garantir que les États membres se prêtent mutuellement et efficacement assistance. Des mesures techniques de coopération sont ainsi proposées comme un accès en ligne aux numéros d’identification TVA contenus dans le système VIES, de manière à permettre aux administrations fiscales des États membres de vérifier les numéros de TVA recueillis sur les déclarations douanières.

La Commission est également appelée à créer un système combinant l'assistance dans le secteur douanier et la coopération administrative dans le secteur de la TVA pour assurer des flux d'information effectifs de manière à renforcer l'efficacité et la rapidité de la coopération entre les autorités compétentes.

Ils soulignent également que les opérations électroniques non réglées en espèces, qui sont documentées, rendent plus difficile la participation à l'économie parallèle et encouragent les États membres à abaisser leurs seuils relatifs à l'interdiction du paiement en espèces dans ce contexte.

Renforcer les outils européens : les députés déplorent tout particulièrement le report de l'entrée en vigueur du Code des douanes modernisé (CDM), et jugent inacceptable la nouvelle date proposée, à savoir le 31 décembre 2020 alors qu’il était prévu qu’il entre en vigueur le 24 juin 2013. Ils approuvent en revanche la proposition de directive du Conseil modifiant la directive 2006/112/CE relative au système commun de TVA en ce qui concerne la fraude fiscale liée aux importations et autres opérations transfrontalières, qui instaure une responsabilité conjointe des professionnels qui participent aux opérations à l'intérieur de l'Union, en rendant l'importateur conjointement et solidairement responsable et passible de sanctions, au cas où une perte de TVA découle de la notification fausse, tardive ou incomplète de l'opération à l'administration de la TVA.

Enfin, les députés approuvent les recommandations de la Cour proposées dans son rapport (se reporter au résumé du rapport de la Cour des comptes daté du 13/12/2011) et invitent la Commission à présenter un rapport, tous les six mois, sur la façon dont elle entend les mettre en œuvre et à quel moment.

PURPOSE: to present special report No 13/2011 from the European Court of Auditors (ECA) on whether the control of customs procedure 42 prevents and detects Value Added Tax (VAT) evasion.

CONTENT: the report recalls that the customs procedure 42 is a mechanism an EU importer uses in order to obtain a VAT exemption. It is applied when goods imported from outside the EU into a Member State will be transported to another. In such cases, the VAT is due in the latter - the Member State of destination. There is a risk that imports may remain in the Member State of importation without payment of VAT. Imports may be also consumed in the Member State of destination without VAT being collected there.

This performance audit assessed whether there is a sound regulatory framework in the fight against VAT evasion under customs procedure 42. A control model was designed to review whether there is sound management of this VAT exemption in the seven audited Member States of importation (Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Austria, Slovenia and Sweden).

The Court also asked the 21 destination Member States of the goods transported in the sample to examine whether VAT was indeed charged.

The ECA observed that the application of customs procedure 42 has led to significant losses to national budgets.

Based on results of the sample tests, the extrapolated amount of the losses in 2009 is approximately €2.2 billion. This represents 29% of the VAT theoretically applicable on the taxable amount of all the imports made under customs procedure 42 in 2009 in the seven selected Member States. Of the losses in 2009, €1800 million were incurred in the seven audited Member States of importation and €400 million in the twenty one destination Member States of the goods imported in the sample.

Court of Auditors conclusions: the Court found that the Commission has proposed some improvements to the EU regulatory framework. Nevertheless, more needs to be done. The regulatory framework does not ensure the uniform management of this VAT exemption by customs authorities. It does not ensure that the information concerning these transactions is always made available to the tax authorities in the destination Member State either. All these deficiencies can be exploited by fraudsters.

The ECA also found that control in Member States was also deficient. Member States do not ensure that exemption conditions are met. Essential information is not made available to tax authorities to ensure that VAT is eventually paid. Furthermore, tax authorities do not exploit the possibilities offered by the information available to them to detect and prevent VAT evasion.

And last but not least, there was no agreement to impose joint and several liability for not reporting information relating to such intra-Community transactions.

ECA recommendations to improve the existing framework: the Court recommends that the Commission take the following actions:

• amend the Customs Code Implementing Provisions to implement uniform communication of the complete VAT data for each intended transport;
• importers should be held jointly and severally liable for VAT losses in the Member State of destination when the VAT statement is not submitted by them;
• the Member States' custom electronic clearance system should carry out automatic verification of VAT data;
• create a common EU risk profile for these imports; and
• legislation should be changed to improve the exchange of information necessary for correct charging of VAT in the Member State of destination.

It can be concluded that the control of customs procedure 42 does not prevent and detect VAT evasion.

The Council adopted conclusions on the Court of Auditors Special Report No 13/2011 entitled “Does the control of customs procedure 42 prevent and detect VAT evasion?”

It takes note of the European Commission’s replies to the Court’s Report, in particular the explanations given by the Commission in response to the specific remarks of the Court on the regulatory shortcomings which were observed, as well as of the Court’s recommendations, while pointing out that since the reporting period (2009) measures to improve the regulatory framework have been stepped up: among other things, Article 143(2) of the VAT Directive has been modified and in the customs area a unanimously agreed administrative arrangement for the Single Administrative Document has been made and will be implemented by all Member States at the latest by 1 January 2013.

The Council encourages Member States to continue to strengthen cooperation in the field and to stay vigilant as to the prevention and detection of VAT evasion in connection with customs procedure 42.

PURPOSE: to present special report No 13/2011 from the European Court of Auditors (ECA) on whether the control of customs procedure 42 prevents and detects Value Added Tax (VAT) evasion.

CONTENT: the report recalls that the customs procedure 42 is a mechanism an EU importer uses in order to obtain a VAT exemption. It is applied when goods imported from outside the EU into a Member State will be transported to another. In such cases, the VAT is due in the latter - the Member State of destination. There is a risk that imports may remain in the Member State of importation without payment of VAT. Imports may be also consumed in the Member State of destination without VAT being collected there.

This performance audit assessed whether there is a sound regulatory framework in the fight against VAT evasion under customs procedure 42. A control model was designed to review whether there is sound management of this VAT exemption in the seven audited Member States of importation (Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Austria, Slovenia and Sweden).

The Court also asked the 21 destination Member States of the goods transported in the sample to examine whether VAT was indeed charged.

The ECA observed that the application of customs procedure 42 has led to significant losses to national budgets.

Based on results of the sample tests, the extrapolated amount of the losses in 2009 is approximately €2.2 billion. This represents 29% of the VAT theoretically applicable on the taxable amount of all the imports made under customs procedure 42 in 2009 in the seven selected Member States. Of the losses in 2009, €1800 million were incurred in the seven audited Member States of importation and €400 million in the twenty one destination Member States of the goods imported in the sample.

Court of Auditors conclusions: the Court found that the Commission has proposed some improvements to the EU regulatory framework. Nevertheless, more needs to be done. The regulatory framework does not ensure the uniform management of this VAT exemption by customs authorities. It does not ensure that the information concerning these transactions is always made available to the tax authorities in the destination Member State either. All these deficiencies can be exploited by fraudsters.

The ECA also found that control in Member States was also deficient. Member States do not ensure that exemption conditions are met. Essential information is not made available to tax authorities to ensure that VAT is eventually paid. Furthermore, tax authorities do not exploit the possibilities offered by the information available to them to detect and prevent VAT evasion.

And last but not least, there was no agreement to impose joint and several liability for not reporting information relating to such intra-Community transactions.

ECA recommendations to improve the existing framework: the Court recommends that the Commission take the following actions:

• amend the Customs Code Implementing Provisions to implement uniform communication of the complete VAT data for each intended transport;
• importers should be held jointly and severally liable for VAT losses in the Member State of destination when the VAT statement is not submitted by them;
• the Member States' custom electronic clearance system should carry out automatic verification of VAT data;
• create a common EU risk profile for these imports; and
• legislation should be changed to improve the exchange of information necessary for correct charging of VAT in the Member State of destination.

It can be concluded that the control of customs procedure 42 does not prevent and detect VAT evasion.

PURPOSE: to present special report No 13/2011 from the European Court of Auditors (ECA) on whether the control of customs procedure 42 prevents and detects Value Added Tax (VAT) evasion.

CONTENT: the report recalls that the customs procedure 42 is a mechanism an EU importer uses in order to obtain a VAT exemption. It is applied when goods imported from outside the EU into a Member State will be transported to another. In such cases, the VAT is due in the latter - the Member State of destination. There is a risk that imports may remain in the Member State of importation without payment of VAT. Imports may be also consumed in the Member State of destination without VAT being collected there.

This performance audit assessed whether there is a sound regulatory framework in the fight against VAT evasion under customs procedure 42. A control model was designed to review whether there is sound management of this VAT exemption in the seven audited Member States of importation (Belgium, Denmark, Spain, France, Austria, Slovenia and Sweden).

The Court also asked the 21 destination Member States of the goods transported in the sample to examine whether VAT was indeed charged.

The ECA observed that the application of customs procedure 42 has led to significant losses to national budgets.

Based on results of the sample tests, the extrapolated amount of the losses in 2009 is approximately €2.2 billion. This represents 29% of the VAT theoretically applicable on the taxable amount of all the imports made under customs procedure 42 in 2009 in the seven selected Member States. Of the losses in 2009, €1800 million were incurred in the seven audited Member States of importation and €400 million in the twenty one destination Member States of the goods imported in the sample.

Court of Auditors conclusions: the Court found that the Commission has proposed some improvements to the EU regulatory framework. Nevertheless, more needs to be done. The regulatory framework does not ensure the uniform management of this VAT exemption by customs authorities. It does not ensure that the information concerning these transactions is always made available to the tax authorities in the destination Member State either. All these deficiencies can be exploited by fraudsters.

The ECA also found that control in Member States was also deficient. Member States do not ensure that exemption conditions are met. Essential information is not made available to tax authorities to ensure that VAT is eventually paid. Furthermore, tax authorities do not exploit the possibilities offered by the information available to them to detect and prevent VAT evasion.

And last but not least, there was no agreement to impose joint and several liability for not reporting information relating to such intra-Community transactions.

ECA recommendations to improve the existing framework: the Court recommends that the Commission take the following actions:

• amend the Customs Code Implementing Provisions to implement uniform communication of the complete VAT data for each intended transport;
• importers should be held jointly and severally liable for VAT losses in the Member State of destination when the VAT statement is not submitted by them;
• the Member States' custom electronic clearance system should carry out automatic verification of VAT data;
• create a common EU risk profile for these imports; and
• legislation should be changed to improve the exchange of information necessary for correct charging of VAT in the Member State of destination.

It can be concluded that the control of customs procedure 42 does not prevent and detect VAT evasion.