While Bruno Le Maire had firmly announced that companies with subsidiaries in tax havens could not be helped by the State, the text proposed by a centrist senator was rejected by the Joint Joint Committee.
It took the government less than twelve hours to turn around on the subject of state aid granted, in the context of the coronavirus, to French companies whose headquarters are in a tax haven. However on April 23 on the antenna of Franceinfo, the Minister of Economy Bruno Le Maire declared in a categorical tone: “It goes without saying that if a company has its tax headquarters or subsidiaries in a tax haven, I want the to say with great force, it will not be able to benefit from State cash aid. ”
Several amendments have even been tabled to this effect by Senator de l’Orne, Nathalie Goulet (Center Union), or by the CRCE (Communists, Republicans, citizens and environmentalists) and Independent Republic and Territory groups. The rapporteur of the mission on the state’s financial commitments to the finance committee therefore wishes “to deprive any company registered in a tax haven of the benefit of state aid measures.” Despite the unfavorable opinion of Minister Olivier Dussopt, the amendment was adopted in the afternoon of April 22 and therefore supported, the next morning, by Bercy.
A wet firecracker
At this time, article 1 ter B of the new amending finance bill (PLFR) therefore stipulates that “articles 1 and 1 bis of this law, like the provisions of law n ° 2020-289 of 23 March 2020 on amending finances for 2020, are not ‘do not apply to companies whose subsidiaries or establishments are established in non-cooperative states and territories’.
But where did Bruno Le Maire’s engagement this morning go?
Astonishment a few hours later: the amendment in question no longer appears in the PLFR, rejected by the Joint Joint Committee (CMP) bringing together 14 deputies and senators. Article 1 ter B is now followed by a single word: “Deleted.”
News that did not fail to arouse the reaction of many elected officials, including Matthieu Orphelin, MP for Maine-et-Loire and former member of La République en Marche. The one who joined the Libertés et Territoires group at the start of 2019 was surprised on Twitter by the government’s turnaround: “But where did Bruno Le Maire’s commitment to Franceinfo this morning go for not supporting businesses located in tax havens? “
A few minutes later, the member returned to the charge specifying that a person “told him in the headset that it will finally be done by regulation”, regretting however that there could not be “precise control by Parliament of the perimeter or the list used ”.
I am told in the headset that it will ultimately be done by regulation. But suddenly, no precise control by the parliament of the perimeter or the list used. https://t.co/MLE5O3u823
– Matthieu ORPHELIN (@M_Orphelin) April 23, 2020
–
A definition still debated
Because the crux of the problem lies in the definition that we make of a “tax haven”. According to the decree published by the French government on January 6, 2020 there are only thirteen “non-cooperative states and territories”, understand tax havens: Oman, Panama, Fiji, The Bahamas, Anguilla, Samoa, Seychelles, Trinidad and Tobago, Guam, Vanuatu, the United States Virgin Islands, the British Virgin Islands and American Samoa.
For its part, the European Union (EU) has a “black list” comprising twelve “non-cooperative tax jurisdictions” in which we find the Cayman Islands or Palau, absent from the French list, but where the Bahamas or the British Virgin Islands. In addition, the EU has also put in place a “gray list” on which are placed countries whose commitment is deemed insufficient but which seek to regularize their situation. It also includes thirteen countries, including some in geographic Europe such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, but also including Australia, Turkey and Morocco.
According to France and the EU, there is therefore no tax haven from Dublin to Warsaw? An opinion that does not share the NGO Oxfam, which regularly pins the hexagonal companies established in these places to the “soft taxation”. In a study published in 2018, carried out in collaboration with the Bureau of Societal Analysis for Citizen Information (Basic), it included 58 countries in its list including Luxembourg, Belgium and the Netherlands.
According to its data, in 2016, LVMH had, for example, 234 subsidiaries in “tax and legal havens”, or more than a quarter of its entities. The big French banks were also present at the head of the pack. BNP, Société Générale and Crédit Agricole had 436 subsidiaries in tax havens. Carrefour owned around fifty and PSA around thirty. If the mere presence of these subsidiaries does not constitute fraud in itself, Oxfam noted that in 2015, a company like Société Générale had “generated 10% of its total profits in Luxembourg […] with only 1% of its employees ”. Would the air of the Grand Duchy make workers more productive?
The fact remains that if supranational institutions delay agreeing on a common definition, sometimes even with the countries that compose them, that does not prevent certain governments from putting in place strict control measures for small businesses and self-employed workers. Thus, on April 23, the French executive published an order providing that very small businesses and independents benefiting from the solidarity fund may be audited by the Directorate General of Public Finance for five years from the payment of the aid.
According to a note from the Economic Analysis Council written in 2019, the shortfall for France due to tax avoidance strategies on the part of multinationals amounts to 4.6 billion euros per year. In a scenario considered more than optimistic.
Alexis Le Meur
–
