Spokespersons for Saturday afternoon Facebook e Google they made it known that the two groups had welcomed the agreement reached in Londa dai G7 countries its one minimum rate overall to apply to multinationals. A clear enough indication that that preliminary green light is not revolution in the sense of “equity and social justice ”celebrated by the British Treasury Minister Rishi Sunak and from their counterparts in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy e Usa. Second Gabriela Bucher, executive director of Oxfam International, the G7 “had the possibility of putting itself alongside the taxpayers, instead it chose to stay alongside tax havens“. Why, to make the proposal potentially digestible for other industrialized countries, starting with EU members who thrive thanks to the favorable treatment reserved for multinationals (Cipro, Ireland, Luxembourg e Netherlands), the bar was lowered from the 21% hypothesized in April at “at least the 15%“. A little above the Irish preferential rate, a lot under the Ires paid by Italian SMEs. Not to mention how much a normal pays to the taxman employee. “I would also like to pay just 15 percent of taxes”, comments not surprisingly from the Trento Festival of Economics Thomas piketty, which defines “scandalous” the agreement.
The French economist Gabriel Zucman, theoretical of the need for a 2% tax on large fortunes, member of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation (Icrict) and director of the new European Observatory on Taxation, is a little more optimistic: for him the agreement is effectively “historic” because it is the first time that countries have agreed on a minimum rate. But it is also “inadequate“. The reason is explained, numbers in hand, in the first report of the Observatory, signed with Mona Barake, Theresa Neef and Paul-Emmanuel Chouc. The report calculates among the rest how many resources the EU countries will lose if during the next stages of the negotiation – the G20 of Venice in July, then on-site interviews OECD – the rate will remain at 15% instead of being raised to a more dignified one 25%, the level also proposed by the Icict. The conservative answer is at least 120 billion euros, considering only the additional taxes due to each country from “His” multinationals which today record profits elsewhere, thus managing to reduce the overall tax outlay. Indeed, an international agreement on a minimum rate of 25% would allow the European Union to increase its tax revenues by almost 170 billion, “A 50% increase compared to the current corporate tax revenue”. Germany would earn 29 billion, France 26, Spain 12.4, Italy 11.1. But with the 15% tax rate, the total additional revenue “would amount to only 50 billion“.
For Rome it means being satisfied with 2.7 billion against the 11,1 that the State could collect at the 25% rate. An interesting list (not exhaustive, the Observatory limited itself to selecting a sample) of companies that would be called to fill their “tax deficit”, that is the difference between what they currently pay and what they should pay in a world with an overall minimum rate in force. There are obviously Enel ed Eni, with – respectively – 356.3 and 171.5 million in additional taxes due, in the case of a rate of 25%: for Enel this is the 18.3% of what you pay now, while for the six-legged dog the payment would stop at 3.6% of current taxes. But to go to the cash desk should be mainly the banks: on average, European institutions should recognize states 44% more. Among the Italians, the highest bill would come to Intesa Sanpaolo: 672 million, well he 41% of its current tax burden. Immediately behind Unicredit, with 293 million more due against the 901 he pays now.
The potential account (and in parallel the lost deriving from a downward agreement) goes up if the revenue owed by domestic multinationals is added second pillar of the agreement, the one concerning the taxation of profits in each of the countries in which the large groups actually operate. And which therefore calls into question, for example, i US giants of the web. But, according to the Observatory, the first front is potentially the most remunerative, because non-European groups generally make most of their revenues outside the Union. In fact, a first estimate, based on the hypothesis that Brussels moves independently without waiting for an agreement with the rest of the world, quantifies in “Only” 12.3 billion (1.1 for Italy) the potential tax revenues for the 27 if they began to apply a rate of 25% to the tax deficit of US groups. Plus 34.4 billion that could come from companies from other non-European countries. If the agreed proposal were passed to the G7, the revenue would obviously also be much lower in this case, and not only because of the lower rate: the ministers established that it would be applied only to companies with margins above 10% he is alone on 20% of the profits they exceed that threshold. A mechanism that is difficult to define as severe. but yet Cipro and theIreland they are already on the barricades. The Cypriot Finance Minister Constantinos Petrides announced his intention to veto the EU Council, where decisions on tax matters must be taken at theunanimity.