Debate: Is There A Need for A Directive on Pillar Two?

Abstract

A legally binding link for a simultaneous implementation of Pillars One and Two in the European Union (EU), as requested by one Member State, has not been accepted by the French Presidency. The author contends that a legal link between the Directive on Pillar Two and international developments is not incompatible with European sovereignty. This is so, for several reasons: (1) the competence for implementing the minimum tax foreseen by Pillar Two is not exclusive to the EU; (2) the principle of primacy would not impede the EU harmonization on Pillar Two being made dependent upon the evolution of the international agreements on the topic; (3) taking into account the developments of Pillar Two and the contents of the proposal for a Directive, it is dubious that a Directive is necessary for fulfilling the requirements of the internal market; (4) the interaction among all the instruments, exceptions, deferrals, and options foreseen in the model rules, in the original Proposal and the concessions may lead to multiple regimes. The latter can be achieved by the national transposition of the model rules. Pillar Two Directive, principle of autonomy, principle of primacy, European sovereignty, EU legal order, international tax agreement, treaty override, EU external relations, EU competence, subsidiarity, proportionality