Public consultation on the Re-launch of the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB)

1 May 2016


Please note:
In order to ensure a fair and transparent consultation process only responses received through our online questionnaire will be taken into account and included in the report summarising the responses.

Should you have a problem completing this questionnaire or if you require particular assistance, please contact:

For more information on the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base please follow this link.

The general rules on personal data protection on the EUROPA website are accessible here.

On the protection of personal data for this consultation, please follow this link


Europe's priorities today are to restore growth and promote investment and job creation within a fairer and deeper Single Market. Europe needs a framework for fair and efficient taxation of corporate profits, in order to distribute the tax burden equitably, to contribute to the sustainability of public finances, to promote sustainable growth and investment, to diversify funding sources of the European economy, and to strengthen the competitiveness of Europe's economy.

Corporate taxation is an essential element of a fair and efficient tax system. It is an important source of revenue for Member States and an important factor in influencing companies' business decisions, for example on investments and research & development (R&D) activities.

Recent developments have shed light on the widely shared view that the current rules for corporate taxation no longer fit the modern context. Corporate income is taxed at national level, but the economic environment has become more globalised, mobile and digital. Business models and corporate structures have become more complex, making it easier to shift profits.

For instance, corporate tax rules which are conceived to exclusively function in a domestic framework may increasingly run the risk of leading to market distortions if taxpayers can easily circumvent them when they operate internationally. These distortions often derive from differences in tax laws and take the shape of aggressive tax planning practices whereby taxpayers can take advantage of disparities between national tax systems to derive tax benefits against the spirit of the law. Such a playing field no longer contributes to 'healthy' tax competition.

Given that Europe's priority today is to promote sustainable growth and investment within a fairer and better integrated Single Market, a new framework is needed for a fair and efficient taxation of corporate profits.

The Action Plan for a Fairer and Efficient Corporate Tax System

On 17th June 2015, the Commission published an Action Plan for a Fairer and Efficient Corporate Tax System and proposed 5 key areas for action in the coming months (COM (2015) 302). The Action Plan, which takes the form of a Communication, contributes to the aim of establishing a system of corporate taxation whereby business profits are taxed in the jurisdiction where value is actually created. The re-launch of the CCCTB lies at the heart of the Action Plan. It is presented as an overarching objective which could be an extremely effective tool for meeting the objectives of fairer and more efficient taxation. It features as the main tool for fighting against aggressive tax planning, incorporating recent international developments, attributing income where the value is created. Specifically:

  1. A set of common EU rules for the calculation of the corporate tax base would in practice decrease significantly aggressive tax planning opportunities within the EU dimension of the group.
  2. Considering that the current transfer pricing rules have not proved very effective in tackling profit shifting over the last decades, a system of cross-border tax consolidation, as provided for in the CCCTB, would remove the benefits of profit shifting within the consolidated group across the Single Market.
  3. The possibilities of shifting income towards the Member States with the lowest tax rates would be more limited under the CCCTB than the current national principles for allocating and computing profits through methods largely based on transfer pricing. This is mainly due to the fact that the apportionment factors have been devised to reflect the real economy. On the same note, within a consolidated group, there is no risk of double taxation or double non-taxation caused by mismatches amongst national rules and through the interaction of tax treaties.
  4. The existence of common rules for computing the tax base would render tax competition more transparent in the EU because this would inevitably focus on the levels of (statutory) tax rates. As a result, there would be less room for tax planning.
  5. The CCCTB would contain its own defence against tax abuse (e.g. Controlled Foreign Company (CFC) legislation, General Anti-Avoidance Rule (GAAR), etc.). This is particularly important when it comes to protecting the group's tax base against erosion in dealings with entities outside the consolidated group.
  6. In defending the Single Market against aggressive tax planning, the CCCTB would allow Member States to implement a common approach vis-à-vis third countries.
  7. While removing distortions caused by aggressive tax planning, the CCCTB would also improve the environment for businesses in the EU, as it would allow companies operating in the EU to deal with a single set of common corporate tax rules within the EU. This would represent a significant simplification and would reduce compliance costs as a whole.

The Action Plan calls for a renewed approach to the pending proposal whereby the main amendments will be the following:

  • Firstly, the re-launched CCCTB will be a mandatory system, which should make it more robust against aggressive tax planning practices.
  • Secondly, it will be deployed in 2 steps because the current proposal is too vast to agree in one go; efforts will first concentrate on agreeing the rules for a common tax base, and consolidation will be left to be adopted at a later stage.

In practical terms, the Commission is planning to table two new Proposals: the first instrument will lay down the provisions for a Common Corporate Tax Base (CCTB) whilst the second will add the elements related to consolidation (i.e. CCCTB). Once this new legislative framework (henceforth referred to as CCTB/CCCTB) has been adopted by the Commission, the currently pending proposal will be repealed.

There is no doubt that a fully-fledged CCCTB would make a major difference in reinforcing the link between taxation and the jurisdiction where profits are generated. Yet, it is clear that it would take time to reach agreement on such an extensive piece of legislation. Bearing this in mind, the Action Plan suggests that Member States continue working on some international aspects of the common base which are linked to the OECD project on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) while the 're-launch' proposals are under preparation. According to the Action Plan, agreement to convert these BEPS-related elements into legally binding provisions should be achieved within 12 months.

The fully-fledged CCCTB would offer cross-border loss relief within the group as an automatic outcome of consolidating the tax bases of two or more group members. To compensate for the absence of consolidation in the first step (CCTB), the announced initiative to re-launch the CCCTB is planned to include enacting a facility for giving temporary cross-border loss relief. According to this, groups would be able to set off their profits in a Member State against losses incurred in another Member State until the loss-making group member goes back into making profits. This would remove a major tax obstacle for businesses.

A new impact assessment is being prepared to assess the impacts of the CCCTB; it is envisaged to build on and refine the previous economic analysis. The impact assessment will, in particular, analyse separately the CCTB and CCCTB, i.e. a corporate tax system without and with consolidation. In addition, the analysis will be expanded to take into account the effects anticipated through certain new developments, such as addressing debt bias in corporate taxation and further promoting R&D.

Objectives of this consultation

The Commission has shown its strong commitment for fairer corporate taxation in its Action Plan of 17th June 2015. Consulting the public is one of the major steps in the process of proposing legislation in the EU. This consultati n will help the Commission gather information and analyse the necessary evidence, in order to determine possible options for attaining the objectives of the re-launch of the CCCTB.

This consultation seeks to gather views in particular on the following:

  • To what extent the CCCTB could function as an effective tool against aggressive tax planning, while contributing to a favourable investment climate.
  • Which criteria should determine the companies subject to the rules of a mandatory CCTB/CCCTB.
  • Whether companies not subject to the mandatory CCTB/CCCTB (i.e. those which do not fulfil the conditions on which the CCTB/CCCTB becomes mandatory) should be given the possibility to opt for applying the common rules.
  • Whether the staged approach, as announced in the Action Plan, whereby priority will be given to agreeing the tax base before moving to consolidation, would be preferable, especially if one considered that the currently pending CCCTB proposal is an extensive piece of legislation on which progress has been very slow.
  • Whether, in the short-term, it would be useful to agree common rules for implementing certain international BEPS-related aspects of the common tax base based on the current proposal until the Commission adopts the new (revised) CCTB/CCCTB proposal.
  • Which more detailed parts of the common tax base should be reviewed.
  • Whether and how the issue of debt-equity tax bias should be addressed. Corporate tax systems usually favour debt over equity by allowing the deductibility of the cost of debt only. Such debt bias could be addressed either through tax deductions for costs of both equity and debt financing or neither source of financing could benefit from tax deductions (Details about solutions are discussed in this Taxation Working Paper).
  • Which types of rules would best foster R&D activity. The vast majority of Member States and other advanced economies offer fiscal incentives for expenses on R&D. Their design differs across countries, for example in how the incentive is applied and what type of expenditure is covered, e.g. salaries of researchers, R&D quipment and other costs (A recent study on R&D tax incentives commissioned by DGs TAXUD and GROW compares design of R&D tax incentives across countries).
  • Whether a cross-border loss relief mechanism aimed to balance out the absence of the benefits of consolidation during the first step (CCTB) would promote business interest and support for the CCCTB.

Respondents are encouraged to propose additional relevant items if they wish.


  • Aggressive tax planning (see also: Tax planning):
    In the Commission Recommendation on aggressive tax planning (C(2012) 8806 final), aggressive tax planning is defined as “taking advantage of the technicalities of a tax system or of mismatches between two or more tax systems for the purpose of reducing tax liability. Aggressive tax planning can take a multitude of forms. Its consequences include double deductions (e.g. the same loss is deducted both in the state of source and residence) and double non-taxation (e.g. income which is not taxed in the source state is exempt in the state of residence)”.
  • Allowance for Corporate Equity (ACE):
    The term refers to a corporate tax system where interest payments and the return on equity can both be deducted from the corporate income tax base (taxable profits). It equalises the tax treatment of debt and equity finance at the corporate level.
  • Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS Project):
    Tax planning strategies that exploit gaps and mismatches in tax rules to artificially shift profits to low or no-tax locations where there is little or no economic activity, resulting in little or no overall corporate tax being paid. The OECD has developed specific actions to give countries the tools they need to ensure that profits are taxed where economic activities generating the profits are performed and where value is created, while at the same time giving enterprises greater certainty by reducing disputes over the application of international tax rules, and standardising requirements.
  • Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB):
    The term refers to the corporate tax system that the Commission put forward in the form of a Proposal for a Council Directive (COM(2011) 121) on 16th March 2011. The system consists of corporate tax rules designed to apply across the EU and allow companies and corporate groups to use one set of common rules for computing their tax bases in the Member States where they maintain a taxable presence. Tax consolidation is only relevant to corporate groups and it means that the tax results of all group members are pooled together, which results in the automatic offset of cross-border losses within the group. In addition, each group member's taxable share is determined by applying a formula which apportions the consolidated base to the eligible group members on the basis of three equally weighted factors, i.e. labour, assets and sales (by destination).
  • Common Corporate Tax Base (CCTB):
    The terms refers to step 1 of the CCCTB, according to the Commission's Action Plan of 17th June 2015, which comprises the common corporate tax rules for computing the tax base but does not include the element of tax consolidation.
  • Comprehensive Business Income Tax (CBIT):
    The term refers to a corporate tax system where neither interest payments nor the return on equity can be deducted from corporate profits, and are thus both fully subject to corporate income tax. It equalises the tax treatment of debt and equity finance at the corporate level.
  • Cost of Capital Allowance (COCA):
    The term refers to a corporate tax system where the cost for both debt and equity finance is captured by a notional allowance which is deductible from the corporate tax base; similarly, at the investor's level, the income tax base increases by a notional return on the investments, which corresponds to the notional allowance and can be taxable. The amount of the notional allowance/return is computed as the product of the relevant assets/investments multiplied by a COCA rate. This system equalises the tax treatment of debt and equity finance at the corporate and investor level.
  • Debt-Equity Tax Bias/Debt Bias:
    It is the result of operating a corporate tax system which favours financing by debt, rather than by equity. This is achieved by treating interest payments as a tax deductible expense whilst no equivalent deduction is granted for the return on equity (mainly, dividends).
  • Hybrid Mismatches:
    This refers to the situation where, as a result of disparities amongst national laws, the same entity or financial instrument is characterized differently, as far as its tax treatment is concerned, in two or more States (e.g. an entity is treated as a partnership in one jurisdiction and as a corporation in another; a financial instrument qualifies as deductible interest in one jurisdiction and as tax exempt dividend in the other). Taxpayers often set up arrangements to exploit such mismatches for the purpose of lowering their overall tax burden.
  • Research & Development:
    Research: all original and planned investigation undertaken with the prospect of gaining new scientific or technical knowledge and understanding.
    Development: the application of research findings or other knowledge to a plan or design for the production of new or substantially improved materials, products, devices, processes, systems or services before the start of commercial production or use.
  • Tax avoidance:
    According to the OECD glossary of tax terms, tax avoidance is defined as the arrangement of a taxpayer’s affairs in a way that is intended to reduce his or her tax liability and that - although the arrangement may be strictly legal - is usually in contradiction with the intent of the law it purports to follow.
  • Tax evasion:
    According to the OECD glossary of tax terms, tax evasion is defined as illegal arrangements where the liability to tax is hidden or ignored. This implies that the taxpayer pays less tax than he or she is legally obligated to pay by hiding income or information from the tax authorities.
  • Tax planning (see also: Aggressive tax planning):
    According to the OECD glossary of tax terms, tax planning is an arrangement of a person’s business and/or private affairs in order to minimize tax liability.

See the full questionnaire