Changes between two versions
What changed between the draft committee report and the plenary report
From · draft committee report· 19 Mar 2026
on the feasibility of a 28th tax regime and its potential to support EU competitiveness
To · plenary report· 10 Jun 2026
on the feasibility of a 28th tax regime and its potential to support EU competitiveness
AI:What changed, in short
The report now frames the 28th regime as a response to competitiveness challenges, referencing the Draghi and Letta reports and the 'One Europe, One Market' agenda.12 It introduces a detailed tax module with a single consolidated corporate tax base, formulary apportionment, and safeguards against abuse, while respecting Member States' tax sovereignty.3456 The text adds provisions on employee stock options, transfer pricing, and investor status to reduce cross-border barriers and attract talent.9101112 It strengthens the focus on capital markets and savings mobilisation, aiming to close the funding gap and prevent capital flight.13 The only formal change is the expansion of an abbreviation in the explanatory statement.18
17 changes of substance · 1 formal · 0 of wording only
Written by AI from the two texts only · read the changes before relying on it · 4 Sept 2026 · Report a problem
+62 added · −28 removed · 16 changed paragraphs, packaging included.
Part 3 of 4: Paragraphs 121–130
Change 14
Changed:24.46. Stresses that the 28thtax regimemodule mustshould introduce appropriate coordinated and strictly conditioned tax incentives focused on research, development and reinvestment; notes that a harmonised baseline for R&D incentives should establish common eligibility definitions and minimum standards across Member States;States, including but not limited to social conditionality, regular monitoring and evaluation tools of tax expenditure to ensure that: (i) they are fit for purpose; (ii) they are a cost-effective way of fostering innovation; and (iii) they have no unexpected or negative implications; emphasises that firms opting for the tax module should not be disadvantaged in accessing Member State programmes or incentives on the basis of their legal form;
Change 15
Removed:25. Recalls that in addition to input-based incentives, the regime must incorporate output-based mechanisms, such as an innovation income regime aligned with OECD standards;
Added:47. Stresses furthermore that the design of R&D incentives under the tax module must be explicitly calibrated to align with the OECD Pillar Two global minimum tax framework, and in particular that the interaction with the Qualified Refundable Tax Credit rules must be addressed to ensure that firms under the scope of the tax module – which may have no current profits – can nonetheless fully benefit from the incentives without disproportionate administrative burden;
Change 16
Changed:26.48. CallsRecalls forthe aneed for strong stimulation of scale-up activities,activities; believes that where reinvested profits are used for R&D, digitalisation or green innovation should be eligible to receive temporary additional deductions or tax deferrals;deferrals, thus incentivising the redirecting of retained earnings towards productivity-enhancing investment rather than short-term distribution, in order to boost technological capacity and competitiveness; highlights that all incentives must be designed to remain transparent, simple and compliant with State aid rules;
Impact assessment, review and evaluation
Change 17
Removed:27. Calls on the Commission to ensure a comprehensive review and, where necessary, revisions of tax aspects of the 28th regime at regular intervals;
Added:49. Calls on the Commission to ensure a comprehensive review and, where necessary, revisions of tax aspects of the 28th regime at regular intervals, including the potential to add new module legislation to the regime, an assessment of its adoption rates among companies, particularly SMEs, start-ups and scale-ups, and of their development and economic growth, its alignment with evolving business and societal needs, its overall fitness for purpose and its effect on the EU’s competitiveness (international benchmarking); considers that the review cycle should occur every four years to ensure adaptability to new challenges;
°
° °
50. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.