The Commission has assessed the measure under EU State aid rules to ensure that it does not unduly favour diamond traders over other businesses, which are subject to the normal income tax regime in Belgium.

76. Stresses that, on the internal market, new entrants and SMEs doing business only in one country are penalised as compared to multinational companies, which can shift profits or implement other forms of aggressive tax planning through a variety of decisions and instruments, available to them only; notes with concern that, all things being equal, the resulting lower tax liabilities leave multinationals with higher post-tax profits, and create an uneven playing field to the detriment of their competitors on the internal market, who do not have recourse to aggressive tax planning and who pay taxes in the place or places where they gener ...[+++]ate their profits; stresses that promoting harmful tax practices through the creation of a European single-member private limited liability company (SUP), the governing rules of which explicitly state that it may have two different seats – i.e., a registered office in one place and an administrative headquarters elsewhere – is the wrong approach for the EU;

– having regard to the report by the US Government Accountability Office (2007), the report by the British National Audit Office (2008) and the report by the Conseil des Prélèvements Obligatoires (2009), which point out, inter alia, that about a third of the 700 biggest UK corporations did not pay any tax in 2005 and 2006, that 25% of those US companies with assets worth more than USD 250 million, or income of more than USD 50 million a year, also failed to pay any tax between 1998 and 2005, and that France's biggest corporations currently pay 8% tax on real average benefits, whereas the official tax rate is 33%,

– having regard to the report by the US Government Accountability Office (2007), the report by the British National Audit Office (2008) and the report by the Conseil des Prélèvements Obligatoires (2009), which point out, inter alia, that about a third of the 700 biggest UK corporations did not pay any tax in 2005 and 2006, that 25% of those US companies with assets worth more than USD 250 million, or income of more than USD 50 million a year, also failed to pay any tax between 1998 and 2005, and that France's biggest corporations currently pay 8% tax on real average benefits, whereas the official tax rate is 33%,

– having regard to the report by the US Government Accountability Office (2007), the report by the British National Audit Office (2008) and the report by the Conseil des Prélèvements Obligatoires (2009), which point out, inter alia, that about a third of the 700 biggest UK corporations did not pay any tax in 2005 and 2006, that 25% of those US companies with assets worth more than USD 250 million, or income of more than USD 50 million a year, also failed to pay any tax between 1998 and 2005, and that France’s biggest corporations currently pay 8% tax on real average benefits, whereas the official tax rate is 33%,

The main objective of a common consolidated corporate tax base is to remove the remaining tax obstacles to the proper functioning of the internal market. These obstacles were catalogued by the Commission in its company tax report in 2001, and the Commission’s response was to promote the introduction in the longer term of a comprehensive solution: a common consolidated corporate tax base.