💥Boom there it is: Commission confirms it will try to find ways to avoid member state veto on tax affairs, including use of Article 116 to go after multinational tax avoidance. No coincidence this is coming on #Apple day ft.com/content/4068b8… 
A senior diplomat from one major member state says there is "no way we can stop" the 116 initiative in light of Covid-19 and Apple decision. That's not a view shared by a sizeable number of member states who will mount fierce fightback if Commission uses the treaty instrument
Can Article 116 pass the qualified majority threshold in the council? Interesting to tot up the numbers. If 10 mostly smaller member states reject (🇮🇪🇳🇱🇭🇺🇱🇺🇸🇰🇪🇪🇲🇹🇨🇾🇨🇿🇧🇪), it still wouldn't be enough for a veto consilium.europa.eu/en/council-eu/…
On Article 116, @PaoloGentiloni says the commission is working on triggering the clause and will mount a "strong" case to target distorting tax schemes. "This work is going on and we need to have a strong proposal. It should be strong, it can't be used with a weak case".
On mechanics of 116, it's not a tax instrument but a broader power to target distortions in single market. Officials suggest commission will try and come up with a series of 116 measures that are very narrowly targeted at schemes like witholding tax absence (not companies per se)
Important: unlike other moves to switch from unanimity to qualified majority in the EU, article 116 does not require such permission. If commission finds evidence of a distorting tax scheme, it can consult said member state and then propose a directive to correct it.
