| ▲ | neximo64 6 hours ago |
| Can't work legally speaking. There has to be a single sponsoring member state. Just sadly how the EU is designed. The only way would be to copy it individually so it is the same in each member state which breaks the purpose of it. |
|
| ▲ | dathinab 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| this isn't fully true yes you company needs to be rooted in a specific country, and sure moving company roots between countries is still not always trivial (anti capital flight laws are a thing). But that isn't really in conflict with a EU INC per-se. I mean they do point out that it will have > Local taxes & employment and this isn't in conflict with - the same business form being available in all EU members - central EU registry - Standardized investment documents ( * this is only investment documents, not e.g. tax documents) - Standardized EU-wide stock options - For every founder ( * with some limits) Like there are already some "EU level" business models, e.g. you company can operate as a Societas Europaea (SE). Now a SE is for other use-cases so not really the same at all (it's more like the EU version of a German GmbH), but
it shows that things "in that direction" are very much viable. |
| |
| ▲ | vladms 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > - Standardized investment documents All investments I took part of implied a lot of back and forth on conditions adapted to the specific case, preferences, fears, etc. I have doubts that "standardization" can be reasonable achieved here. > - Standardized EU-wide stock options EU does not have attributions on tax, it's the national governments that do (see https://european-union.europa.eu/priorities-and-actions/acti...). The issue with stock options are that they are taxed, so you will have to consider each country in particular. Maybe you would like for EU to have tax responsibilities, but I wouldn't jump to that without thinking about the implications. As an example the Euro monetary union without a fiscal union can causes issues already (for some explanations check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiscal_union). | | |
| ▲ | dathinab 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | the proposal itself, and my comments, say no tax will be on country basis, that doesn't block standardized stock options. It just means that on monetization events taxes you pay on stocks might differ (they anyway will depending on where you live independent on anything on the company side). | | |
| ▲ | vladms 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I hope someone talked with lawyers that know what can be done. I would love a (more) unified system (tax, rules, etc.). Multiple organizations/think-tanks recommended more unified systems for the EU on this topics. The problem is if it does not fall under the EU competences it will be hard to implement at that level. To quote: > While the businesses and objectives targeted by the 28th regime are specified to some extent, it is
unclear which firms would specifically have access to it, and which aspects of the business code
would be covered. The competences of the EU are likely to constitute boundaries in this respect. source: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2025/7792... In a way, it's like programming. The difficult part are the exceptions, corner cases or unplanned interactions. Countries are very reluctant to give up control over some topics (tax being one of them) and they also have lawyers. I welcome any help entrepreneurs can receive. But after trying it a couple of times (software stuff, might be a specific case) I personally didn't find the rules for creation/tax were that of a problem, compared to the requirements that in many other instances I felt were imposed to the newly/newlish formed enterprise (ex: want to apply to a project? you have to have existed for 3 years; want that subsidy? you need to show us you are having X partners) to lower the risk for the existing (public and private) organizations. |
|
| |
| ▲ | pjc50 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > anti capital flight laws are a thing Hmm - any examples of this applying intra-EU? That feels like a violation of the free movement of banking services. | | |
| ▲ | dathinab 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | > violation of the free movement of banking services Isn't the same as freely moving the jurisdiction under which a company exist. It also mostly applies to cash/legal tender but most wealthy peoples wealth is
only in small amounts in cash. Technically relevant laws are also often not classified as "capital flight" laws per-se, but are very close to it. E.g. in Germany there is a "Wegzugsteuer" (~moving away from Germany Tax), which only applies to "hidden/unrealized reserves". When you leave Germany (~for good, kinda, it's complicated) the tax treats them as if you sold them, i.e. you have to any tax you would have to pay if you had sold them. "Hidden reserves" include stuff like you owning more then 1% of a company, certain investment founds, crypto currency, etc.. So while it's not a capital flight law as it doesn't affect cash (weather digital or physical) it is very similar to it. (clarifications: yes in EU crypto currency is not a legal tender, i.e. it's treated more like gold. You still can use them to buy things as you can buy things based on an exchange of goods if all involved parties agree to it. Similar for a lot of the things covered by the law it's possible to sell them for very low taxes under the right circumstances, so if you don't move very spontaneously you have a lot of ways to largely reduce this tax.) |
|
|
|
| ▲ | causalscience 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If the EU is saying "we'll make it work", replying "can't work because that's how the EU is designed" doesn't seem like an intelligent response. |
|
| ▲ | bux93 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Weird. Seems to work for Airbus, Allianz, BASF, E.ON, Fresenius, LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton (and its subsidiary Dior), SAP, Schneider Electric, TotalEnergies, Unibail-Rodamco-Westfield and Vonovia. Of course, that's the existing pan-European SE which is a public company. Needs like a few sentences changed in the existing regulation to extend that to private companies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societas_Europaea |
|
| ▲ | tiborsaas 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe the task is to make the changes to get this to work legally speaking. |
|
| ▲ | riffraff 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| this proposal exists under the umbrella of the 28th regime[0] idea, as per their FAQ. Which.. would be a good idea, but I am not holding my breath for it to happen in the next 10 years. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28th_regime |
|
| ▲ | dbbk 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They've already said it'll be the 28th state |
|
| ▲ | carlosjobim 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| And if the authors of the proposal had thought a bit more about their idea, they would have realized that the situation is exactly the same in the USA: You have to select a state to incorporate in. You can't incorporate "federally". All states have different laws and regulations relating to business. Just like in Europe. So they're chasing a false idea. |
