The Bruges Group spearheaded the intellectual battle to win a vote to leave the European Union and, above all, against the emergence of a centralised EU state.

NOTE! This site uses cookies and similar technologies.

If you not change browser settings, you agree to it. Learn more

I understand

Cookies are a technology which we use to provide you with tailored information on our website. A cookie is a piece of code that is sent to your internet browser and is stored on your system.

Please see below for a list of cookies this website uses:

Cookie name: _utma, _utmb, _utmc, _utmz

Purpose: Google Analytics cookies. Google Analytics is software that lets us analyse how visitors use our site. We use this information to improve our website and provide the best experience to visitors.

Function: These cookies collect data in an anonymous form. Please see Google's privacy policy for further information. To opt out of these cookies, please visit Google's website.

Cookie name: Sitecore

Purpose: Stores information, such as language and regional preferences, that our content management system (the system we use to update our website) relies on to function.

Function: This is a session cookie and will be destroyed when you close your browser. This cookie is essential for our website to function.

Cookie name: ASP.net_session

Purpose: Allows the website to save your session state across different pages. For example, if you have completed a survey, the website will remember that you have done so and will not ask you to complete it again when you view another page on the website.

Function: This is a session cookie and will be destroyed when you close your browser. This cookie is essential for our website to function.

Cookie name: website#sc_wede

Purpose: Indicates whether the user's browser supports inline editing of content. This indicates whether our content management system will work for our website administrators in their internet browsers.

Function: This is a session cookie and will be destroyed when you close your browser. This cookie is essential for our website to function.

Cookie name: redirected

Purpose: Remembers when the site forwards you from one page to another, so you can return to the first page. For example, go back to the home page after viewing a special 'splash' page.

Function: This is a session cookie, which your browser will destroy when it shuts down. The website needs this cookie to function.

Cookie name: tccookiesprefs

Purpose: Remembers when you respond to the site cookie policy, so you do not see the cookie preferences notice on every page.

Function: If you choose to remember your preference with a temporary cookie, your browser will remove it when you shut it down, otherwise the cookie will be stored for about a year.

Cookie name: _ga

Purpose: Additional Google Analytics cookie. Google Analytics is software that lets us analyse how visitors use our site. We use this information to improve our website and provide the best experience to visitors.

Function: These cookies collect data in an anonymous form. Please see Google's privacy policy for further information.

Cookie name: SC_ANALYTICS_GLOBAL_COOKIE, SC_ANALYTICS_SESSION_COOKIE

Purpose: Sitecore Analytics is software that lets us analyse how visitors use our site. We use this information to improve our website and provide the best experience to visitors.

Function: These cookies collect data in an anonymous form. When you close your browser, it will delete the 'session' cookie; it will keep the 'global' cookie for about one year.

Facebook cookies

We use Facebook 'Like' buttons to share site feedback. For further information, see Facebook's cookie policy page.

Twitter cookies

We use Twitter 'Tweet' buttons to share site feedback. For further information, see Twitter's privacy statement.

YouTube cookies

We embed videos from our official YouTube channel. YouTube uses cookies to help maintain the integrity of video statistics, prevent fraud and to improve their site experience. If you view a video, YouTube may set cookies on your computer once you click on the video player.

Cookies pop-up

When you close the cookies pop-up box by clicking "OK", a permanent cookie will be set on your machine. This will remember your preference so that the pop-up doesn't display across any pages whenever you visit the website.

Opting out/removing cookies

To opt out of Google Analytics cookies, please visit Google’s website.

You can also control what cookies you accept through your internet browser. For details on how to do this, please visit aboutcookies.org. Please note that by deleting our cookies or disabling future cookies you may not be able to access certain areas or features of our website.

mailing list
donate now
join now
shop

Bruges Group Blog

Spearheading the intellectual battle against the EU. And for new thinking in international affairs.

Brexit: UK now able to tackle tax havens

The EU is a dysfunctional organisation in the area of corporate tax

17th December 2016
Type text for SEO (example Bruges Group : Image Title)

Summary

The EU is a dysfunctional organisation in the area of corporate taxes because:

 

1.      the EU Commission is not able to prevent EU countries such as Ireland, Belgium and Luxembourg operating as tax havens (this is because member states have not conferred legislative competence on the EU over direct taxation), and

 

2.      the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has developed the fundamental freedoms in its case law to prevent other EU countries tackling the artificial diversion of profits to these tax havens, unless the arrangements are “wholly artificial” (please see the CJEU’s decision in the Cadbury Schweppes case (C-196/204)). The CJEU applies the most liberal, even extreme, interpretation of Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) tax rules to allow multi-national corporations to avoid taxation.


 

One of the advantages of the UK leaving the EU is that the UK will be free to prevent UK companies from shifting their UK taxable profits to EU tax havens, such as Ireland, Luxembourg and Belgium, and non-EU tax havens.


 

Background

Tax avoidance is costing the UK billions, and the UK Government is powerless to address the problem all the time the UK remains in the EU.  This is because of the supremacy of EU law over English law.  Consider, for example, the CJEU’s decision in the Cadbury Schweppes case (C-196/204).  The case states that companies are free to shift their taxable profits to tax havens within the EU to reduce the burden of taxation in their host state unless the arrangements are “wholly artificial”.  Given that companies are able to ensure that their tax avoidance activities are not “wholly artificial”, this means that the UK is powerless to prevent UK based multi-national companies from engaging in tax avoidance in the other 27 member states.


 

Large UK based multi-national companies are not only aware of the opportunity which the CJEU’s decision has created, they are readily exploiting this decision for their own advantage.  This is one of the reasons why so many large UK based multi-national companies were in favour of the UK remaining in the EU.  They know that if the UK leaves the EU, there will be no restriction on the UK Government from tackling tax avoidance.


 

Countries remaining in the EU can only solve this problem by conferring on the EU authority over direct taxes, to determine the tax base and the rates of tax, so that tax havens no longer exist within the EU.  If this were to happen, companies operating within the EU would not be able to gain an advantage by shifting their taxable profits to the member state offering the lowest effective tax rate, or exploit the asymmetries between the bases on which member states levy tax.  Such a proposal is on the EU Commission’s agenda, because it recognises that it is impractical to have a single market where member states compete against each other for the taxable income of companies.  The only winners in such an environment are large multi-national companies.


 

The EU Commission has made proposals to remedy, one aspect of this problem, namely, for member states to have a common tax base (please see the Commission’s reports entitled A Common Consolidated EU Corporate Tax Base (2004), analysed first by the Bruges Group, and A Fair and Efficient Corporate Tax System in the EU (2015)).  If the EU Commission’s proposal were implemented it would solve part of the problem.  To solve the other part, the EU would need to be allowed to set the rates of tax for all companies operating within the EU.


 

In an environment where member states are able to compete for taxable income, the smaller EU states, such as Ireland, Belgium and Luxembourg, will always be able to offer the lowest effective rates of tax.  This is because they have less to lose than the larger member states from offering lower rates of tax to their domestic companies.   As a consequence, the EU has become an area for companies to seek out the lowest effective rate of tax for their taxable income.  This problem is particularly acute where income arises from mobile capital, such as finance and intellectual property, which for many large multi-national companies is their main source of income. It is not as though the smaller states benefit from this situation, because the amounts of tax which they collect are negligible.  The big winners are the large multi-national companies.


 

This is not a problem that critics of the EU have invented.  One only has to read the following comments by the EU Commission to realise that this is a real problem:

 

unfettered tax competition which facilitates aggressive tax planning by certain companies creates competitive distortions for businesses, hampers growth-friendly taxation and fragments the Single Market.


 

However, the co-existence of 28 different tax systems in one integrated market has also resulted in strong tax competition between Member States. As a consequence, Member States have progressively lowered their corporate tax rates, in order to protect their tax bases and attract foreign direct investment.


 

…….as corporate tax planning has become more sophisticated and competitive forces between Member States have increased, the tools for ensuring fair tax competition within the EU have reached their limits.


 

Differences in corporate taxation between countries are the driving force for corporate profit shifting”.


 

This is not a problem that was confined to Euro zone states, it applied to the UK.  This is one of the reasons the UK Government has had to cut the rate of corporation tax to 17% by 2020.  Because of the structural flaws mentioned above, all the time the UK remains in the EU it is engaged in a “race to the bottom” in corporate tax rates. 


 

Somewhat disturbingly, the EU has no power to tackle the problems mentioned above.  As the EU Commission states in its report the only way in which it is able to address this problem is by peer pressure:

 

The Code of Conduct for Business Taxation Group is composed of Member State representatives to deal with harmful tax competition in the EU, in a non-binding way, on the basis of peer pressure.


 

To tackle these problems the EU needs to have the unanimous backing of member states.


 

The flaws mentioned above have arisen because of the manner in which the EU operates.   The aim of the EU is to create a Federal States of Europe, akin to that which exists in the US.  The language of the EU Treaties, and in particular the fundamental freedoms, is open ended, which has allowed the CJEU to interpret these freedoms in an expansive manner.  The CJEU has applied them in a much wider range of scenarios than was ever intended.  For example, the Treaties were never intended to apply in the field of direct taxation, but the CJEU has not only applied them in this field more recently but also has prioritised the fundamental freedoms over domestic laws tackling tax avoidance. In contrast, the EU Parliament has been unable to enact a common corporate tax rate and basis for charging tax across the Union, because it has been unable to obtain the necessary support of all member states, as required.  To date, the smaller member states have been unwilling to support such measures because they would remove one of their competitive advantages.  However, the financial position of many member states is now so perilous that this has become a priority for the EU to address.  As a consequence, pressure may be exerted on the smaller member states to withdraw their objection to the EU Commission’s proposals for a Common Corporate Tax Base.

 

State Aid

The EU is able to take action against any member State offering “sweet heart” tax deals to specific companies.   This is because this type of behaviour distorts competition and violates the EU’s rules on State aide.   However, countries such as Ireland, Belgium and Luxembourg is able to circumvent the EU’s State aide rules by simply making the “sweet heart” tax deal available to all companies.

 

This is yet another example of how the EU does not have the power to effectively tackle tax avoidance.

 

MoUs – the key to a smooth Brexit?
The trade issues which must be solved by David Dav...
 

Comments 5

Guest - Darc on Tuesday, 03 January 2017 12:37

You've got it the wrong way round. The EU has been going after tax evaders, just look at the news. Comapny after company is being fined & forced to pay up. Britain will become a tax haven. It will no longer have to abide by EU tax regulations, so will lower them to nothing for corporations, as that is the only way the UK will be able to hold on to any of it's financial sector etc. There's no incentive for them to remain in the UK at this point, so the government will have to create one. Whilst the average person will have to pay increased taxes and will be earning a significantly lower salary, massive mega-corporations like Facebook, Google, will pay a fraction of the percentage. Well done, thank you for wrecking our country. I am a "patriot" (though I hate that word), I serve my country, I have wanted to serve it for years (civil servant). The reason I supported Remain and the reason I continue to campaign against the Leave campaign's "hard Brexit" because I love my country and its people and believe that that is what is best for all of us. Tell me, how does that make me unpatriotic?

You've got it the wrong way round. The EU has been going after tax evaders, just look at the news. Comapny after company is being fined & forced to pay up. Britain will become a tax haven. It will no longer have to abide by EU tax regulations, so will lower them to nothing for corporations, as that is the only way the UK will be able to hold on to any of it's financial sector etc. There's no incentive for them to remain in the UK at this point, so the government will have to create one. Whilst the average person will have to pay increased taxes and will be earning a significantly lower salary, massive mega-corporations like Facebook, Google, will pay a fraction of the percentage. Well done, thank you for wrecking our country. I am a "patriot" (though I hate that word), I serve my country, I have wanted to serve it for years (civil servant). The reason I supported Remain and the reason I continue to campaign against the Leave campaign's "hard Brexit" because I love my country and its people and believe that that is what is best for all of us. Tell me, how does that make me unpatriotic?
Guest - Darc on Tuesday, 03 January 2017 12:39

To add to the previous post, my work in civil service does not overlap with my political opinions. I ensure that in that capacity I am objective.

To add to the previous post, my work in civil service does not overlap with my political opinions. I ensure that in that capacity I am objective.
Robert Oulds on Tuesday, 03 January 2017 19:56

Thanks for your comment. You can see below a series of articles that show how the ECJ has continually been making decisions that allow certain corporations to escape billions in tax. This just puts more of a burden onto SMEs and the taxpayer.
http://www.brugesgroup.com/taxation
The President of the European Commission, Jean Claude Junker, is notorious in this area for making sweetheart deals in Luxembourg that would then be used under EU law to avoid tax. We are paying the price for this.
There was a case where the EU tried to make Ireland tax Apple, that was more about bullying Ireland into changing its competitive tax rules. That however was overturned by the ECJ. Where there are changes at the EU level, these are brought about by the G20 whose leaders are thoroughly fed up with the ludicrous interpretation of international tax law made by the EU's top court.

Thanks for your comment. You can see below a series of articles that show how the ECJ has continually been making decisions that allow certain corporations to escape billions in tax. This just puts more of a burden onto SMEs and the taxpayer. http://www.brugesgroup.com/taxation The President of the European Commission, Jean Claude Junker, is notorious in this area for making sweetheart deals in Luxembourg that would then be used under EU law to avoid tax. We are paying the price for this. There was a case where the EU tried to make Ireland tax Apple, that was more about bullying Ireland into changing its competitive tax rules. That however was overturned by the ECJ. Where there are changes at the EU level, these are brought about by the G20 whose leaders are thoroughly fed up with the ludicrous interpretation of international tax law made by the EU's top court.
Guest - Gary Hayes on Tuesday, 17 January 2017 09:52

I wasn't sure if, in fact, your article was pro-EU. The implication is that 'competitive nation states' = race to the bottom. Both George Osborne and Philip Hammond have indicated that a post EU United Kingdom would seek to lower tax rates even further (backing this up, and negating your argument that the low tax regime is linked to our membership of the EU). The answer therefore appears to be more integration and a common tax policy. We should be applying pressure to minor states to agree to this, not joining the race to the bottom.

I wasn't sure if, in fact, your article was pro-EU. The implication is that 'competitive nation states' = race to the bottom. Both George Osborne and Philip Hammond have indicated that a post EU United Kingdom would seek to lower tax rates even further (backing this up, and negating your argument that the low tax regime is linked to our membership of the EU). The answer therefore appears to be more integration and a common tax policy. We should be applying pressure to minor states to agree to this, not joining the race to the bottom.
Robert Oulds on Tuesday, 17 January 2017 10:32

Hi Gary. We should have a competitive tax regime and encourage businesses to operate here. The EU problem is that companies which make money in the UK then use bizarre judgements by the ECJ to then not pay not only corporation tax but in the USB Deutsche Bank case even avoid NI. In the Marks & Spencer case why should they avoid corporation tax on profits in the UK just because an operation in France claims to have lost money. Corporation Tax is higher in Luxembourg than the UK but the ECJ enforces sweet heart deals made by Jean-Claude Juncker that allows businesses to claim to have paid tax in Luxembourg and not here. In reality the select few could pay whatever.
The point is not about whether we should have low or high corporation tax, the issue is we should have tax sovereignty. The EU is a racket for those with access to get the policies they want particularly when it comes to tax.

Hi Gary. We should have a competitive tax regime and encourage businesses to operate here. The EU problem is that companies which make money in the UK then use bizarre judgements by the ECJ to then not pay not only corporation tax but in the USB Deutsche Bank case even avoid NI. In the Marks & Spencer case why should they avoid corporation tax on profits in the UK just because an operation in France claims to have lost money. Corporation Tax is higher in Luxembourg than the UK but the ECJ enforces sweet heart deals made by Jean-Claude Juncker that allows businesses to claim to have paid tax in Luxembourg and not here. In reality the select few could pay whatever. The point is not about whether we should have low or high corporation tax, the issue is we should have tax sovereignty. The EU is a racket for those with access to get the policies they want particularly when it comes to tax.
Already Registered? Login Here
Guest
Tuesday, 27 June 2017