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

Another Hole in British Tax Sovereignty

Press Release from www.brugesgroup.com
For Immediate Release

TheelectionissueshouldbeWhoGovernsBritain2

On Thursday, 6th April 2006 the Advocate General issued an opinion today, which if followed by the European Court of Justice, will poke another hole in British tax sovereignty. It will mean that dividends paid from EU companies to the UK should be exempt from tax, rather than taxed as they currently are under UK law.

The Advocate General criticised the British Government's defence, even though HM Treasury's estimates that £7 BILLION of tax is at stake, saying,

"I note that the UK government has not attempted to provide any justification for its failure to raise the temporal limitation plea in its written submissions, or for its failure to provide substantial argument on the issue during the procedure before the Court as a whole."

This is a shocking expose of the Government's lax attitude to protect British sovereignty on tax matters and a sharp contrast to Gordon Brown's proclaimed defiance.

- ENDS -

------------------------------------------------

Notes for Editors

    This case is another in the list of cases being brought predominantly by UK business arguing that certain provisions of the UK tax law is contrary to the Freedom of Capital and Freedom of Establishment Articles of the EU treaty, and hence should be disapplied.

    Typically, dividends paid from companies resident in other EU countries to the UK are taxed in the UK, but with credit given for taxes suffered overseas. Therefore, there can be additional UK tax to pay on such dividends if not enough tax was paid overseas. Dividends paid from one UK company to another are in contrast tax-exempt.

    UK business was arguing that dividends from their EU subsidiaries should be exempt so they are treated the same as UK dividends, and hence there is no discrimination.

    UK business claim that the tax at stake is between £100m and £2 billion.

    HM Treasury claimed that the tax at stake was up to £7 billion. According to Her Majesty's Customs and Revenue this is equivalent to increasing the basic rate of income tax by 2.33p for one year.

    One variable as to how much was at stake is how far companies can go back in claiming that UK law was applied incorrectly. Arguably claims could be made back to 1973 when the UK joined the EU. The UK government sought to argue for a timelimit in order to protect UK tax revenues.
    The Advocate General rejected the UK government's claims for a temporal limit, extracts from his opinion are shown below:

    "144. In the present case, the plea of limitation of temporal effects was not raised by the UK government in its written submissions. Rather, it raised this plea at the oral hearing, without providing detailed substantive arguments or evidence on either of the two elements of which, by the consistent case law I set out above, the Court needs to be satisfied in order to limit the temporal effect of a judgment. As regards the first element - risk of serious financial repercussions owing to the large number of legal relationships entered into in good faith on the basis of rules considered to be validly in force - while the UK estimated the potential figure at stake as £ 7 billion, it gave no indication of how it arrived at this figure, or of the number of affected legal relationships upon which it was based. The UK government did not offer any more clarification on the issue in response to the Test Claimants' counter argument that the true amount at stake would be between £ 100 million and £ 2 billion."

    "145. For these reasons, I am of the view that the Court should reject the UK government's plea of temporal limitation without more, on the basis of insufficient substantiation. I note that the UK government has not attempted to provide any justification for its failure to raise the temporal limitation plea in its written submissions, or for its failure to provide substantial argument on the issue during the procedure before the Court as a whole."