Jump to content
Manx Forums, Live Chat, Blogs & Classifieds for the Isle of Man
Declan

Applebys: Something or other about planes and VAT. CM says Panic!

Recommended Posts

It would seem that Mr Ježek has also chosen to avoid actual facts and go for conjecture. He also clearly does not understand principles of international taxation. The existence of a zero tax rate in Country A does not prevent Country B taxing the income of its own residents in the manner of its own choosing (subject to any tax treaties it has freely chosen to enter in to with Country A). 

If he wants to look at real avoidance, he should trouble to learn more about how income / profits are made to 'vanish' through the use of hybrid financial instruments. Probably one of the world''s leading experts on that subject is Jean Claude Juncker, who during his 10 years as Luxembourg's Finance Minister and 18 as PM, has been reported to have been the architect* of one of the most significant regimes exploiting hybrids, backed up by favourable private rulings and (allegedly) 'sweetheart' tax deals. 

*He denies it. Apparently [edit] we are to believe that  the "Grand Duchy authority acted on an ‘autonomous basis’ with little oversight from finance minister".

Edited by Yibble
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Yibble said:

It would seem that Mr Ježek has also chosen to avoid actual facts and go for conjecture. He also clearly does not understand principles of international taxation. The existence of a zero tax rate in Country A does not prevent Country B taxing the income of its own residents in the manner of its own choosing (subject to any tax treaties it has freely chosen to enter in to with Country A). 

If he wants to look at real avoidance, he should trouble to learn more about how income / profits are made to 'vanish' through the use of hybrid financial instruments. Probably one of the world''s leading experts on that subject is Jean Claude Juncker, who during his 10 years as Luxembourg's Finance Minister and 18 as PM, has been reported to have been the architect* of one of the most significant regimes exploiting hybrids, backed up by favourable private rulings and (allegedly) 'sweetheart' tax deals. 

*He denies it. Apparently [edit] we are to believe that  the "Grand Duchy authority acted on an ‘autonomous basis’ with little oversight from finance minister".

Another student from the Margaret Hodge School of "never mind the facts, let just go for the jugular"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

Another student from the Margaret Hodge School of "never mind the facts, let just go for the jugular"

Indeed. The problem for the Hodges and Ježeks of this world though, is that once they've finished their grandstanding / playing to the gallery, there's the tricky business of changing the rules such that they actually bring about the results they seem to want (or think they want). That requires detailed work with those who draft, implement and operate the rules: legal draftsmen, legislators, lawyers, accountants, tax authorities, law enforcement agencies etc. If your grandstanding position has been "never mind what the rules say", that's probably not going to go very well.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Yibble said:

Indeed. The problem for the Hodges and Ježeks of this world though, is that once they've finished their grandstanding / playing to the gallery, there's the tricky business of changing the rules such that they actually bring about the results they seem to want (or think they want). That requires detailed work with those who draft, implement and operate the rules: legal draftsmen, legislators, lawyers, accountants, tax authorities, law enforcement agencies etc. If your grandstanding position has been "never mind what the rules say", that's probably not going to go very well.

[Irony] I think you'll  find that Brussels has no shortage of any of the above.....

People can drip and moan and cry "Foul!" all they like but the fact remains that an EU delegation actually visited the island re "tax efficient schemes" that may have cost the EU €millions in uncollected VAT.

So the writing is definitely on the wall but who knows? Brexit might yet prove to have an upside after all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, P.K. said:

[Irony]

People can drip and moan and cry "Foul!" all they like but the fact remains that an EU delegation actually visited the island re "tax efficient schemes" that may have cost the EU €millions in uncollected VAT.

 

Which will be beyond Ironic since the majority of the most efficient tax-avoidance/Mitigation schemes are funneled through EU Member states (Ireland/Holland/Cyprus/Malta) with the end product being fed through here rather than remaining here.

I don't think they're here to try and work out how to get back historic tax losses, they're here to study best practice before drafting their next pieces of legislation.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, P.K. said:

So the writing is definitely on the wall? 

 

I expect so, for the VAT on jets that is. If the EU wants to change the rules, that's fine. That will of course 'un-level' the playing field for VAT on different types of air travel. That undermines what the EU considers to be a fundamental VAT principle of fiscal neutrality: "its expression in the sphere of VAT ‘precludes, in particular, treating similar supplies of services, which are thus in competition with each other, differently for VAT purposes" (from EU case law and a statement of the Advocate General). However I suspect you're right that political imperatives will result in the principle being overridden. Nobody could seriously consider the EU to be a principled organisation.

My issue is not with whether or not the EU wishes to impose VAT on certain types of aircraft leasing arrangement. My objections are to:

- The EU's disingenuous criticism of the IoM for (in effect) implementing EU law in the way the ECJ has ruled it (and any member state) should do, or indeed must do.

- The utter hypocrisy of the likes of Juncker, widely reported to be the architect tax avoidance on a scale many leagues above this, to be selling himself as a crusader against avoidance.

- The EU and Tax 3's hypocrisy in averting their gaze over EU territories facilitating major avoidance (notably Luxembourg, arguably Ireland, plus others).

- Dishonest (or maybe just stupid) politicians and other commentators failing to distinguish between avoidance and evasion or, even worse, misrepresenting the former as the latter.

- The dishonesty and/or stupidity of those who cite the Paradise Papers / LuxLeaks / Panama Papers or whatever as some sort of damning judgement of specific arrangements / regimes, without troubling to specify what the actual wrongdoing they are alleging is, or why it is wrong.

If the EU believes it got it wrong with its own law, then it should change the law. That's how democratic government, the rule of law and civilised society operates. However when EU politicians disingenuously/dishonestly blame others for their own mess, they reveal themselves as liars and crooks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Flubbergump said:

Which will be beyond Ironic since the majority of the most efficient tax-avoidance/Mitigation schemes are funneled through EU Member states (Ireland/Holland/Cyprus/Malta) with the end product being fed through here rather than remaining here.

I don't think they're here to try and work out how to get back historic tax losses, they're here to study best practice before drafting their next pieces of legislation.

Why isn't Flubbergump writing in The Economist....?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yibble said:

I expect so, for the VAT on jets that is. If the EU wants to change the rules, that's fine. That will of course 'un-level' the playing field for VAT on different types of air travel. That undermines what the EU considers to be a fundamental VAT principle of fiscal neutrality: "its expression in the sphere of VAT ‘precludes, in particular, treating similar supplies of services, which are thus in competition with each other, differently for VAT purposes" (from EU case law and a statement of the Advocate General). However I suspect you're right that political imperatives will result in the principle being overridden. Nobody could seriously consider the EU to be a principled organisation.

My issue is not with whether or not the EU wishes to impose VAT on certain types of aircraft leasing arrangement. My objections are to:

- The EU's disingenuous criticism of the IoM for (in effect) implementing EU law in the way the ECJ has ruled it (and any member state) should do, or indeed must do.

- The utter hypocrisy of the likes of Juncker, widely reported to be the architect tax avoidance on a scale many leagues above this, to be selling himself as a crusader against avoidance.

- The EU and Tax 3's hypocrisy in averting their gaze over EU territories facilitating major avoidance (notably Luxembourg, arguably Ireland, plus others).

- Dishonest (or maybe just stupid) politicians and other commentators failing to distinguish between avoidance and evasion or, even worse, misrepresenting the former as the latter.

- The dishonesty and/or stupidity of those who cite the Paradise Papers / LuxLeaks / Panama Papers or whatever as some sort of damning judgement of specific arrangements / regimes, without troubling to specify what the actual wrongdoing they are alleging is, or why it is wrong.

If the EU believes it got it wrong with its own law, then it should change the law. That's how democratic government, the rule of law and civilised society operates. However when EU politicians disingenuously/dishonestly blame others for their own mess, they reveal themselves as liars and crooks.

I smell a vested interest.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, P.K. said:

I smell a vested interest.....

You're right. The operation of the rule of law is fundamental to the economic success of a territory. Britain's economic success for hundreds of years has depended on that. If we undermine that we will undermine our tax base, as well as our economy. I certainly have a vested interest in that.

However I have no connection or involvement whatsoever with aircraft leasing, registration or the taxation thereof.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Yibble said:

You're right. The operation of the rule of law is fundamental to the economic success of a territory. Britain's economic success for hundreds of years has depended on that. If we undermine that we will undermine our tax base, as well as our economy. I certainly have a vested interest in that.

However I have no connection or involvement whatsoever with aircraft leasing, registration or the taxation thereof.

It's not just about aircraft though, is it...?

I still smell a vested interest.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Why isn't Flubbergump writing in The Economist....?

Because anything resembling actual journalism from a Manx resident tends to catch the attention of the Athol St Mafia and makes you unemployable.

I rather enjoy paying my bills on their less-than-scrupulous shilling.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Flubbergump said:

Because anything resembling actual journalism from a Manx resident tends to catch the attention of the Athol St Mafia and makes you unemployable.

I rather enjoy paying my bills on their less-than-scrupulous shilling.

Did you have to get your morality surgically removed...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Yibble said:

It would seem that Mr Ježek has also chosen to avoid actual facts and go for conjecture. He also clearly does not understand principles of international taxation. The existence of a zero tax rate in Country A does not prevent Country B taxing the income of its own residents in the manner of its own choosing (subject to any tax treaties it has freely chosen to enter in to with Country A). 

If he wants to look at real avoidance, he should trouble to learn more about how income / profits are made to 'vanish' through the use of hybrid financial instruments. Probably one of the world''s leading experts on that subject is Jean Claude Juncker, who during his 10 years as Luxembourg's Finance Minister and 18 as PM, has been reported to have been the architect* of one of the most significant regimes exploiting hybrids, backed up by favourable private rulings and (allegedly) 'sweetheart' tax deals. 

*He denies it. Apparently [edit] we are to believe that  the "Grand Duchy authority acted on an ‘autonomous basis’ with little oversight from finance minister".

Maybe he was just pissed !

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Did you have to get your morality surgically removed...?

You're assuming I had any in the first place.

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Flubbergump said:

You're assuming I had any in the first place.

If not how did you lose it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...