A couple of days the former Bailiff of jersey, Sir Philip Bailhache, wrote a long letter to the Jersey Evening Post saying Jersey was right to resist UK effotrts to impose the findings of the EU Ciode of Conduct for Business Taxation group on the island.

Today the JEP published my reply, which was as follows:

SIR Philip Bailhache (JEP, 14 December) is wrong when he says Jersey’s fight over zero-ten is with the UK. It never has been, and it is not now.

Indeed, until 2009 it is almost certainly true that the UK provided considerable protection for the Crown Dependencies against the impact of the EU Code of Conduct on Business Taxation.

It is well known that Dawn Primarolo MP, who chaired this group for a decade while a UK Treasury Minister from 1997 onwards, took the view Jersey now promotes that personal taxation was outside the scope of the code and as such zero-ten worked despite the continued ring fence created by the enforced distributions of companies being taxable within the personal taxation system even though this was very obviously a blatant ruse designed to undermine the whole purpose of the code.

It was only in 2009 that this position changed in the Treasury, when more enlightened ministers stood back and looked at what they were being asked to support and realised it was akin to blatant and aggressive tax avoidance. They then withdrew their support for the position the Crown Dependencies have maintained. To their credit coalition ministers have supported this view.

Whether or not they did and do, however, is not relevant. It was always going to be the European Commission who reviewed the compliance of the Crown Dependencies with the code and their reviews, undertaken recently and which I have seen, are unambiguous. In terms of overall approach and in respect of three out of the five detailed areas where compliance is required the European Commission has found that the zero-ten systems of each Crown Dependency (including, implicitly, Guernsey) failed to comply with the code of conduct. This was not a UK decision. I stress, the technical analysis was done by EU staff. I have seen their work and the rulings are unambiguous. They have been adopted by EcoFin on behalf of the European Commission as a result.

It is equally unambiguous that the UK must comply with this decision and impose – I stress, impose, even if against the will of the Crown Dependencies – this decision on Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. But that is not whether or not the Treasury wants to do so; it is because the EU requires the UK to do so because as far as the EU is concerned the Crown Dependencies are, at least for these purposes, part of the UK.

In that case almost all that Sir Philip Bailhache writes is straightforwardly wrong and thoroughly misleading, as is his claim that he is writing in his capacity as a lawyer. I doubt that. I think he is writing as a well-known proponent of Jersey becoming independent from the UK. No doubt in that context he would like a constitutional fight with the UK, but it’s one he can’t win, and nor can Jersey. That is because the costs of independence will be far higher when Jersey’s inability to manage its budget – which has now been ongoing for several years – becomes more starkly apparent as events develop over the next few years and Jersey needs every friend it has got to bail it out.

The reality is then that, as I predicted in 2005, Jersey has created a tax system which was always and very obviously going to fail to meet Europe’s requirements. I knew that at the time because unlike Jersey officials I went to Brussels and bothered to ask them. In which case it is now time for Jersey to stop laying down smoke screens and accept the truth which is that this is the time for it to stop abusing international rules on tax and get on and comply with them.

PS Worth reading TJN take on this, here

There’s a fascinating comment on this blog this morning from someone from Guernsey called Doug. It’s thoughtful and considered and concludes:

I agree that [Low Value Consignment Relief VAT abuse] needs to be examined and the government should stop it because it damages the economy in this country and reduces the chances of a fair market in this country, but are we going to evacuate the people who live there like St Kilda, because I’m not sure there would be much left to do for Guernsey people without tax exploitation.

It’s an extraordinary argument – the so called entrepreneurial hub of the Channel Islands can think of nothing to do to make money bar tax exploitation.

First this gives lie to the claim that this facilitates enterprise. It doesn’t. It harms it.

Second, it blows apart the claim that it is entrepreneurial. It isn’t. It is manipulative.

Third, it shows the poverty of thinking in the governments and amongst the so called business leaders of these islands that they can come up with nothing else.

I have, of course. It’s called Plan B. It’s yours to have. But it would require real entrepreneurial belief and moral leadership to do it. Maybe that’s what’s missing. But don’t ever say I didn’t deliver an alternative. Because almost uniquely I have.

And finally – quietly note that just because there might be nothing else for burglars to do does not mean we don’t want to stop the crime. The analogy with tax exploitation is, of course, remarkably close. I put it to you that your argument is morally bankrupt – as morally bankrupt as tax exploitation.