15/01/2010 Spain scrambling to forge accord on savings tax.
Europolitics reports:
Spanish Finance Minister Elena Salgado is having a series of meetings with her EU counterparts to try to hammer out an accord on a revision of the Savings Tax Directive ahead of a Council meeting, on 19 January. EU finance ministers will convene in Brussels to make up ground lost in December 2009, when Austria and Luxembourg put their foot down over the automatic sharing of savers’ bank account information.
Changes to Directive 2003/48/EC were proposed in November 2008 to close loopholes for interest paid via tax-exempt trusts and charities, as well as to include interest payments on life insurance and other complex financial products. The revision is being negotiated alongside anti-fraud agreements with Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Andorra, San Marino and Monaco, as well as two directives on administrative cooperation (COM(2009)29) and tax recovery (COM(2009)28).
Moves to combat tax evasion have intensified since last April’s G20 meeting in London, when the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) published a black list of tax havens, naming and shaming the five non-EU tax centres — alongside Austria, Luxembourg and Belgium — for not following through on promises to sign tax information exchange agreements with at least 12 other countries (the internationally agreed standard).
Austria and Luxembourg — as well as Belgium - have a temporary opt-out under EU savings tax rules, which came into force in 2005, allowing them to continue applying a withholding tax to non-residents’ interest payments, rather than swapping bank account data with other countries. But if Liechtenstein and the other four non-EU states agree to exchange information on request — which is part and parcel of the new anti-fraud agreements — it will trigger the end of the EU’s transitional period. It means Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg will have to switch to automatic data sharing with other EU member states, while Switzerland and the rest of the non-EU jurisdictions will not. Luxembourg is furiously opposed to mandatory data-sharing if foreign tax shelters are not subject to similar rules, while France is pushing to tighten up standards across the board.
Luxembourg's behaviour annoys me intensely. There is only one reason for the European Union Savings Tax Directive: it is designed to stop tax evasion.
In that case it seems to me that Luxembourg is supporting tax evasion.
And that makes me very angry.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Richard,
TR-UK’s never-ending forays into reductio ad absurdum never fail to bring a smile.
Step 1: Create a fact (There is only one reason for the European Union Savings Tax Directive: it is designed to stop tax evasion.)
Step 2: Pronounce guilt based upon the self-created fact (In that case it seems to me that Luxembourg is supporting tax evasion.)
Step 3: Posture furiously (And that makes me very angry.)
Hilarious.
Georges
Georges
No straw man
Nothing in absurdum
Just crime
Which you seem to condone
Why do you do that?
Richard
Richard,
I condone invdividuals keeping the sweat of their brow and/or spreadsheet. “Breaking” laws which are unjust (eg. taxation as curently practiced by many governments around the world) is not a crime, it is an individuals right (bordering on their duty).
Just as I would codone the freedom marchers in the southern US “breaking” laws or refuseniks “breaking” laws behind the old iron curtain.
Tyranny and authoritarianism (even if it is just a little for our own “good”) as practiced today needs it up ’em at every turn.
Georges
@Georges
Can we please confine the meaning of ‘sweat of their brow’ to what is actually earned rather than rent seeking activity.
[…] this is explicitly confirmed. Take this comment on the blog from a right wing libertarian (most of whose comments, I admit, I block): I condone […]
Carol,
It matters not. Who is the arbiter of what “counts” as work activity? There maybe many that consider your line of work to be rent seeking. Watch out for slippery slopes.
Georges
@george
I have no paid employment now but I do actually benefit from renting a flat. Since I paid a fair bit to convert part of my house to a flat, that is not rent seeking because it will take me a long time to recover the outlay (the original purpose was not letting anyway – just not wasting valuable land). Of course as an owner occupier I do benefit enormously from imputed rent, which should be taxed away.
I was employed by a large UK company as an engineer so I certainly never received economic rent from that activity.
Georges
As long as Richard is making you angry, I can be sure he is saying something worth hearing. Why does he allow an apologist for criminals to comment on this site? Certainly, your comments hardly advance whatever shady activities you are attempting to advance!
Richard,
So the fact that a sovereign’s nation democratically elected government defends said nation’s vital interests “intensely annoys” you, or “makes you very angey”.
What is it that you have most contempt for: sovereignty or democracy?
Coming from someone who then posts that “the right wing agenda on tax is a direct attack on democracy”, this is breath-taking.
@Edoaurd (London Expat)
Answer the question: do you think a state should promote criminal activity?
Yes or no?
Banking secrecy does do so, unambiguously
Now say yes, or no
Should Switzerland support crime?
Edouard, I think you need to get a grip here! For example, when Hitler annexed the Sudetenland, he considered he was defending his country’s national interests. I think it was still quite reasonable for others to be angry about this. Of course, Hitler was elected in a democratic system. Do I exhibit contempt for democracy and sovereignty?
You clearly feel that providing money laundering facilities to criminals constitutes defending swiss national interests. Maybe you are correct but I would defend my right to find this objectionable.
Do you consider any objection to any activity by a nation state to be morally unacceptable?
Richard,
No state should sponsor or promote criminal activity.
The problem is that you have not demonstrated that banking secrecy promotes crime, nor is it something that you will be able to conclusively demonstrate.
As per Georges’ first post in this thread (see Step 1), your proclamation of a “fact” or “self-evident truth” does not amount to a fact or the truth itslef.
Banking secrecy ensures individuals’ rights to privacy, a fundamental human right enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
Your constant attacks on this fundamental right shows your disdain for human rights.
How does it feel to be on the side of the abuser?
But surely the point is that Switzerland does not recognise tax evasion as a crime ? Its definition of “criminal activity” is not the same as everyone else’s, and never has been. Of course a state should not promote criminal activity, but if it doesn’t recognise certain activity as being criminal in the first place….
This is really the whole crux of the issue. The rest of the world (just about) deems tax evasion to be a crime but Switzerland doesn’t. Switzerland and its people do not appear interested in recognising it as such. Until they do, then there is a huge roadblock, derailing the EUSTD which everyone else has just about come to terms with.
If the people of Switzerland need a referendum to recognise tax evasion as a crime, then you can bet your bottom dollar (or Swiss Franc !) that they will reject it. So sanctions against Switzerland, or indeed the threat of sanctions, are surely a vital part of the process. That simply has to come from the EU as a whole, although I think its fair to say that the US would be rather keen to help exter extra pressure.
James,
As I have noted on this site before and in private emails with Richard: never angry, always typing away with a smile on my face (sometimes even laughing a bit).
As to shady activities I am trying to advance, just maximum freedom and liberty for the individual.
Georges
James:
I am not sure where you get the idea that I view the promotion of money-laundering. I have written nothing of the sort.
Anyone who has opened an account in Switzerland, or has attempted to deposit funds in these accounts, would know that there are very strict KYC and money-laundering prevention processes in place. (There seems to be very few people on this blog with any sort of relevant experience in the area).
In fact, Swiss authorities are very concerned about the notion that Switzerland somehow facilitates any money-laundering.
But at the same time, Swiss authorities feel they have to balance the legitimate objective of cracking down on criminals with the wider public’s legitimate aspiration to privacy. This is a dilema that is common to all law enforcements activities.
TR-UK blatantly disregards the need to achieve this balance, and this is wrong.
@Edouard (London Expat)
I can happily say all you have said is untrue
Tax evasion is not a predicate offence for money laundering in Switzerland so the two are unlinked
You can money launder by handling stolen taxation revenues in Switzerland and a blind eye can be turned because the law has been constructed to ensure this is possible
So all your KYC arrangements prove is you know who is money laundering – about which you then take no action
That makes you double complicit
And also shows how grossly incorrect all you say on here is
Or that you are horribly, horribly ill informed
In either case your further comments will be blocked