{"id":8880,"date":"2011-02-15T15:32:58","date_gmt":"2011-02-15T13:32:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/?p=8880"},"modified":"2011-02-15T17:51:08","modified_gmt":"2011-02-15T15:51:08","slug":"jersey-to-keep-zero-ten-but-with-the-abusive-bits-taken-out-and-an-unsustainable-budget-deficit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2011\/02\/15\/jersey-to-keep-zero-ten-but-with-the-abusive-bits-taken-out-and-an-unsustainable-budget-deficit\/","title":{"rendered":"Jersey to keep zero \/ ten &#8211; but with the abusive bits taken out and an unsustainable budget deficit"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/www.channelonline.tv\/channelonline\/DisplayArticle.asp?ID=493049\">Channel TV has reported<\/a>:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Jersey's Chief Minister has announced that the most controversial part of the Zero 10 tax policy - 'deemed distribution', will be abolished from 1st January 2012.<br style=\"padding: 0px; margin: 0px;\" \/><br style=\"padding: 0px; margin: 0px;\" \/>The move is in response to concerns raised by the EU Code Group, who regulate tax in Europe.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>This move was obviously timed to coincide with the Isle of Man budget.<\/p>\n<p>There is no doubt that the new arrangemnt meets the EU's requirements. I can't argue worth that. But the sting is in the tail, as Channel TV also expolains<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p><br style=\"padding: 0px; margin: 0px;\" \/>From today, by abolishing the deemed distribution rules, Jersey shareholders in Jersey companies will be taxed in exactly the same way as non-local shareholders - that means they will be paying tax on the dividend actually received - not on the company's overall profits.<br style=\"padding: 0px; margin: 0px;\" \/><br style=\"padding: 0px; margin: 0px;\" \/>The move is expected to cost the Treasury \u00a310 million a year in lost tax, but it is thought that money will be recouped when the companies are sold, the shareholder dies or leaves Jersey - in other words they might just collect the tax later than expected. <br style=\"padding: 0px; margin: 0px;\" \/><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Candidly, that's wildly optimistic. Did Jersey really fight so long just to keep \u00a310 million pa? I doubt it, a lot. The deemed distribution rules are, I'm sure worth more than that so the loss will be much more each year, at least for a while. And behaviourally as well it is obvious that abuse will now rise  - the number of new companies in the UK jumped by 40% when a modest 0% tax option was given in 2003. But this is an option to be taxed at will. The loss will be much higher. And as Channel says again:<\/p>\n<blockquote>\n<p>Zero 10 has cost the islands tens of millions in corporate tax receipts and brought protestors out onto the streets in Jersey. <br style=\"padding: 0px; margin: 0px;\" \/><br style=\"padding: 0px; margin: 0px;\" \/>Those protestors say it has left both islands with financial deficits which have to be filled by tax rises and spending cuts.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<p>Quite.<\/p>\n<p>Jersey Uncut coming your way soon, I suspect.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Channel TV has reported: Jersey&#8217;s Chief Minister has announced that the most controversial part of the Zero 10 tax policy &#8211; &#8216;deemed distribution&#8217;, will be<br \/><a class=\"moretag\" href=\"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2011\/02\/15\/jersey-to-keep-zero-ten-but-with-the-abusive-bits-taken-out-and-an-unsustainable-budget-deficit\/\"><em> Read the full article&#8230;<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8880","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-isle-of-man","category-jersey"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8880","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8880"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8880\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8880"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8880"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8880"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}