The current Government led by Theresa May has noticeably failed to bake any “Brexit dividend” into its policies for the coming 5-year Parliament. This is concerning because it may indicate either that they have not yet figured out the sources and extent of the financial benefits from Brexit, or that they are not going to pursue the negotiations with the EU in order to garner them, or both.
Summary
The EU is a dysfunctional organisation in the area of corporate taxes because:
1. the EU Commission is not able to prevent EU countries such as Ireland, Belgium and Luxembourg operating as tax havens (this is because member states have not conferred legislative competence on the EU over direct taxation), and
EU law and direct taxes
The UK, in common with other EU member states, has not conferred any authority on the EU for direct taxes. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) assumed this authority in the late 1990s by adopting a more expansive interpretation of the fundamental freedoms.The staggering cost of EU law tax litigationOne of the consequences of being a member of the EU is that EU law is superior to English law. Large UK based companies are, therefore, able to use EU law, and EU courts, to retrospectively challenge the legality of the tax laws enacted by Parliament. This is highly profitable form of activity for large UK companies and their advisors, which is costing the UK Government tens of billions. When UK companies challenge the legality of the UK’s tax laws under EU law they know they are “knocking at an open door”, because the CJEU is keen to expand its authority over Member States under the guise of “ironing out inefficiencies” in the operation of the single market.
HMRC has set aside £55bn to cover the potential cost of the litigation in which it is involved. There are two reasons why this figure is so large. First in a number of cases involving EU law, UK companies are able to reclaim corporate taxes, dating as far back as 1973. Second, EU law requires the UK Government to pay compound interest on these claims. In the Littlewoods case, a claim of £208m, covering the period from 1973 to 2004, cost the Exchequer £1.2bn when compound interest was included. The UK Government had previously estimated that the Franked Investment Income case (C-362/12) would cost £5-7bn. However, this case could easily cost the Exchequer £30bn when compound interest is included, as it covers the period from 1973 to 1999.
The sole aim of Tax Reform is to get in more taxes.
The UK is running a large deficit between what it receive in taxes and what it spends on services. Albeit money is cheap, it cannot go on for ever. With money so cheap it is an ideal time to make changes.
