Lisbon will allow the EU to force tax harmonisation?

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

So you therefore assume there is no CCCTB non legislative proposal?
Why don't you 'google' why there was no proposal in 2008?



I'm surprised at you Lenny. I thought I had actually met someone from the Yes side who didn't depend on the 'Everyone who votes No has to be a supporter of Libertas, Sinn Fein etc. etc.' argument to back up their position. I have quoted directly from the Treaty to back up every point I made but, as usual, the perception that the No side haven't got the intellect to have with their own opinion prevails. Biggest mistake the Yes side made last time!

And from Seanie:
PS From the AH thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sam vimes
Fair enough http://static.boards.ie/vbulletin/im...lies/smile.gif

This from the guy who has yet to back up his opinion with any relevant link to the Treaty!

So, guys, you can all pat yourselves on the back and assume amongst yourselves that ye have proved your point. I'm not going to waste any more time in this pseudo debate.

Well you could post the relevant part of Article 116 to prove your point.

You have yet to prove it, not our fault.

Scofflaw

whatisayis wrote: »

So you therefore assume there is no CCCTB non legislative proposal?

Well, the only suggestion that there is such a thing is currently yours, and you haven't actually linked to it, so, you know, we don't have any evidence it exists. It's convenient for your argument to say that there's a non-legislative proposal, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it - not via Google, not on the CCCTB Working Group pages on Europa. Where else, exactly, would it be? After all, I'm an atheist - I don't assume things exist.

whatisayis wrote: »

Why don't you 'google' why there was no proposal in 2008?

You may take your pick - Kovacs said there was more work to be done, other people said it was because Barroso didn't want it around when making his bid for re-election as President of the Commission. Then there was no hope of it happening under the Czech Presidency because the Czechs are opposed to it, and then the Commission will be retiring.

If that's intended to cast some sort of aspersion on me looking unsuccessfully for the non-legislative proposal using Google, I wouldn't be doing that if you were able to simply show us where it is.

whatisayis wrote: »

I'm surprised at you Lenny. I thought I had actually met someone from the Yes side who didn't depend on the 'Everyone who votes No has to be a supporter of Libertas, Sinn Fein etc. etc.' argument to back up their position. I have quoted directly from the Treaty to back up every point I made but, as usual, the perception that the No side haven't got the intellect to have their own opinion prevails. Biggest mistake the Yes side made last time!

And from Seanie:
PS From the AH thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sam vimes
Fair enough http://static.boards.ie/vbulletin/im...lies/smile.gif

This from the guy who has yet to back up his opinion with any relevant link to the Treaty!

So, guys, you can all pat yourselves on the back and assume amongst yourselves that ye have proved your point. I'm not going to waste any more time in this pseudo debate.

You've claimed that there's a non-legislative proposal but haven't shown it (and sneered at me for trying to find it), claimed Article 94 TEC isn't applicable despite the CCCTB working group saying that's what a Directive would be issued under, routinely linked CCCTB to Lisbon despite agreeing that there's nothing in Lisbon that affects it - and the whole business, wherever the goal posts may now be, is based on your idiosyncratic interpretation of some Article or other, except that we don't know which one because you keep shifting the basis of your claim to different Articles.

Your whole argument appears (as far as I can tell, that is) to be that CCCTB is bad, you're sure the EU can impose it on us because they're like that, and you reckon they can do it even though you don't actually know how. It's a pity you apparently can't either back that position up or change it. As to proving our point, I don't think we had one to prove.

ta-ta,
Scofflaw

whatisayis

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, the only suggestion that there is such a thing is currently yours, and you haven't actually linked to it, so, you know, we don't have any evidence it exists. It's convenient for your argument to say that there's a non-legislative proposal, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence of it - not via Google, not on the CCCTB Working Group pages on Europa. Where else, exactly, would it be? After all, I'm an atheist - I don't assume things exist.

Just as a matter of interest, why would the parliament adopt a position on a non-existant proposal? Or do you think they haven't adopted a position?
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5254622

Scofflaw wrote: »

interpretation of some Article or other, except that we don't know which one because you keep shifting the basis of your claim to different Articles.

From the start I said Article 116 as implemented by Article 294. I once mentioned Article 114 purely to encourage debate. Which other articles are you claiming I referred to?

Scofflaw wrote: »

Your whole argument appears (as far as I can tell, that is) to be that CCCTB is bad, you're sure the EU can impose it on us because they're like that, and you reckon they can do it even though you don't actually know how. It's a pity you apparently can't either back that position up or change it. As to proving our point, I don't think we had one to prove.

Thats a rather infantile supposition, quite unbecoming of you if I may say.

Scofflaw

whatisayis wrote: »

Just as a matter of interest, why would the parliament adopt a position on a non-existant proposal? Or do you think they haven't adopted a position?
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5254622

I'm going to be blunt. If that is the "non-legislative proposal" you have been touting as superseding the CCCTB working group position, then you are an idiot.

First, an EP non-legislative report, or an EP non-legislative resolution, can be taken at any time on the basis of work the Commission is doing. It can be done on the basis of a Commission suggestion, and it can be done without the Commission doing anything whatsoever. It is the "opinion" of the Parliament - neither more nor less. It is certainly not a Commission non-legislative proposal, and it is also not part of the co-decision process.

Further, more importantly, and something that I hope you're going to have the decency to be embarrassed about - the reports in question has a date on it. That date is in 2005. The CCCTB Working Group position paper you believe this non-legislative 'proposal' (sic) supersedes is from late 2007. You do the arithmetic.

whatisayis wrote: »

From the start I said Article 116 as implemented by Article 294. I once mentioned Article 114 purely to encourage debate. Which other articles are you claiming I referred to?

Read back over the thread if you've forgotten.

whatisayis wrote: »

Thats a rather infantile supposition, quite unbecoming of you if I may say.

What's an infantile supposition? That you don't appear to know what kind of documents you're citing? That you didn't even bother to check dates on the barely relevant documents you cite?

Really, what a waste of effort this has been.

regards,
Scofflaw

whatisayis

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm going to be blunt. If that is the "non-legislative proposal" you have been touting as superseding the CCCTB working group position, then you are an idiot.
regards,
Scofflaw

As I am neither a politician or a lawyer I do not exactly know the inner workings of the EU. While to you that may make my opinions not as valid as yours, I don't appreciate you calling me an idiot.

K-9

whatisayis wrote: »

As I am neither a politician or a lawyer I do not exactly know the inner workings of the EU. While to you that may make my opinions not as valid as yours, I don't appreciate you calling me an idiot.

Tbh, you seem to be a tad sensitive there, despite your earlier post.

I think people are just exasperated at this stage.

Hitman Actual

whatisayis wrote: »

I'm surprised at you Lenny. I thought I had actually met someone from the Yes side who didn't depend on the 'Everyone who votes No has to be a supporter of Libertas, Sinn Fein etc. etc.' argument to back up their position. I have quoted directly from the Treaty to back up every point I made but, as usual, the perception that the No side haven't got the intellect to have their own opinion prevails. Biggest mistake the Yes side made last time!

That wasn't meant to be condescending. The only other place where I thought I'd seen a reference to Article 116 and corporation tax was on Libertas' "8 Reasons to Vote No". On a re-check it was actually Article 113 (the indirect tax article) that they were quoting. Apologies if I caused offense. In fairness, any sources you've supplied have been reputable.

Scofflaw

whatisayis wrote: »

As I am neither a politician or a lawyer I do not exactly know the inner workings of the EU. While to you that may make my opinions not as valid as yours, I don't appreciate you calling me an idiot.

Hmm. You don't have to be either a politician or a lawyer to understand that a document issued two years before another cannot possibly supersede the latter. Nor can it be said that an opinion issued in 2005 could possibly be referring to a proposal that postdates the working group's position in late 2007. I shouldn't even have to point this out - yet here I am, having to point this out. There are only two options - either you don't understand the nature of time, or you were so keen for there to be a document that allowed you to dismiss the working group's point that you simply grabbed whatever came to hand without checking the date.

Is there any reason why you should be given infinite benefit of the doubt while you continue trying to fit the evidence to your conclusion in that way? Is it unreasonable to ask you to go and construct a coherent case first - or to take on board evidence that you are presented with, even if it does contradict your view?

If you want to come to a genuine understanding of what is possible in respect of CCCTB implementation through the Treaties, then you are going to have to accept that you won't do it by sneering at the other posters and dismissing what they say. There is a genuine willingness to assist, but this is not a customer service department. Nobody is being paid to put up with you, or be any more polite to you than common courtesy dictates - and common courtesy does not dictate that I not call you an idiot if you are behaving like one.

94 TEC is the Article under which any EU legislation implementing CCCTB would fall. That is the statement by the CCCTB working group, that is the view of every tax institute out there, it is the Article under which the other judgements you refer to have been taken. None of that is superseded by a European Parliament opinion made two years before.

If you cannot accept evidence, there is no point to discussion, because it will inevitably go round in circles...exactly as this thread has been doing. At this stage it's like polishing water, and makes just as much sense.

regards,
Scofflaw

Sam Vimes

I'm soooooooo glad I forgot about this thread :P

So what have we decided? Will the treaty allow forced tax harmonisation?

Scofflaw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm soooooooo glad I forgot about this thread :P

So what have we decided? Will the treaty allow forced tax harmonisation?

You should probably now consider yourself as virtually clutching your privates and gasping "what did I do?".

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I'm soooooooo glad I forgot about this thread :P

So what have we decided? Will the treaty allow forced tax harmonisation?

In short, the answer is No, the treaty will not allow forced tax harmonisation. However, the "small matter" of what is actually written in the actual EU Treaties won't stop the No side from claiming that it will force tax harmonisation. After all, it is as good a "stick" as any to beat the Yes side with, so why should they stop using it?

Sam Vimes

View wrote: »

In short, the answer is No, the treaty will not allow forced tax harmonisation. However, the "small matter" of what is actually written in the actual EU Treaties won't stop the No side from claiming that it will force tax harmonisation. After all, it is as good a "stick" as any to beat the Yes side with, so why should they stop using it?

you don't have to convince me. i started this thread because i'd spent weeks trying to convince someone else of it and i wanted other people to give it a go

View

Sam Vimes wrote: »

you don't have to convince me. i started this thread because i'd spent weeks trying to convince someone else of it and i wanted other people to give it a go

My apologies Sam. I was trying to give you a straight answer to your question.

whatisayis

lenny_leonard wrote: »

That wasn't meant to be condescending. The only other place where I thought I'd seen a reference to Article 116 and corporation tax was on Libertas' "8 Reasons to Vote No". On a re-check it was actually Article 113 (the indirect tax article) that they were quoting. Apologies if I caused offense. In fairness, any sources you've supplied have been reputable.

Thanks Lenny - an honourable Man! As you seem to be the most knowlegable on the Treaty, can I ask you one last question to get this straight finally:

A proposal for CCCTB cannot be submitted under Lisbon Article 116 because the current proposal is based on Article 94 or because 116 would not apply for other reasons?

For example, if Lisbon is ratified, Article 94 would cease to apply. Under Lisbon Article 293 any proposal that has not been actioned by the council can be amended by the commission at any time during the procedure. Could they amend it to refer to Article 116 TFEU?

Scofflaw

whatisayis wrote: »

Thanks Lenny - an honourable Man! As you seem to be the most knowlegable on the Treaty, can I ask you one last question to get this straight finally:

A proposal for CCCTB cannot be submitted under Lisbon Article 116 because the current proposal is based on Article 94 or because 116 would not apply for other reasons?

For example, if Lisbon is ratified, Article 94 would cease to apply. Under Lisbon Article 293 any proposal that has not been actioned by the council can be amended by the commission at any time during the procedure. Could they amend it to refer to Article 116 TFEU?

They could amend it to refer to the Gospel of St John if they liked - the question is whether the Article they referred to would give the necessary legislative basis for action. And why on earth would "Article 94 cease to apply"?

Here's Article 94 (Nice):

Article 94 (Nice)

The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, issue directives for the approximation of such laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the Member States as directly affect the establishment or functioning of the common market.

and here's the same article in Lisbon, renumbered as 115:

Article 94 -> 115 (Lisbon)

Without prejudice to Article 114, the Council shall, acting unanimously in accordance with a special legislative procedure and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, issue directives for the approximation of such laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the Member States as directly affect the establishment or functioning of the internal market.

What is it about the second version that leads you to believe that Article 94 will suddenly cease to apply? Do you mean that because the reference in the text will be - literally, now - to Article 94 TEC, it will no longer apply because that article will now be - literally, again - Article 115?

As to using Article 116 (Lisbon) instead, Article 116 (Lisbon) is Article 96 (Nice). Let's compare the two:

Article 96 (Nice)

Where the Commission finds that a difference between the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States is distorting the conditions of competition in the common market and that the resultant distortion needs to be eliminated, it shall consult the Member States concerned.
If such consultation does not result in an agreement eliminating the distortion in question, the Council shall, on a proposal from the Commission, acting by a qualified majority, issue the necessary directives. The Commission and the Council may take any other appropriate measures provided for in this Treaty.

versus:

Article 96 -> 116 (Lisbon)

Where the Commission finds that a difference between the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States is distorting the conditions of competition in the internal market and that the resultant distortion needs to be eliminated, it shall consult the Member States concerned.
If such consultation does not result in an agreement eliminating the distortion in question, the European, Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, shall issue the necessary directives. Any other appropriate measures provided for in the Treaties may be adopted.

There is absolutely nothing whatsoever in the Lisbon version that provides the Commission with any capacity or legislative route it does not already have under Nice.

Therefore, if 94 TEC were the "problem" with CCCTB - that is, the reason the Commission cannot implement it as it wants to - and that problem could be solved under Lisbon by changing the basis of the Directive to Article 116, then that problem can be solved right now by changing the basis of the CCCTB Directive from 94 TEC to 96 TEC under Nice.

Why has it not been, we ask ourselves? Well, because while national corporate tax base laws definitely "directly affect the establishment or functioning of the internal market" (94 TEC/115 Lisbon), the argument that they are "distorting the conditions of competition in the internal market" (96 TEC/116 Lisbon) is one that has never been made by the Commission. To my knowledge, it's only been made here.

On a side note, it's interesting the way that reference is made to Article 94 TEC (Nice) on the one hand, and Article 116 (Lisbon) on the other, when it's clear that one could equally well refer to 94 and 96 Nice or 115 and 116 Lisbon. The implication, of course, is that Lisbon advances CCCTB, even though 116 Lisbon is 96 Nice.

Will some swift EU law hocus-pocus,
Allow a quick change in the focus,
Of CCCTB
From 94 TEC
Or is the whole question quite bogus?


regards,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

whatisayis wrote: »

Thanks Lenny - an honourable Man! As you seem to be the most knowlegable on the Treaty...

Far from it, I'm still playing catch-up to Scofflaw and sink and a few others.

whatisayis wrote: »

A proposal for CCCTB cannot be submitted under Lisbon Article 116 because the current proposal is based on Article 94 or because 116 would not apply for other reasons?

At this stage it's fair to assume that Article 116 (or 96 TEC) does not apply to CCCTB. The legal base for direct taxation has always been through Article 94 TEC; Article 96 (116 ToL) has never been used. If there was any legal base for Article 96 TEC in direct taxation legislation, it would have been used by now.

whatisayis wrote: »

For example, if Lisbon is ratified, Article 94 would cease to apply. Under Lisbon Article 293 any proposal that has not been actioned by the council can be amended by the commission at any time during the procedure. Could they amend it to refer to Article 116 TFEU?

A few things here: First of all, there hasn't been a CCCTB legislative proposal yet, so there's nothing to be amended. Secondly, Lisbon is just an amending Treaty, which then effectively disappears, so all working group references to TEC/TFEU articles are just updated to their new Article number. There's nothing of significance there.

In addition to what Scofflaw has covered, there's a good analysis of the changes between Nice/Lisbon (in these relevant articles) over on the Grahnlaw blog.

Your belief seems to be that the forthcoming CCCTB proposal by the Commission may use Article 96 TEC/116 ToL as the legal base instead of Article 94TEC/115 ToL. For a couple of reasons that's pretty much impossible:

1. The main one, obviously, is that Article 94 TEC/115 ToL is the legal base for direct tax legislation. The CCCTB WG have been working since 2001, and have acknowledged this.
2. Political reasons: Using 96 TEC/116 ToL would be seen as a move by the Commission to bypass the unanimity status guaranteed to member states by 94TEC. It would be extremely damaging to the EU, would never get Council/Parliment approval, and in any case wouldn't have a legal base anyway! People need to stop thinking of the Commission as a body who just propose legislation left, right and center to achieve the aims of integration. In reality, they have to seriously consider the political sensitivities of member states, and also of what they can propose in line with the Treaties (as with Article 94 here), or nothing would ever get done.

Honestly, Article 116 is a moot point here. It simply wont happen

whatisayis

Scofflaw wrote: »

:Why has it not been, we ask ourselves? Well, because while national corporate tax base laws definitely "directly affect the establishment or functioning of the internal market" (94 TEC/115 Lisbon), the argument that they are "distorting the conditions of competition in the internal market" (96 TEC/116 Lisbon) is one that has never been made by the Commission. To my knowledge, it's only been made here.
regards,
Scofflaw

And here:

"F. whereas an appropriate EU-level tax coordination that does not attempt to harmonise tax rates can contribute to avoiding distortions of competition and can generate benefits that can be widely shared between undertakings, their employees and consumers, Member States and citizens,"

Source: Texts adopted by the European Parliament 15/01/08
P6 TA(2008)0008

Hitman Actual

whatisayis wrote: »

And here:

"F. whereas an appropriate EU-level tax coordination that does not attempt to harmonise tax rates can contribute to avoiding distortions of competition and can generate benefits that can be widely shared between undertakings, their employees and consumers, Member States and citizens,"

Source: Texts adopted by the European Parliament 15/01/08
P6 TA(2008)0008

No, you're just clutching at straws now. You've pulled that from this link here, but there's no logical tie-in to Article 96 TEC/116 ToL. This is just a Parliament resolution on "Tax treatment of losses in cross-border situations". They may be talking about "distortions of competitions", but they're just referring generally to any area which causes same in the scope of this particular resolution, nothing specific to Article 96/116. In fact, if you follow the document trail from where they reference CCCTB – having regard to the Commission communication on Implementing the Community Programme for improved growth and employment and the enhanced competitiveness of EU business: Further Progress during 2006 and next steps towards a proposal on the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) (COM(2007)0223)- you'll find that the CCCTB working group still hasn't even mentioned Article 94 TEC yet in their progress. That comes in a later CCCTB WG Progress Report, in 2007. So the Parliament isn't even referring to any declaration on Articles used as a CCCTB legal base.

Scofflaw

lenny_leonard wrote:

No, you're just clutching at straws now. You've pulled that from this link here, but there's no logical tie-in to Article 96 TEC/116 ToL. This is just a Parliament resolution on "Tax treatment of losses in cross-border situations". They may be talking about "distortions of competitions", but they're just referring generally to any area which causes same in the scope of this particular resolution, nothing specific to Article 96/116. In fact, if you follow the document trail from where they reference CCCTB – having regard to the Commission communication on Implementing the Community Programme for improved growth and employment and the enhanced competitiveness of EU business: Further Progress during 2006 and next steps towards a proposal on the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB) (COM(2007)0223)- you'll find that the CCCTB working group still hasn't even mentioned Article 94 TEC yet in their progress. That comes in a later CCCTB WG Progress Report, in 2007. So the Parliament isn't even referring to any declaration on Articles used as a CCCTB legal base.

In a nutshell, this post shows the difficulties faced by the Yes side in an EU referendum. Four pages of posts, some extremely detailed research, cross-checking of sources - all to definitively answer "will Lisbon allow the EU to force tax harmonisation?" in the negative. Yet we know that some time in the next couple of weeks someone on boards.ie will inevitably simply repeat the claim that it does - and come any Lisbon II referendum there will be thousands of such claims.

gloomily,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

In a nutshell, this post shows the difficulties faced by the Yes side in an EU referendum. Four pages of posts, some extremely detailed research, cross-checking of sources - all to definitively answer "will Lisbon allow the EU to force tax harmonisation?" in the negative. Yet we know that some time in the next couple of weeks someone on boards.ie will inevitably simply repeat the claim that it does - and come any Lisbon II referendum there will be thousands of such claims.

gloomily,
Scofflaw

Yep, the taxation one especially annoys me. It seems to be a case of everybody else is wrong, except me.

Seanies32

Hitman Actual

Scofflaw wrote: »

In a nutshell, this post shows the difficulties faced by the Yes side in an EU referendum. Four pages of posts, some extremely detailed research, cross-checking of sources - all to definitively answer "will Lisbon allow the EU to force tax harmonisation?" in the negative. Yet we know that some time in the next couple of weeks someone on boards.ie will inevitably simply repeat the claim that it does - and come any Lisbon II referendum there will be thousands of such claims.

gloomily,
Scofflaw

It's depressing alright, but I would hope threads like this will sway first-time 'marginal-No' voters, who should be more amenable to the facts this time around, given the importance of the referendum. Also, it's good to have a common-sense discussion on CCCTB, rather than the usual sinister allegations that the evil EU plans to control our corporation tax rate.

View

whatisayis wrote: »

And here:

"F. whereas an appropriate EU-level tax coordination that does not attempt to harmonise tax rates can contribute to avoiding distortions of competition and can generate benefits that can be widely shared between undertakings, their employees and consumers, Member States and citizens,"

Source: Texts adopted by the European Parliament 15/01/08
P6 TA(2008)0008

So, the "tax harmonisation" would not harmonise tax rates - what then is the problem? Are we all upset because accountants might have to use the same rules for preparing accounts or what?

K-9

View wrote: »

So, the "tax harmonisation" would not harmonise tax rates - what then is the problem? Are we all upset because accountants might have to use the same rules for preparing accounts or what?

Actually, that is very simplistic. Our tax rules are just as important as our rates.

View

K-9 wrote: »

Actually, that is very simplistic. Our tax rules are just as important as our rates.

I was being deliberately simplistic. I have read about CCCTB in detail (It's on the EU website) - all the member states have agreed so far is they will switch to using International Accounting Standards and phase out the 27 old national standards, thus making life easier for just about everyone. The member states are also discussing whether small businesses exporting/operating in more than one member state could file their accounts with the tax authorities in their home state rather than having to file multiple accounts for each state they operate in, thus saving the small businesses a lot of grief. That particular idea is still at discussion stage as the member states are probably all trying to figure out the impact (if any) on their finances. In other words, don't get too excited any time soon.

whatisayis

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, let's deal with that bit first - I refer you back to the report of the CCCTB working group:

Quote:
III. Basic structure of a possible CCCTB
1. General form
7. A proposal for a CCCTB would take the form of a proposal for a Directive under Art. 94 ECT, which requires unanimity in the Council. It will be impossible to lay down every detailed rule in the basic instrument. The Directive should therefore provide for implementing measures to be adopted under the Comitology Decision.
It's possible that the CCCTB working group are simply wrong, of course, and we are free to ignore what they say and make up our own minds. It isn't what you might call likely, though.
cordially,
Scofflaw

lenny_leonard wrote: »

You may think it should be Article 116, but it's not. And I'm not going to do the work on this one, because I know that the legal base for CCCTB is Article 94 TEC,

If you had read the footnotes to the above report you would have seen:

III. Basic structure of a possible CCCTB

1. General form

7. A proposal for a CCCTB would2 take the form of a proposal for a Directive under Art. 94 ECT, which requires unanimity in the Council3. It will be impossible to lay down every detailed rule in the basic instrument. The Directive should therefore provide for implementing measures to be adopted under the Comitology Decision

2 Although the terms "would", "should", etc are used throughout this document, it should be emphasised that this document simply outlines Commission Services' preliminary ideas and does not engage the Commission politically.

3 There is no legal basis for a regulation as suggested by some commentators.

So therefore the Commission are not limiting themselves to introducing CCCTB based on Article 94.

Scofflaw

whatisayis wrote: »

If you had read the footnotes to the above report you would have seen:

III. Basic structure of a possible CCCTB

1. General form

7. A proposal for a CCCTB would2 take the form of a proposal for a Directive under Art. 94 ECT, which requires unanimity in the Council3. It will be impossible to lay down every detailed rule in the basic instrument. The Directive should therefore provide for implementing measures to be adopted under the Comitology Decision

2 Although the terms "would", "should", etc are used throughout this document, it should be emphasised that this document simply outlines Commission Services' preliminary ideas and does not engage the Commission politically.

3 There is no legal basis for a regulation as suggested by some commentators.

So therefore the Commission are not limiting themselves to introducing CCCTB based on Article 94.

Sure, I've read the footnotes - but that's like pointing out that evolution is "just a theory" or that "nothing is really certain". It remains the case that the Commission has no suggested alternative legal basis, and that the only person to suggest it might be based on Article 96 Nice as opposed to 94 Nice is you.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

whatisayis wrote: »

So therefore the Commission are not limiting themselves to introducing CCCTB based on Article 94.

That may be true, but all the evidence thus far points to the fact that Article 94 will be used. Have you been able to offer anything of substance to indicate otherwise? The answer to that is an emphatic, resounding 'No'. I'm pretty much done with this thread; you clearly have nothing left to argue, although I'm sure you'll keep persisting anyway. But at this stage it's only an exercise in time wasting- there's no point in arguing with someone who won't admit that they're wrong.

whatisayis

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sure, I've read the footnotes - but that's like pointing out that evolution is "just a theory" or that "nothing is really certain". It remains the case that the Commission has no suggested alternative legal basis, and that the only person to suggest it might be based on Article 96 Nice as opposed to 94 Nice is you.
cordially,
Scofflaw

"There is no legal basis for a regulation as suggested by some commentators."

I don't see the words 'suggested alternative' in that note. Maybe the
EU tax commission just add footnotes that don't actually mean anything? Interesting concept.

The commission, the parliament and other member states are of the opinion that the corporate tax base should be consolidated in order to prevent distortion in the internal market yet you seem to be of the opinion this could not be a basis for introduction of the CCCTB proposal. I agree that it could be introduced under Article 94 at present, but the fact remains that under Lisbon, in conjunction with the changes to QMV in several other related areas, it could be introduced under Article 116. As pointed out to me, no proposal has yet been put forward so therefore there is nothing that legally ties it to Article 94.

Found an interesting article from the Sunday Times:

"Sections of the briefing relating to corporation tax have been blacked out under a Freedom of Information Act exemption, but the note reveals that officials expect the European commission to make a proposal on the issue later this year when France takes over the European Council presidency. The note says Ireland is “also under pressure to change various elements of our tax code in relation to which they argue we are infringing either treaty or directive provisions”.
Ireland’s corporation tax of 12.5% has been cited as the main reason why so many multinationals have been attracted here, but other governments believe the rate distorts the EU market."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4088313.ece

There is nothing more for me to say here on this issue so I'll leave it at that.

Scofflaw

whatisayis wrote: »

"There is no legal basis for a regulation as suggested by some commentators."

I don't see the words 'suggested alternative' in that note. Maybe the
EU tax commission just add footnotes that don't actually mean anything? Interesting concept.

That refers to a Regulation as opposed to a Directive, not to the Article that would form the legal basis of the legislation.

whatisayis wrote: »

The commission, the parliament and other member states are of the opinion that the corporate tax base should be consolidated in order to prevent distortion in the internal market yet you seem to be of the opinion this could not be a basis for introduction of the CCCTB proposal. I agree that it could be introduced under Article 94 at present, but the fact remains that under Lisbon, in conjunction with the changes to QMV in several other related areas, it could be introduced under Article 116. As pointed out to me, no proposal has yet been put forward so therefore there is nothing that legally ties it to Article 94.

First, nobody but you has suggested Article 96 TEC/116 Lisbon as a basis - full stop. You're completely on your own there - and the more so because if, as you claim, the references to "distortion" are meaningful, then Article 96 TEC/116 Lisbon, which deals with that, should have been raised as a possible legal basis. It hasn't been - not by any commentator, reputable or otherwise.

Second, you continue to refer to 116 Lisbon as opposed to 96 TEC. The articles are identical, and I have to say at this point it's clear you're trying to use that to tie CCCTB to Lisbon - spuriously, because Lisbon isn't relevant to the claim you're making.

whatisayis wrote: »

Found an interesting article from the Sunday Times:

"Sections of the briefing relating to corporation tax have been blacked out under a Freedom of Information Act exemption, but the note reveals that officials expect the European commission to make a proposal on the issue later this year when France takes over the European Council presidency. The note says Ireland is “also under pressure to change various elements of our tax code in relation to which they argue we are infringing either treaty or directive provisions”.
Ireland’s corporation tax of 12.5% has been cited as the main reason why so many multinationals have been attracted here, but other governments believe the rate distorts the EU market."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4088313.ece

There is nothing more for me to say here on this issue so I'll leave it at that.

You haven't really said anything more for several posts now - you're simply repeating your view that Article 96 TEC could be used, even though no other source agrees with that view.

regards,
Scofflaw