|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 29 2016 01:55 LegalLord wrote:Any further details about the nature of disagreements?
Given a German article I read earlier today some of the bigger gripes for Gabriel and the Social Democrats in general seem to be the arbitration court mechanism and the fact that public procedurements on the American market don't seem to be open to European companies
|
On August 29 2016 02:00 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2016 01:55 LegalLord wrote:Any further details about the nature of disagreements? Given a German article I read earlier today some of the bigger gripes for Gabriel and the Social Democrats in general seem to be the arbitration court mechanism and the fact that public procedurements on the American market don't seem to be open to European companies I read agriculture as well so probably GMO and European subsidies.
|
France266 Posts
On August 29 2016 02:00 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2016 01:55 LegalLord wrote:Any further details about the nature of disagreements? Given a German article I read earlier today some of the bigger gripes for Gabriel and the Social Democrats in general seem to be the arbitration court mechanism and the fact that public procedurements on the American market don't seem to be open to European companies
Yeah, the US and EU seem to be irreconcilable on these two issues. What made the public procedurements issue even worst is that the US could only put the federal procurements on the negotiation table, not the state governements' procurements. Which was obviously a major source of inbalance in whatever deal would come out of these discussions.
But we shoudn't celebrate this soon, and lower our guards. So far, we only have the word of Sigmar Gabriel.
|
On August 29 2016 00:29 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2016 00:26 OtherWorld wrote:On August 29 2016 00:16 WhiteDog wrote:V-I-C-T-O-R-YA good news once in a while is not that bad ! Now can we enforce some regulation to protect the environment, workers rights and favor the redistribution of wealth please ? No comments on how the EU is a corrupt organization sold to American liberalism this time? (; The EU is a corrupt organization sold to liberalism (not american). The german form of liberalism (ordoliberalism) is quite different from the american form of liberalism, and might be the reason why the TIPP failed. The US had a lot to lose in this treaty too ; we europeans like to believe ourselves to be superior but some of our demands (in regard to state financed infrastructures for exemple) were in total contradiction with what the US is currently doing. OtherWorld reading you more and more, I've grown to be quite a fan of you, and I don't despair to see you in the street asking for the end of the euro in the years to come ! Lol, thanks, I guess xD
|
(Reuters) - The European Union's executive said on Monday it had a unanimous mandate from the bloc's 28 members to finalise negotiations on a free trade deal with the United States, a day after Germany's economy minister said the talks had "de facto failed".
Sigmar Gabriel of Germany, the EU's biggest economy, said on Sunday that negotiations over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) had failed because Europe rejected some U.S. demands.
Asked to comment on Gabriel's remarks, a European Commission spokesman said "the ball is still rolling" on TTIP.
"Although trade talks take time, the ball is rolling right now and the Commission is making steady progress in the ongoing TTIP negotiations," Margaritis Schinas told a news conference.
"Talks are now indeed entering crucial stage as we have proposals for almost all chapters on the table and a good sense of the outline of the future agreement."
In Berlin, Germany's leading industry associations were critical of Gabriel's remarks and urged the German government to show greater commitment to free trade deals.
The head of industry association BDI, Ulrich Grillo, said it was "astonishing" that Gabriel, who is also vice chancellor and head of the co-governing Social Democrats, had declared the TTIP talks a failure when negotiations were still going on.
Top officials of other industry associations such as VDMA and the Auto Industry Association VDA also spoke out against Gabriel's comments which highlight growing divisions within Chancellor Angela Merkel's ruling coalition ahead of next year's elections.
Three years of negotiations failed to resolve multiple differences, including over food and environmental safety, with critics saying the pact would hand too much power to big multinationals at the expense of consumers and workers.
Backers of a sweeping U.S.-EU free trade deal see it bringing economic gains on both sides of the Atlantic. EU trade ministers will discuss the issue when they next meet in Bratislava on Sept.22.
Schinas said the Commission was still ready to finalise the deal by the end of the year but not at the expense of "Europe's safety, health, social and data protection standards, or our cultural diversity".
Commenting separately on Gabriel's remarks, Lithuania's Foreign Minister Linas Linkevicius said he believed arriving at a deal would benefit both the EU and the United States.
"It would be better for all sides to agree," he said. "Of course, not at an expense of our interests. We have to defend our interests, but we also have to negotiate and conclude this agreement. It would be a big boost for economies, jobs, trade."
Britain's June vote to leave the EU has further clouded the picture, though Schinas insisted Brussels was still negotiating on behalf of all 28 members of the bloc, including London.
But the prospect of a Brexit has triggered fresh doubt that TTIP could be completed in the final months of U.S. President Barack Obama's term, as well as over Britain's exact status in any deal as London ponders its future ties with the EU. reuters.com
|
lol, don't be so naive guys, Gabriel is a liar, it's just another smoke grenade, political tactics to gain forgetful voter's favors.
Especially since Gabriel still is very strongly in favor of CETA which is basically a backdoor for US sister companies in Canada to the same rights as provided through TTIP.
Also here's an article from "Die Zeit" (18. Mai 2016) about leaked information, that Gabriel's ministery is actually pushing for the abitration courts, contrary to what he says in public: http://www.zeit.de/wirtschaft/2016-05/schiedsgerichte-erhalt-ttip-investitionsschutz-sigmar-gabriel (it's in german, but if you are interested throw it in google translate or something)
|
On August 30 2016 01:16 Noizhende wrote: lol, don't be so naive guys, Gabriel is a liar, it's just another smoke grenade, political tactics to gain forgetful voter's favors.
Especially since Gabriel still is very strongly in favor of CETA which is basically a backdoor for US sister companies in Canada to the same rights as provided through TTIP. Yeah, same tactic in France. Our minister of foreign trade said today that “France is asking the end of TTIP negociations”. Then he said that “The CETA is a good accord. On many subjects, this deal with the Canada is the anti-TTIP. France endorses that deal.”
Looks like this announcement allows them to practice some “leftwashing” in order to improve their position for the next elections. Meanwhile—OH LOOK, A GIFT:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
The French minister also said that new negotiations should start afterwards. Why you have tk start over and can't just change stuff in the existing neogtiations is anyone's guess.
(Reuters) - The European Commission rebuffed an attack by the U.S. Treasury on its investigations into alleged sweetheart tax deals between companies such as Apple (AAPL.O) and McDonald's (MCD.N) and European governments, saying there was no anti-U.S. bias.
The U.S. Treasury Department published a white paper on Wednesday that voiced concern at the EU executive's tax investigations, saying they departed from international taxation norms and would have an outsized impact on U.S. companies.
The European Commission said it treated all companies equally.
"EU law applies indiscriminately to all companies operating in Europe - there is no bias against U.S. companies. This is very clear if we look at the facts: In October 2015 the first state aid decisions on tax rulings concerned a European company, Fiat, as well as a U.S. company," a Commission spokeswoman said.
It is not the first time the United States has criticised the EU's tax investigations. In February U.S. Treasury Secretary Jack Lew wrote to European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker urging him to reconsider the EU's approach.
In the white paper, the U.S. Treasury Department said the Commission's approach departed from prior EU case law and undermined OECD guidelines on transfer pricing - the setting of prices for the transfer of goods or services from one subsidiary to another - which critics say is used to reduce tax liabilities in relatively high-tax countries.
In addition, the EU should not seek to recover taxes from companies retroactively, the Treasury Department said, because it was a departure from prior practice.
"Imposing retroactive recoveries would undermine the G20’s efforts to improve tax certainty and set an undesirable precedent for tax authorities in other countries," the white paper said.
The Commission spokeswoman said EU state aid rules forbid national governments from giving tax benefits to selected companies that are not available to others.
"These state aid rules and the relevant legal principles have been in place for a long time," she said.
The European Commission accused Ireland in 2014 of dodging international tax rules by letting Apple shelter profits worth tens of billions of dollars from tax collectors in return for maintaining jobs. Apple and Ireland reject the accusation. A ruling is expected in the autumn.
The EU launched an investigation into tax deals between McDonald's and Luxembourg in December last year. uk.reuters.com
Tldr the EU doesn't care. Tbh I agree that tax rulings are bullshit. Taxes should be equal for all companies to level the playing field. Multinationals already have an advantage due to the complexity of the tax code. This only makes it worse. Having said that abolishing the corporate tax is still the best option. It will actually level the playing field, stimulate the economy and most of the tax is paid by consumers anyhow.
|
Everyone is condemning Apple but what about Ireland? The Greeks got so much shit for handling their own economy poorly but it seems like the Irish decided to fuck over other countries instead of themselves, that sounds much worse.
|
Tax friendly countries have been getting shit for a while now. Ironically the countries giving shit are usually ones where tax avoidance is easy as fuck. Hypocrisy all around with international taxation.
|
|
I don't know, to me it just sounds like the UE trying to wave its tiny dick to the US after the "failed" TTIP as a distraction.
|
|
On August 31 2016 08:27 Chairman Ray wrote: ...and how was the Irish government involved in this? Because they allowed it. It is simple as that. Be a tax heaven if you want, all countries are running their own scheme and try to 'lure' big money to them, but don't get so ridiculous low, that even the EU gets pissed at you (0,005% effective tax rate).
Also, I find Apples respond-threat to be hilarious. "Think of the 5000 jobs we created and that we might cut now." Psst Apple, I don't think you should mention the jobs argument. Because you would lose that, once people start to think about the hundred thousands of the jobs that could have been created with 13 billion dollars...
|
Here's an article from the Tax Justice Network containing a radio interview with Alex Cobham research director at the TJN. I've done some transcribing of the interview and then hacked some quotes out of it. I've also hacked the article down to a bit more of a manageable read. Why? Partly to help me understand / remember it and partly because it's important and I want you to read it and partly because. Tax. Yawn.
It's essentially a response to the U.S. treasury white paper and some notes on how we got to where we are (BEPS) + Show Spoiler +A project that ran from 2013 to 2015, the 'Base Erosion and Profit Shifting' action plan "a kind of international collaborative effort to try and really tighten up some of the worst loopholes" and thoughts about where things go from here. The article opens big.
"On this quiet August day, the US Treasury has fired the first shots of a tax war with Europe."
Hacked transcript (from the second half of the radio interview)
THE WHITE PAPER ARGUMENTS AND REFUTATIONS "In the paper the U.S. treasury tries to present [the paper as] [a.] a defence of the international rules [b.] a defence of U.S. revenues. - [a.] we know from the OECD BEPS process that the U.S. went quite a long way to prevent progress in a number of areas. - [b.] It's so unlikely that the set of possibilities will align that any of these cases will actually have any serious U.S. revenue implications because, once you've managed to get your effective tax rate down to 5% or 1% in Luxembourg or Ireland, why would you possibly repatriate your income to pay 35% in the U.S?"
DIFFERENT US/EU CORP TAX PHILOSOPHY "It's basically a difference in approach, the U.S. sees tax for it's multinationals at least as largely being a cost of doing business that they'd like to reduce ... Europe is very much looking at this as: 'There's an available stream of revenues here which they're not getting a fair share of' and that difference in philosophy makes it very hard to see how the international rules as they are can hang together."
HOW BREXIT ACCELERATED THE CONFLICT "So I think we will see Europe, perhaps accelerated by the lack of power that the U.K, will now have ... thinking about ways of making sure, in effect, that multi-nationals profits have to be declared for tax purposes in the places where their real activities take place."
FUTURE GUESSING "I think we'll see the state aid cases, starting with Apple, come to their conclusion and I think we'll see revenue redistributions in the order of the low Billions of dollars. The question is whether we'll see the next set of cases follow these first pioneering ones, or if the European commission will say 'do you know what, we'd rather protect our relationship with the U.S.'"
Full(er) transcript, (again, the second half of the interview) + Show Spoiler + [I hope there aren't any big mistakes, of course the punctuation is all mine and I'm sorry for it... The interviewer rambled a lot so I've re-asked his questions more simply]
"In the paper the U.S. treasury tries to present it more [a.] as a defence of the international rules and to some extent [b.] a defence of U.S. revenues, but, in fact, [b. response] it's so unlikely that the set of possibilities will align that any of these cases will actually have any serious U.S. Revenue implications because, once you've managed to get your effective tax rate down to 5% or 1% in Luxembourg or Ireland, why would you possibly repatriate your income to pay 35% in the U.S?."
… "[a. response]To the extent that they're defending the international rules, perhaps, but on the other hand we know from the OECD BEPS process [BEPS is: "the project that ran from 2013 to 2015, the 'Base Erosion and Profit Shifting' action plan, which was a kind of international collaborative effort to try and really tighten up some of the worst loopholes"] that the U.S. went quite a long way to prevent progress in a number of areas, so they've already taken a position there and they understand that the European position, by and large, is for something more progressive. What's left then is actually the idea that the U.S. Treasury is largely doing the bidding of this group of relatively tax aggressive U.S. Headquartered multi-nationals in a way that probably won't have any real benefit for the U.S. itself but, to the extent that those companies are seen as national champions, it is seen as somehow in the interest, even if actually those companies, as our research shows, are pretty tax aggressive against the U.S. Itself."
Question: Could governments from all round the world force these companies to pay more tax or are they always going to find way to keep their tax bill very low?
“Absolutely it's possible and I think we'll see, particularly as the OECD BEPS project is increasingly seen ... not to have delivered and this conflict is a result of that. It's basically a difference in approach, the U.S. sees tax for it's multinationals at least as largely being a cost of doing business that they'd like to reduce and it's a way of subsidising their own multi-nationals if they can achieve that. Where as Europe is very much looking at this as: 'There's an available stream of revenues here which they're not getting a fair share of' and that difference in philosophy makes it very hard to see how the international rules as they are can hang together. So I think we will see Europe, perhaps accelerated by the lack of power that the U.K, will now have, go further down this road looking at a common consolidated corporate tax base more seriously once again – thinking about ways of making sure, in effect, that multi-nationals profits have to be declared for tax purposes in the places where their real activities take place.”
Question: So has the UK up to now been fighting in Brussels for a relatively low tax approach?
"Yea, I think if you look at the big European nations I think the ones that have been closest to the US approach has been the U.K. and so their position within European discussions has been relatively helpful for the US. If that's gone with the Brexit vote, then I think we'll see an increasing clarity of the division between the U.S and the remaining EU member states."
Question: Very quickly, the particular story today is Brussels trying to get more money out of apple, do you think they'll succeed in that particular thing this week – or this year?
"Yea, I think we'll see the state aid cases, starting with Apple, come to their conclusion and I think we'll see revenue redistributions in the order of the low Billions of dollars. The question is whether we'll see the next set of cases follow these first pioneering ones, or if the European commission will say 'do you know what, we'd rather protect our relationship with the U.S.' I think that's unlikely, I think they'll press ahead, but that's what we need to wait and see."
Hacked down article (a few new points, a bit more depth) + Show Spoiler +[I tried to put "quotes" around everything that's direct from the article and italics on quotes in the article from the white paper.] THE WHITE PAPER STARTS BY EXPLAINING WHY IT EXISTS."Were the white paper not such an aggressive document, it would be almost curious to see such a justification laid out. But here it seems necessary. The argument made is that the ongoing cases have ' considerable implications for the United States—both for the U.S. government and its companies'" because they 1. Undermine the BEPS project; 2. “[C]all into question the ability of Member States to honor their bilateral tax treaties with the United States”; 3. May lead to tax repayments that ” effectively constitute a transfer of revenue to the EU from the U.S. government and its taxpayers”; 4. May have “a chilling effect on U.S.-EU cross-border investment”; 5. Set “an unwelcome precedent for tax authorities around the world to take similar retroactive actions that could affect U.S. and EU companies alike.” The article responds 1. BEPS has already been substantially undermined. “But, the Treasury does have a point here: if the EU had wanted to curtail such activity as is being revealed in the state aid cases of Apple, Fiat, Starbucks and Amazon, why not ensure that BEPS did so?” … perhaps because “the US was an important blocker in key areas of BEPS” 2. (and 4 and 5) “constitute forms of threat. If the Commission pushes ahead with further cases, it risks seeing the US question member states’ bilateral tax treaties; discourage US companies from investing; and consider retaliatory, retrospective action against EU companies.“ 3. the companies’ U.S. tax liability would be reduced dollar for dollar by these recoveries when their offshore earnings are repatriated or treated as repatriated as part of possible U.S. tax reform. the article answers in 3 parts: a) “it is hard not to see the Commission reflecting on this with considerable scepticism. … why not address it directly … simply abrogate the deferral rules that have led to the creation of a two trillion dollar offshore cash pile?” b) “ if the repayments are themselves correct (as the Commission would argue they will be), then any US losses would simply reflect a the rightful reallocation of taxing rights – as opposed to a snatch and grab raid. The culprits would be the previously unrecognised profit-shifters, rather than the Commission.” c) “In reality .. the likelihood that companies arranged low-to-zero effective tax rates in Europe, in order to repatriate the proceeds and then pay tax at (difference to) the US rate, seems exceedingly low.” THE WHITE PAPER MOVES ONTO LEGAL ARGUMENTS.Heavy chopping here, but if you're that interested then read the article or the white paper directly. “The legal arguments make up the bulk of the paper [and] entirely coincidentally, looks rather like the basis of a legal brief for companies that might wish to mount a challenge to the Commission. … We would not, of course, be surprised to hear echoes of these in individual companies’ appeals.” WILL THE EU HOLD THE LINE OR BACK DOWN?“the discouragement of US companies’ additional investment in some prominent EU member states is quite possible. Raising of issues over member states’ bilateral tax treaties would take the conflict to quite a new level.” also “In no scenario does it now seem likely that we will see further cooperation to salvage some of the potential gains from the BEPS process, at least not any time soon.” THE POSSIBILITY OF SOME INTERESTING TAX POLICY "SPILLOVERS"“First, the EU position on whether or not to require public country-by-country reporting should be watched closely." TJN explains country by country reporting (short) – though they seem to conclude a move here is less likely than in the following two areas: “beneficial ownership” and “the automatic exchange of financial information.” the following is a specific quote on automatic exchange of financial information: “only with US embrace of the principle of automaticity through Obama’s FATCA laws, was the resistance of major secrecy jurisdiction like Switzerland defeated.” However the US U-turned which led to them (currently) "being set to provide information to almost no other state – despite demanding it from each and every one.“ in discussing a possible response in this area the article mentions “one of the main political reasons against developing a ‘tax haven’ blacklist based on the automatic exchange of information, was that it would have caught the United States.” implying that releasing the blacklist with the U.S. on it might be one possible E.U. response. I'll put the CONCLUSION outside the spoiler because DRAMA.
"Whatever the eventual result, the US Treasury has taken a major step today. A step which identifies it much more closely with defending the ability of its own multinationals to go untaxed, than with the support for international agreement in which the claim is cloaked. The openly confrontational nature of the white paper is surprising, but reflects longstanding tensions as European countries have sought genuine progress. The first shots of what may become a major tax war have been fired."
Full article and radio interview link: http://www.taxjustice.net/2016/08/24/us-treasury-tax-war-europe/
|
https://euobserver.com/foreign/134832 Top executives from Russian energy firm Gazprom will in Turkey on Wednesday (31 August) resume work on a potentially divisive gas pipeline project to the EU.
Alexander Medvedev, Gazprom’s deputy CEO, told Russia’s Tass news agency that he and the firm’s CEO, Alexei Miller, will take part in the delegation on the Turkish Stream pipeline.
"They [the talks] are actually under way. This process began at the [recent] meeting of the Turkish economy minister with Russia’s energy minister. They agreed on the resumption of the project”, Medvedev said.
“Alexei Miller’s visit to Turkey and his meeting with his vis-a-vis are scheduled for tomorrow [Wednesday]. I'm also going there, the process is actually going on," he said.
The Turkish Stream pipeline, which is to run under the Black Sea via Turkey to Greece, was designed to replace South Stream, a pipeline from Russia to Bulgaria.
Russia scrapped South Stream because under EU competition law Gazprom would have had to split up its ownership of the project and let rival firms use the pipe.
next french president? -> https://euobserver.com/tickers/134818 French economy minister Emmanuel Macron, who many see as a potential strong contender for the presidential election next year, resigned on Tuesday, to "entirely devote himself to his political movement," which he launched a few months ago, the French presidency said. Finance minister Michel Sapin took over his portfolio.
|
Next First Minister if Juppé gets the Presidency, maybe. But I don't believe Macron will catch the Presidency, he's pretty much hated by the left, and his proposals of economic liberalization and pro-business policies won't be much different from those of the right.
|
Macron has a bit of a problem: right wing people tend to vote for right wing politicians (he is supposedly not one) and left wing people tend not to vote for right wing politicians (he is actually one).
Macron is popular, but it's a popularity from people who will not vote for him. Just like Valls, anyone with an atom of left wing conviction pretty much loathes him.
Why would Juppé chose a First Minister "d'ouverture" when he has plenty of people waiting on line for the job in his own party?
|
On August 31 2016 17:37 xM(Z wrote:next french president? -> https://euobserver.com/tickers/134818 Show nested quote +French economy minister Emmanuel Macron, who many see as a potential strong contender for the presidential election next year, resigned on Tuesday, to "entirely devote himself to his political movement," which he launched a few months ago, the French presidency said. Finance minister Michel Sapin took over his portfolio. Not a chance. He's a pure product of those gregarious, brainless medias which love nothing more than looking for the mythical “third man” (the outsider who may challenge the mainstream left-wing and right-wing candidates; that was the pattern before the FN rose) each election. In practice, he has no social base, no party, weak political networks, zero experience as an elected representative and still lacks money to campaign. He probably won't even run for the presidency if polls don't show some “demand” for him.
His political positioning makes him a terrible first round candidate anyway, since he's economically liberal but not as conservative as the official right parties on other issues; so basically he's too right-leaning for the major part of the left-wing, and too left-wing for the other side. On top of that, for both sides he's associated with the failure of Hollande's mandate since he's part of the executive team for 4 years.
|
|
|
|