The official version of this document can be found via the PDF button.
The below content has been automatically generated from the original PDF and some formatting may have been lost, therefore it should not be relied upon to extract citations or propose amendments.
1240/5(3082)
WRITTEN QUESTION TO THE MINISTER FOR TREASURY AND RESOURCES BY DEPUTY G.P. SOUTHERN OF ST. HELIER
ANSWER TO BE TABLED ON TUESDAY, 7th NOVEMBER 2006
Question
- Would the Minister inform memberswhetherhehassought advice onwhether the latest changes to the zero/ten proposals, made in the light of the scrutiny report, causethe measures to conflict with theEUCode of Conducton Business Taxation in that under the deemed/actual distribution rules, a companycouldbeseen as acting as agentforthe beneficial ownersand,if not, why not?
- Whatprogress, if any, has been madein assessing the Blampied proposal' to recouptax on non-local companiesas put forward as a replacementofthe RUDL' charge bythe scrutiny paneland, in particular, has he researched whether the proposals would be accountableagainstUKcompany profits tax andbe acceptable undertheEUCodeofConduct on Business Taxation?
Answer
- Yes, I did receive advicebeforeproposing the actual/deemed distribution rules, and I would not beproposing them if I did not believe they were acceptable.
- The Blampiedproposals' are notpartofthe 0 / 10proposals to belodged shortly asthere has been too little time to give them the careful and considered examination that they merit.However, they will be considered separately oncethe 0 / 10draft law has been debated by the States Assembly in January.If they are then thought tobe a desirable route to proceed, they could be brought to the States for approval in the 2008 Budget in December next year,so there is still plentyoftime to consider the questionof whether such a tax charge would be creditable against UK tax and would accord with the EUCodeof Conduct.