 |
| Proof that the government have been robbing us? |
When something does not make sense, we have a word for that, it's NONSENSE.
The ongoing GST saga over the rents on the Public Markets, is really beginning to get frustrating as there simply is no reason or logic to the position which the government has adopted.
Initially I am sure that they did not believe that I would be able to make a case, but having submitted the relevant cases in precedent and shown that there is a case to be considered, I received a worried e-mail from the Law Officer asking me to expand my argument, this is most unusual.
The Law Officer has said that based on the case in 1904, virtually any activity which involves an exchange of money can be as business, and whilst I have demonstrated that there has been further refinement since then specifically in the area of when government should be treated like a business, he has not budged from his position.
My issue with your arguments is as follows:
1) You have not explained why GST is not charged on such things as income tax,
2) You have not explained the purpose of the GST regulations, i.e. when (or which parts) of government are treated like a business and when is it not a business and what are the criteria for making such a determination?
You’re argument seems to me to comprise, "GST is due because we say so and we make the law up as we go along".
My counter argument is that the application of GST to public authorities is the same as the application of VAT to UK public authorities, the extant article comprises the same eight words in the same order in the same context and I do not believe that English is a different language to ‘Jersey English’.
So the VAT notices set out the grounds that the CCE uses to determine when a public authority should charge VAT and when they should not.
This notice was in force when the draftsman chose to use the exact phrase from the VATA 1994 in the GST Law 2005, presumably because he wished them to have the same meaning. You have provided no argument to the contrary.
Your position does not make sense. Therefore it is not one which, in my experience, the Court will support.
There are a few other minor considerations but I am trying not to over-complicate the matter at hand.So the next consideration is why are the government so reticent to set out the basis on which they can or can not charge GST...
The answer is simple, because for the past 8 years they have been robbing us by charging GST on such things as Impots on tobacco, alcohol and petrol - which if I am right they have had no legal right to do.
Darius,
ReplyDeleteVAT in the UK is charged on the duty elements of booze, petrol etc.
Regards
Top Accountant
You are right under HMRC Notice 702 that imported tobacco is VATable with any customs duty or excise included. I therefore assume that they VAT the duty at retail. I have been searching but I cannot find any EU case law on this... I am surprised no one has challenged it as clearly under Art 13 of the EU VAT directive the levying of excise is not a VATable activity...
DeleteBut then I guess they would just raise the excise accordingly so all a bit pointless, I'll keep looking though.
So I guess there must be another reason why they won't answer the question.... maybe it just is because they don't know the answer themselves!
DeleteOk I have found it... remarkably helpful at the Court of Justice they give you a list of relevant cases to look through.
DeleteC-437/97 Evangelischer Krankenhausverein Wien and Abgabenberufungskommission Wien v. Wein & Co. HandelsgesmbH, formerly Ikera Warenhandelsgesellschaft mbH, and Oberösterreichische Landesregierung
47. ... It is sufficient that the indirect taxes pursuing specific objectives should, ... accord with the general scheme of one or other of these taxation techniques as structured by the Community legislation.
So as long as it complies with either the excise or VAT directives it does not have to comply with the other.
But Directive 95/59 Article 16 of the directive provides:
2. The specific component of the excise duty may not be less than 5% or more than 55% of the amount of the total tax burden resulting from the aggregation of the proportional excise duty, the specific excise duty and the turnover tax levied on these cigarettes.
So it seems likely that if VAT were removed from the duty there would have to be some compensating adjustment in the excise.
There are other provisions related to tobacco, but as the Law Officer has repeatedly pointed out, this is Jersey, so I think it is worth asking the question on at a later date.
Appreciate your stance Darius, but how many others do?
ReplyDeletePeople? or....SHEEPLE?
Or maybe just intelligent people who disagree?
DeleteI think it is wonderful when people disagree, I love a good debate. I am particularly intrigued to hear from anyone who believes our government is doing a good job as to the reasons why they believe the government is good.
Delete(And obviously I don't mean someone who is personally profiting at the expense of the community as a whole, I can see the argument from that point of view).
If anyone would like to write the Contrarian view I would be delighted to publish it...