Scrutiny Report
Proposed Goods and Services Tax
September
2005 SR6/2005
CONTENTS
1.
PANEL MEMBERSHIP......................................................................................... 3
2. OPENING STATEMENT....................................................................................... 4
3. RATIONALE FOR THIS
REVIEW......................................................................... 5
4. TERMS OF
REFERENCE –................................................................................. 5
5. ADVISORS............................................................................................................. 6
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS.............................................................................................. 7
7. WRITTEN
SUBMISSIONS –................................................................................. 9
8. FINDINGS OF THE
SCRUTINY PROCESS:.................................................... 10
9. CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................... 15
10. RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................... 16
11. APPENDIX......................................................................................................... 17
1. PANEL
MEMBERSHIP
The Shadow Scrutiny function was established by the
States of Jersey as part of the reforms of the Machinery of Government. The
principles and guidelines of Shadow Scrutiny in Jersey are set in the report
and proposition of the Privileges and Procedures Committee P.186/2003, adopted
by the States on 27th January 2004.
The Panel was constituted as follows –
Deputy
R.C. Duhamel (Review Chairman)
Senator
E.P. Vibert (Lead Member)
Senator J.A. Le Maistre
Deputy F.J. Hill,
B.E.M.
Deputy
P.J. Rondel
Deputy
G.C. L. Baudains
Senator E.P. Vibert withdrew from the Review due to
ill-health from 22nd June 2005. Deputy G.C.L. Baudains resigned from Scrutiny
on 17th May 2005.
Officer support: Mr. C. Ahier and Mrs. C. Le Quesne,
Scrutiny Officers.
2.
OPENING STATEMENT
The Scrutiny Panel began its initial investigations
by considering the Finance and Economics Committee’s Report and Proposition
(P.44/2005) entitled ‘Fiscal Strategy’ lodged ‘au Greffe’ on 8th March 2005.
That document referred to an Act of the States dated 29th June 2004 in which
the States had agreed that it would take steps to maintain a strong and
competitive economy and to provide high quality public services. It also
referred to an Act of the States dated 7th July 2004 in which the States had
charged the Finance and Economics Committee to research measures to mitigate
the loss of taxation revenues as a result of the agreed changes to the
corporate taxation structure. The aforesaid Fiscal Strategy proposed a
broad-based Goods and Services Tax (GST) to be introduced in 2008 at a rate of
3% to be fixed for a period of at least 3 years.
The proposition outlined the suggested changes to the
way that Jersey might raise its taxes. The States had agreed when it considered
P.106/2004 that in 2008 it would introduce a new 0% standard rate of corporate
profits taxation, with a 10% rate of corporate profits taxation for companies
in areas such as the financial services sector. These measures were proposed to
bring the Island into line with other providers of international financial services.
The aim of the change would be to safeguard the economy as a result of Jersey’s
tax take being expected to fall by £80-100 million per annum by 2010.
The Panel considered extensive background
documentation, including the Oxera and the Crown Agents reports which are
available to view on Customs and Immigration Website: http://www.gov.je/taxandspending/index.asp:
Evidence received and further background information
is available on the States of Jersey Scrutiny Website at www.statesassembly.gov.je and a
list of all documents considered is attached as appendices to this report.
3. RATIONALE FOR THIS REVIEW
The Panel decided to undertake a review of 0/10
proposals together with the Goods and Services Tax (GST) in order to clarify
the reasons for the need firstly to move to a 0/10 rate of taxation and to
assess whether or not the GST option would be an appropriate solution to the
predicted deficit. It would also seek to ascertain whether Jersey would be
compliant with E.U. rules if it were to pursue 0/10. The Panel was aware that
some members of the public had expressed concern about the proposals with
regard to issues of regressive taxation and compliance to European Union and
United Kingdom legislation.
The Panel has decided to issue an interim report
based on the work undertaken to date. It recognises that a significant amount
of work remains to be carried out to provide answers to all of the questions
raised in the first part of the review. It is hoped that, as a result of a
completed review, States members will be better informed about the issues
involved when the draft Goods and Services Tax Legislation comes to be debated
in the States.
4. TERMS OF REFERENCE –
1. To review the economic and fiscal
environment that has led to the need to consider the introduction of a Goods
and Services Tax particularly in respect of:
(i) recent events within the European
Union;
(ii) recent events within the financial
offshore community;
(iii) the consequences of moving to a 0/10 tax
structure;
(iv) the consequences of not making such a
move.
2. To review the specific proposals put
forward by the Finance and Economics Committee to introduce a Goods and
Services Tax particularly in respect of:
(i) the level of tax;
(ii) the range of goods and services covered
by the tax;
(iii) the administrative arrangements required
to collect the tax, including arrangements to collect tax on goods ordered by mail
or over the Internet;
(iv) the impact of the tax on various sectors
of the community.
5. ADVISORS
The Panel engaged the following advisers to assist it
with the review –
Mr. Paul Frith, Fellow of the Chartered Institute of
Taxation, Member of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners.
Mr. Richard Murphy, BSc, FCA, Chartered Accountant,
Director, Tax Research Limited.
The
appointment process
The Panel approached a number of official bodies
including The Chartered Institute of Taxation (CIOT) and the Institute for
Fiscal Studies (IFS) to identify potentially suitable individuals to undertake
the role of advisor for the review.
In this instance the organisations approached were
unable to assist in the identification of a suitable individual due to time
constraints. The Panel also approached individuals from the local finance
industry to assist them in the selection of potential advisors. Both of the
review advisors were selected upon recommendation and were appointed on the
basis of their individual expertise in addition to their availability. The
Panel interviewed both advisors prior to their engagement.
Advisor
selection
The Panel received correspondence expressing concern
over the selection of Mr. Murphy as one of its advisors. The Panel responded
to the concern, following consultation with the Privileges and Procedures
Committee and it decided to retain the advisor of its choice. At the time of
the appointment of its advisor, the Panel was aware of his views on the local
tax position; however, it did not consider that the outcome of the review could
be pre-judged on that basis. The Panel retained the services of Mr. Paul Frith,
a locally-based professional to ensure an alternative view and to provide what
it considered would be a balanced approach to the review. This model of two
advisors working on other reviews with differing views or perspectives had
previously been successful. The Panel was of the opinion that it was difficult
to identify an expert individual who would not have made a statement in public
on one side or another on this important subject.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Full verbatim transcripts of the public hearings are
available on the Scrutiny website at www.statesassembly.gov.je
or through arrangement with the Scrutiny Office.
The
following witnesses attended a public hearing on 16th June 2005 –
Senator
T.A. Le Sueur, President, Finance and Economics Committee; and
Mr.
C. Powell, former Chief Advisor to the States.
The
following witnesses were scheduled to attend on 11th July 2005 –
Mr.
J. Laity, Institute of Directors;
Senator
F.H. Walker, President Policy and Resources Committee;
Mr.
W. Ogley, and Mr. J. Harris;
Mr.
D. Wild, Mr. A. Ohlsson, Mr. J. Shenton, Mr. J. Riva,
Working
Party Representatives, Jersey Finance Limited; and
Mr.
B. Henkhuzens – Jersey Chamber of Commerce.
Hearing
deferral and subsequent suspension of the review
The Panel made the following statement on that day
and deferred the hearing until further notice.
“The Shadow
Scrutiny Panel chaired by Deputy Rob Duhamel convened at 8 a.m. on 11th
July 2005 to discuss correspondence received at short notice from the Institute
of Directors (IOD). The IOD advised the Panel that they were unable to attend
as they had found that the two-week period of notice had proved to be an
insufficient time in which to prepare for the hearing. They also expressed
reservations regarding the make up of the Panel.”
Following the deferment of the Hearing the Panel
discussed whether –
(i) there would be sufficient time to
reschedule Public Hearings and the opportunity to call witnesses to attend;
(ii) the summer recess for States members
would render the Panel inquorate;
(iii) the heavy workload of States business
from September and the full evaluation of Shadow Scrutiny process would not
allow sufficient time for the review to be properly concluded;
(iv) the temporary suspension at this point in
the review would provide the new scrutiny process with important information on
the vitally important questions that remained to be addressed in respect of
both the ‘black hole’ and GST.
The Panel decided to produce an interim report based
on the written submissions following its call for evidence, together with the
oral evidence it had received at its first hearing.
The Panel discussed how the selection of the review
had provided significant challenges to the Shadow Scrutiny process, and
therefore had raised important issues which would require addressing to ensure
that Scrutiny could operate fully and effectively with Ministerial Government.
The Panel agreed that this particular review subject
had been an important matter, and that the difficulties in seeing it to its
conclusion in the time available had identified the need for Scrutiny to be in
a position to set and develop its work programme and select review subjects.
The review had also shown the level of expertise members required in order to
successfully undertake a specialised review subject. It had also identified the
need for Scrutiny to be provided with the necessary powers to require the
provision of documents and the attendance of witnesses at Public Hearings.
7. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS –
The Panel received the following written submissions
listed in date of receipt order. They are available to view on the Shadow
Scrutiny Website –
26.04.05 Mr.
Chris Parlett;
26.04.05 Dr.
R.A. Kirsch;
28.04.05 Mr.
John K. Shield;
28.04.05 Mrs.
Lyn Viney;
13.05.05 Mr.
David Wild, Jersey Finance;
15.05.05 Mr.
Chris Whitworth;
16.05.05 Mr.
Robert Andrew Brown;
17.05.05 Mr.
I. Ridgway, Finance Director, Jersey Post;
19.05.05 Mr.
Craig Leach;
24.05.05 Mrs.
K. Stevens;
02.06.06 Mr.
Colin Powell;
06.06.05 H.M.
Attorney General, Mr. W.J. Bailhache, Q.C.;
08.06.05 Mr.
Malcolm Campbell, Comptroller of Income Tax;
08.06.05 Mr.
Mike Robinson, Customs and Excise;
09.06.05 Mr.
Dougie Peedle, Economic Advisor;
13.06.05 Senator
T. Le Sueur, President Finance and Economics Committee;
14.06.05 Senator
F.W. Walker, President Policy and Resources Committee;
15.07.05 Mr.
Preston Hobbs.
8. FINDINGS OF THE SCRUTINY
PROCESS:
The written evidence received expressed concern over
the possibility of the proposals within the Fiscal Strategy not being compliant
with the European Union Code of Conduct.
Of particular concern was the proposed provision for
‘look-through’ as explained in a submission from Mr. R. Brown –
‘the OECD dictum would demand that a
zero corporation tax is applied equally to both residents and non-resident. Jersey
residents will be subject to a look-through tax. Non-residents will not be
subject to such a ‘look-through’ tax.’
This view was supported by the Panel’s Advisor Mr. R.
Murphy, who suggested that the proposed look-through would be unacceptable due
to non-compliance to the E.U. Code of Conduct on Business Taxation due to it
possibly being perceived as a form of ring-fencing.
The concern was expressed in Mr. Murphy’s report
dated 15th June 2005 as follows –
‘Any system that breaks down that
divide for a selected group of share-holders defined solely on the basis of
their residence appears to create a ring-fence.
When that ring-fence acts to the
detriment of resident-owned companies to ensure the protection of domestic
revenues, as is undoubtedly the case in the proposed ‘look-through’ tax in
Jersey, then it is apparent that the E.U. Code has been broken.’
The full report is available on the Scrutiny website.
The Panel explored the issue of compliance with the
E.U. Code in respect of the proposed ‘look-through’ as outlined on page 46
of the Fiscal Strategy (P.44/2005) and the following evidence was received from
Senator Le Sueur as a result of questions from the advisors in relation to the
amount of discussion with the E.U. and the U.K. on the acceptability of the
0/10 proposals –
Mr.
Frith If I could just quote from
that, it says: “Some attention has been
given to the durability of the 0/10 corporation tax structure in a
fast-changing world. The E.U. agreement specific to our proposal is contained
in the record of the meeting of the combined E.U. Finance Ministers (known as
Ecofin) on 3rd June 2003. These Ecofin Council conclusions recognised the
acceptability and the timescale for implementation of the 0/10 proposals to the
European Union.”
Now, it seemed to us in reading this
and your comments recently that the fundamental issue which has been raised by
Mr. Murphy has actually already been covered and agreed, but it does seem now
that what you are saying is that, whilst the principles are understood, there
has still got to be some refinement possibly in terms of the final legislation.
So it seems that we are at the position at present where we still do not know
for sure whether Jersey’s proposals will in fact satisfy the E.U. Do you think
that is a fair comment?
Senator
Le Sueur: No, I don’t, because I think the E.U. is concerned with the general
principle of a rate of zero tax across the board, with a limited exception. I
think how that is implemented is not a question which that Ecofin document covered
on 3rd June certainly. At that stage, we hadn’t even thought how we might
address the issue, so I am sure it wouldn’t occur to them to put it into a
document. I would in fact say that that document is a very general document,
which would be quite hard to read and understand. It is not addressed simply to
Jersey, but it is a general statement of principle for all territories. So I
think one shouldn’t try to read into that document more than there can
reasonably be expected to be. Anything that happens to implement either the
zero or the ten will need to be consistent with the principles which earlier
Mr. Murphy put down.
Deputy
Duhamel: Does Mr Murphy wish to come in?
Mr.
Murphy: Well, to some extent, Senator Le Sueur has now actually answered the point
that in fact I was anticipating putting, which is about the fact that there is
obviously the forward-looking part of this, and it seems that, therefore, there
is this two-stage process of approval here. On 3rd June 2003, it seems very
likely that Ecofin did -- I don’t think there is any dispute -- agree
that Jersey had accepted that it would get rid of all unacceptable practices.
Senator
Le Sueur: Yes.
Mr.
Murphy: And there is a record of that.
Senator
Le Sueur: Yes.
Mr.
Murphy: But it didn’t actually approve look-through, for example, did it?
Senator
Le Sueur: It didn’t specifically approve look-through. I don’t think it would
have been likely that it would have been put to them.
Mr.
Murphy: Right, but I have had it said to me by some people in Jersey that it
did specifically approve look-through, by people who were apparently quite
close to that discussion, but that is not true, it did not approve
look-through?
Senator
Le Sueur: As far as I am aware, but if someone with experience and in authority
is telling you differently, then maybe they are right. But, as far as I am concerned, there is a
limit to what that document says.’
The written and oral evidence received supported that
the outline proposals for a new tax system made by Jersey to the E.U. in June
2003 did, in principle, comply with the requirements of the E.U. Code of
Conduct on Business Taxation, namely, ‘look-through’ taxation, the 0/10
proposals and a Goods and Services Tax. However, none of the detail of these
proposals had been submitted to either the U.K. or the E.U. for consideration
as they were currently only overarching principles. There was no evidence to
confirm that the proposals would or would not be acceptable to the E.U.
subsequent to that detail being finalized.
It was confirmed by Senator Le Sueur that the
proposals approved by the States in May 2005 had not been sent to the U.K.
government for approval.
The Panel Chairman asked of Senator Le Sueur –
Question:
‘Have any meetings actually taken place
with any U.K. or E.U. authorities to actually determine whether or not the
compliance is actually acceptable to those authorities?’
Response:
‘the indication I have is that these
proposals are commonplace elsewhere and are within the spirit and acceptable to
the E.U. Whether any meetings have been held, I can’t say. I certainly have not
been privy to any myself.’
The Panel had previously requested meeting notes or
correspondence relating to contact with U.K. authorities in relation to
compliance to its own and E.U. requirements. No documents or information had
been forthcoming in this connection. The Panel faced difficulty in undertaking
its review when not all documentation had been made available, particularly as
it had offered to deal with any confidential issues in closed session.
The Panel was advised by Senator Le Sueur that the
‘look-through’ provisions may not operate as suggested in the proposals
approved in May 2005 and may instead require each individual shareholder to
declare the share of the taxable profit attributable to them in each company in
which they own shares on their personal tax returns, without tax having
previously been paid by the company on their behalf. This would have serious
resource implications for both the States and taxpayers. It was accepted that a
final decision and extensive consultation would be required prior to the final
draft legislation being made available.
The Panel remained concerned that the arrangements
for ‘look-through’ might not be acceptable to the E.U., although it accepted
Senator Le Sueur’s assertions that there was –
‘a tremendous amount more to be done
yet. That will need to have the involvement of no doubt tax professionals, law
professionals and maybe people from the E.U. to make sure it is compliant with that,
with Human Rights and everything else. Yes, one of the reasons for debating the
Fiscal Policy so early is that we know there is still a lot of work to do on
detail, of which this is just one example of many.’
Other general issues raised were the regressive
nature of Goods and Services Taxes, on the basis that lower income groups spent
proportionately more of their income on essential items that would become
subject to the tax, together with the potential negative impact on those lower
income groups, and the areas of exemption inclusive of small businesses. This
concern was reflected in the submission from Jersey Finance dated 3rd December
2004, although it was stated that the proposal would be acceptable subject to
adequate safeguards being put in place for low-income groups. The following
statement was made in the submission –
‘GST is generally regarded as a
regressive tax, in that it applies to all consumers of goods and services, and
will have the greatest impact (in percentage terms at least) on individuals and
households with lower income levels. Accordingly, appropriate safeguards will
also need to be introduced to protect low income groups. In that regard we
endorse the proposals to review and reform income support measures for such
groups.’
The difference of approach between Jersey and
Guernsey and the resulting proposed solutions were questioned in a submission
from Mr. Parlett, who contended that the difference in deficit between the two Islands
was as a result of methods of calculating capital expenditure.
The Panel was provided with both written and oral
evidence which suggested that Jersey had been under a considerable amount of
pressure from the United Kingdom to comply with the European Union Code on
Business Taxation. Evidence was received that confirmed that Jersey had given
irrevocable undertakings to the E.U. under pressure from the U.K. to commit
itself to compliance with the E.U. Code of Conduct on Business Taxation. The
evidence was in the form of correspondence dated 15th October 2002, between the
then President of the Policy and Resources Committee and Ms. Dawn Primarolo,
Paymaster-General, H.M. Treasury. Within that correspondence there was an
agreement by Jersey to remove the “harmful” tax practices as identified by the E.U.,
together with a further assurance that it would introduce no new tax practices
which breached the spirit of the E.U. Code of Conduct on Business Taxation.
In the oral evidence received from Senator Le Sueur,
he confirmed that Jersey had agreed that it would remove any items included in
the ‘rollback’ section of the code and which outlined practices unacceptable to
the E.U. and that with regard to the section to the Code entitled ‘standstill’.
It would not introduce any new laws which offended the Code. The proposed
‘look-through’ provision was raised as a potentially non-compliant proposal.
The suggested non-compliance to the E.U. Code would be on the basis that the
practice would ring-fence an advantage from the domestic market, so that it
would not affect the national tax base. This interpretation was considered to
be subjective by Senator Le Sueur, who did not concur with the view. He
asserted that the proposals were just that, and that a significant amount of
work remained to be done with regard to the detail and drafting of the
legislation that would be required.
The Panel discussed with Senator Le Sueur the
criteria for companies paying the proposed 10% rate in the context of a written
submission from Jersey Finance, and during the oral evidence it was noted that
regulation by the Jersey Finance may not be the criteria for companies paying
the 10% tax rate. It was noted that areas of exemption remained to be
finalized.
The Panel was apprised by its advisor that the United
Kingdom has passed legislation that it could impose on companies with
subsidiaries in Jersey, should it fail to co-operate with it over the
implementation of the changes required by the E.U. Code of Conduct on Business
Taxation, or if it introduced new measures that failed to comply with that
Code. That facility is contained within the U.K.’s Controlled Foreign Company
legislation.
The Panel explored the estimated “tax gap” outlined
within the submission from Senator Le Sueur, which suggested that it may be up
£110 million. This was refuted by Senator Le Sueur, who maintained that
the estimate was between £80-100 million. It was accepted by the Panel and
Senator Le Sueur that there was no guarantee that the GST rate would be
maintained at 3% in the long-term, and that the percentage rate would remain
open to review along with other taxation method options.
The Senator stated in respect of the ‘tax gap’ and
the level of GST required –
‘Yes, it is, and certainly from our
point of view we have said, and I stand by that figure, that 80 to £100 million
is the right sort of estimate. But we are not going to know until about 2012
just what the overall effect has been, and it will be at that stage that we
will be in a better position to assess whether a GST rate of 3% is adequate.’
The Panel discussed with Senator Le Sueur and Mr. C.
Powell the issue raised in some submissions from finance professionals that
Jersey-registered Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) were not taxable on the basis
that they did not trade in the Island. However, it was suggested in the Jersey
Finance submission that they do in fact supply services to each other within
Jersey. The Panel questioned both witnesses as to whether the correct taxation
treatment was currently applied to SPVs and discussed the discretionary powers afforded
to the Jersey Financial Services Commission in respect of determining whether a
company would be taxed or not. Following the hearing the Panel agreed it would
require further clarification on the issue. The Panel was provided with an
explanatory note from Mr. Powell dated 26th July 2005, outlining SPVs where
they fall within the scope of regulation as applied by the Jersey Financial
Services Commission, together with the legal definition of an SPV which is
outlined in a schedule of the Financial Services (Jersey) Law 1998. The Panel
suggested that further analysis of this issue should be undertaken.
9. CONCLUSIONS
The Panel agreed to suspend the Review due to the
reasons given earlier in the report and especially due to difficulties in
obtaining the information requested. The Panel was aware that it had only had
the opportunity to begin examining the first part of its Terms of Reference,
namely the issues relating to the economic and fiscal environment that had
identified a need to consider new tax arrangements. That should have led to a
review of proposals for the introduction of a Goods and Services Tax; however,
the Panel had not begun to address any arrangements or proposals relating to
the introduction or administrative arrangements for the Goods and Services Tax
itself.
It agreed that, had it been in a position to pursue
the review fully and effectively, it would have wished to address the following
questions –
· Whether
or not the tax gap would be £100 million or less?
· Could
economic growth contribute an additional tax income of £20 million
annually?
· Would
the ‘look-through’ proposals made in May 2005 comply with the requirements of
the E.U. Code of Conduct on Business Taxation?
· Whether
or not the 0/10 proposals made in May 2005 would comply with the requirements
of the E.U. Code of Conduct on Business Taxation?
· Would
the GST proposals made in May 2005 comply with the requirements of the E.U.
Code of Conduct on Business Taxation;
· Should
the States seek positive assurance that its new taxation requirements would
meet the requirements of the U.K. and E.U. once they are finalized?
· Would
the proposed GST be unacceptably regressive?
· Would
the £300,000 registration threshold for operation of the GST by a business be
appropriate or not?
· Would
the proposed GST arrangements for the finance industry be appropriate and has
sufficient attention been given to anti-avoidance measures?
· Would
the new ‘look-through’ and 0/10 proposals require the extension of Jersey’s
anti-tax-avoidance provisions beyond those included in section 134a of the
current tax code and would such measures be just and equitable?
What research, if any, has been undertaken to examine
the approach of competing territories that might have come to differing
conclusions as to the way in which they should meet the challenge, and what
might the implications of their actions be for Jersey?
10. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Panel decided to make the following
recommendations –
1. that the review subject was of such
significance that it should be pursued under the new Scrutiny process as a
matter of high priority; and,
2. that to enable the Scrutiny process to
operate efficiently and effectively it would be essential that it be provided
with full powers of subpoena.
11. APPENDIX
|
Goods and Services Tax - Background
reports |
|||
|
No |
Content |
Author |
Date produced |
|
1 |
Fiscal Strategy - P.44/2005 |
FEC |
08.03.05 |
|
2 |
'Which Tax is best
suited to Jersey's objectives? An evaluation of alternative tax
options' |
OXERA, |
February 2005 |
|
3 |
'Economic consequences
of the application of a selective tax' |
OXERA, |
February 2005 |
|
4 |
Proposal for the design of a
prototype Goods and Services Tax |
Crown Agents |
February 2005 |
|
5 |
Proposal for the design of a
prototype goods and services tax - General Guide to GST in the Form of
Frequently asked Questions (Ref - T23079) |
Crown Agents |
February 2005 |
|
6 |
Facing up to the future - why are
we changing Jersey’s tax structure |
President FEC |
|
|
7 |
Reforming Jerseys taxation
structure |
President FEC |
|
|
8 |
Reforming Jersey’s Taxation
Structure - A goods and Service Tax - The Right Way for Jersey - Public
Consultation |
FEC |
28.10.04 |
|
9 |
Reforming Jersey’s Taxation
Structure - A goods and Service Tax - The Right Way for Jersey - Financial
Services Consultation |
FEC |
29.10.04 |
|
10 |
Reforming Jersey’s Taxation
Structure - A goods and Service Tax - The Right Way for Jersey - Tourism
Sector Consultation |
FEC |
08.11.04 |
|
11 |
Fiscal Strategy P106/2004 Amendments Deputy Southern, ESSC
and FEC |
FEC |
01.06.04 |
|
12 |
Report by PWC to the States of
Jersey on taxation matters, being commentary on the paper “Taxation policies:
a transparent enquiry: by Senator S Syvret, with reference to SOJ Finance and
Economics Committee publication ‘Facing up to the Future’. |
PWC |
May 2004 |
|
13 |
The Future of Jersey’s Tax and
spending policies - Frequently asked questions |
FEC |
2004 |
|
14 |
Facing up to the Future
Presentation |
FEC |
February 2004 |
|
15 |
Facing up to the Future -
reforming public spending and taxation to sustain a prosperous and
competitive economy |
FEC |
February 2004 |
|
16 |
The Future of our Tax and Public
Spending Policies - brief guide to the third consultation and the third
consultation paper |
FEC |
29.08.02 |
|
17 |
The Future of our Tax and Public
Spending Policies - brief guide to the second consultation and the second consultation
paper |
FEC |
16.05.02 |
|
18 |
The Future of Jersey’s Tax and
Spending Policies |
Oxera |
July 2001 |
|
19 |
The Future of our Tax and Public
Spending Policies First Consultation Paper |
FEC |
|
|
20 |
Paying for Local Investment - New
Finance Mechanisms for Local Government also (Curriculum vitae for Richard
Murphy) |
Richard Murphy for NEF |
March 2005 |
|
21 |
Tax Research: The inevitability of
decline in the financial services industry in Jersey |
Richard Murphy |
April 2005 |
|
22 |
Will the Isle of Man be EU tax
compliant? |
Richard Murphy |
|