Boris Johnson’s contempt for the European Court of Justice’s jurisdiction over tax-dodging practices in the UK
Prominent Brexiteers like Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees-Mogg have repeatedly proclaimed that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) threatens the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and British courts, but declined to inform British voters that ECJ also threatens the tax-dodging practices within EU member states, similar to the Apple case in Ireland.
ALL TAX-DODGING MEDIA TYCOONS USED THEIR NEWSPAPERS TO CONVINCE THE BRITISH PUBLIC TO VOTE LEAVE
Prominent pro-Brexit newspapers are owned by tax-dodging individuals who avoid paying tax in the UK, such as:
1. The Sun newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch who avoided paying his taxes by setting up his companies in the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands.
2. The Telegraph newspaper owned by David and Frederick Barclay who avoided paying their taxes by registering as residents of Sark island, located in the Channel Island tax haven.
3. The Daily Mail newspaper owned by Lord Rothermere who avoided paying his taxes by inheriting the Daily Mail through an offshore trust set up in the Channel Island tax haven and is registered as “non-dom”.
4. The Express newspaper previously owned by Richard Desmond who avoided paying his taxes by setting up a company in a Luxembourg tax haven.
Throughout their Leave campaign, Brexiteers convinced the British public that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) infringes the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, but failed to mention how.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE UK AND THE EU ANTI-TAX AVOIDANCE MEASURES
Prominent Brexiteers like Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage and Jacob Rees-Mogg have repeatedly proclaimed that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) threatens the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and British courts!
Regrettably, as this article explains, before the EU referendum, they declined to inform British voters that ECJ threatens the tax-dodging practices within EU member states, such as the Apple case in Ireland.
The “Exit Taxation” rules set out in Article 5 of EU’s Anti Tax Avoidance Directive are similar to the ones set out in the British law.
Nonetheless, you’ll discover there are two minor details that distinguish the UK “Exit Taxation” from the EU “Exit Taxation”, which terrified the British tax-dodging elite and it has to do with the difference between their territorial jurisdictions.
Technically, the British tax havens are still considered British, therefore if someone avoided paying their taxes by transferring their capital gains there, they aren’t obliged to pay the TCGA 1992’s exit charge, because their assets haven’t left the British territory.
The British overseas territories are part of Great Britain, but not part of the EU, therefore, if the UK remained in the EU, the EU exit tax would have been collected before they get transferred to the British offshore tax havens, which are not part of the EU!
THE BREXITEERS’ SUDDEN HATRED FOR THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE
The other difference between the UK and the EU anti-tax avoidance measures is that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) is responsible for overseeing the implementation of the new EU directive, which is why prominent Brexiteers are desperate to keep it out of the UK!
According to the BBC:
“The EU court in Luxembourg interprets EU law to make sure it is applied in the same way in all EU countries and settles legal disputes between national governments and EU institutions. Member states are required to comply with the court’s rulings, and may be fined if they do not do so.”
After all, it was ECJ that ordered Ireland to recover €13.1 billion in tax from Apple and ECJ, and thank to this institution, the Irish people will be enjoying improved infrastructure, public healthcare and education!
Starting from the year 2019, the ECJ will ensure that all EU member states implement its new Anti Tax Avoidance Directive and bring an end to the tax-avoiding practices by the EU citizens or businesses.
After the Supreme Court’s ruling that it’s up to the Parliament and not the government to trigger Article 50, Nigel Farage revealed the pivotal aspect of his Brexit campaign, which involves ECJ:
“Well, we would be half-Brexiting is my guess – is that legally we may get out of some aspects of EU membership, but if we stay in the single market, we finish up with all our businesses being regulated somewhere else and indeed a court in Luxembourg that can overrule our own Supreme Court and if that happens it will a supreme act of betrayal.”
In her Brexit speech, Prime Minister May confirmed that she is going to fulfil Mr Farage’s ambition of freeing Great Britain from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg:
“The second hard fact is that even after we have left the jurisdiction of the ECJ, EU law and the decisions of the ECJ will continue to affect us… But, in the future, the EU treaties and hence EU law will no longer apply in the UK.”
Upon this, Boris Johnson victoriously claimed that:
“A huge intellectual effort went into creating this language by which we could somehow ensure that… our courts, our Supreme Court, our House of Commons, could overturn judgements of the European Court of Justice if we felt, if Britain felt, that they were in some way capricious or if they were going beyond the Treaty.”
Boris Johnson confirmed that due to the new EU Anti Tax Avoidance Directive, Tory Brexiteers’ vision for the UK as a global tax haven can’t be delivered:
“We could do free ports, if the UK leaves the European Union as scheduled on 31 October. It would be a massive boost to this economy, but only once we come out. I will have about six of them, by the way. We should definitely be doing freeports and tax-free zones. They have delivered around the world. I think there are around 130 countries that have them. We don’t, because of our membership of the EU. And there are plainly areas that would benefit from them.”