Sunday, 15th March 2009
TAXING REFUNDS
Tax law makes my teeth itch and my eyes bleed, to say nothing of my head spin and ears pop, so it’s not my academic interest that has been piqued by the story of the day, namely the one about the Alternattiva Demokratika taking the Government to task about whether VAT should have been charged on the registration tax paid when people bought a second-hand car.
Or something like that: I told you, I hate tax law.
And nor is my interest selfish, as I wasn’t hit by the tax. The son and heir might benefit from the challenge, but I won’t be seeing a red, blue or mauve cent of the refund he might eventually get.
That having been said, the story is interesting.
Not so interesting, to be fair, is the fact that the AD started their case first, for all the song and dance Labour are making about their own little stunt.
If I recall procedural law correctly, this means that the AD’s case – if they move along with it – will get on track before Labour’s, because Labour still have to file their preliminary intimation. It’s an amendment to the law that the Labour Government had introduced many, many years ago – you have to make a preliminary challenge a few days before you go forward on the merits.
Talk about being hoist by your own petard – pipped at the post by the little guys.
No, this is not the interesting bit – in these lines, my interest lies in the way Labour’s supporters have interpreted the whole jamboree.
Let’s be clear about a few things: if the Revenue has got its sticky fingers on a single solitary cent of the tax-payers’ which was not due to it, then they should be made to pay it back, with interest and costs. However, tax law being the arcane and labyrinthine jungle that it is, which is why I can’t stand it, far be it from me to gainsay the experts, on either side of the theoretical divide.
I certainly will not put my hand on my heart and say that I think that the Revenue is correct in its interpretation. In truth, I’d be prone to say that there is no way that it is.
In the first place, the ladies and gents from the Revenue are well known for their penchant to devise all manner of ways and means of relieving the citizen of his or her hard-earned dosh, and in the second place, now that they’ve said the tax was due, there isn’t a self-respecting tax-man or woman in the world who is going to back-track and say “here you are, nice Mr Citizen, have some euros back”.
It’s much more likely that a herd of pigs will do a fly-past.
Equally clear in my mind am I that if I were in Labour’s shoes, I’d have turned the whole thing into a circus too.
What is more likely to enamour me of the great unwashed than trying to get back some euros from the dreaded VAT Department and this in connection with the apple of most Maltese’s eye, the fabled “light car”, to boot?
And if you’re going to have a circus, well, darn it, have a good one, even though a single case, with a single plaintiff, would have served pretty much the same effect.
But what is interesting, for those of us who like to muse on these things, is the way the afore-mentioned great unwashed have turned this into a demonstration of Labour’s might and munificence. More than somewhat peculiar, that.
Firstly, is anyone surprised that people are trooping up to try to get some money back from the Government? It would have been as surprising as turkeys voting for Xmas if they hadn’t. So this is not quite the grass-roots show of support for Labour that it’s being touted to be: it’s a show of support for filling one’s wallet, that’s what it is.
And secondly, let’s have less starry-eyed naivety about Labour being so all-fired concerned for the citizenry – it’s not as if the Labour Party is putting its hands in its collective pockets and paying back the tax itself, subrogating itself in the rights of the people who were being refunded. Labour is interested, quite rightly, in embarrassing the Government.
Thirdly, there’s no guarantee that the refund thesis is correct: the mere fact that so many people have signed up means only one thing at this stage. It only means that so many people bought cars and want some cash back. Court cases aren’t won by measuring the number of people who want their version of the law to be the correct one.
That type of court is “the people’s court”, and frankly, it’s the type of court you want to live without, unless you’re pining for Madame La Guillotine.
All that having been said, the masses are revolting, or so they think, so who am I to deny them their fun? And if they get some cash back, good luck to them.
RSS
Comments
Twisting my comment proves that you CANNOT ever play fair. Your biased behaviour is your own failure and discredits your comments.
Oh how it sounds so terrible that the NP should behave like the LP is acting now should the latter find itself in power! You didn't like it one bit, I gather.
Well, let me tell you Joseph Buttigieg Attard, NP government and supporters feel exactly the same you do regarding the 'pairing' situation. So please do not patronize us with your holier than thou attitude.
The 'UNJUST' taxation you so foolishly talk about can be said of any taxes since at the very mention of the word, automatically one feels that another tax is 'unjust'! So, why do you not suggest what 'fair' taxation is and how much and for how long?
If I wrote something which you cannot believe, then you must be living in another world.
@ Charles J Buttigieg
Don't reach the wrong conclusion regarding JPO, Dalli and Arrigo. Allegations without proof.
I remember not too many months ago that you, counting unhatched chickens, were predicting parties switching, with the LP governing and NP opposing! Nobody especially the NP, even thinks of sleeping in the same bed with the LP, but serving the country should be the top priority for both.
Continued
The LP, in Opposition can promise all it wants regarding the return of the 'illegal' VAT. But the LP should also be honest enough to warn the electorate that paying back the 50 million in VAT charged, will mean at least 50 million more in taxes, unless it starts printing its own money, which now, is an impossibility.
@ David Borg Cardona
So the ECJ has not issued a final decision, but an interim one - what's the difference with regards to this spring season?
Whether I write from Canada or not, the mere mention of my residence making me 'less credible' is just firing blanks. Facts are facts whether seen from near or afar. With regards to the 'postponing of the inevitable', I was referring to public opinion.
I dare you poll the public and you will find that in excess of 80% are opposed one way or another to hunting and trapping, period. And that is both Spring and Fall hunting! So your position is very precarious to say the least. Maybe for the next election the question should be put on the ballot and cut this nonsense out once and for all.
May I ask Mr Martinelli how the PN in opposition ever ( I REPEAT EVER) behaved the way you are suggesting or implying the PL in opposition should behave???
I CANNOT believe this! The main role of any opposition is TO OPPOSE and STOP the Administration from imposing on us all UNJUST measures and UNJUST TAXATION!
Above all let us not forget that GONZIPN enjoys the backing of the MINORITY of the electorate!
How can you Mr Martinelli EVER suggest to the PL how to behave when you and your likes are so biased that you are asking us all staunch Catholics to adore the DEVIL to gain eternal salvation?! May I remind you that to err is human but to insist it NEVER IS!
Kidding yourself though your own comments I may understand but trying to kid others I can never accept nor comprehend!
And now I’m signing off.
After the next election they will switch places. That is Democracy in action. We do not expect Government and Opposition sleeping in the same bed.
Wrong again.. The ECJ has not yet ruled against spring hunting. It has only unjustly issued interim measures. The main case has yet to be heard.
The govt "tried to postpone the inevitable" ?????? In this issue the NP started on the 2 wrong feet not one and spewed out false and void promises by the truckload and is now reaping what it sowed i.e. a flawed pre accession agreement. Shooting ( excuse the pun) wrong comments from a cushy Canadain armchair makes one less credible evey day.
Louis Grech MEP took up the matter with the ‘Commission’ after two other members took the same actions. The Commission agreed with Louis Grech however the ‘Commission’ is not empowered to order the Government to refund; it is only able to enforce the Union Members to bring themselves in line with EU Regulations. The Citizens would then need to claim reimbursement through their respective law. Parliaments make the Laws. Administrative Enforcement is left to the Courts of Law.
The hard question which I can’t answer is whether our Courts would apply the two year prescriptive rule to the letter or whether they use their moral judgement in consideration of the background instead of applying the legal median that ‘ignorance is no excuse’. If that happens the illicit VAT payers have got the assurance from the PL that when it returns to power they will get back what morally belongs to them and that would be Social Justice in motion not just in the song.
The VAT on vehicles registration fee was VAT on tax even though our government used the term ‘fee’.
No party in opposition has the luxury of legal experts and other civil servants as enjoyed by the party in administration and therefore mismanagement of people funds, illicit tax collections and other irregularities take time to be noticed by the opposition. Isn’t this obvious?
Article 9 of the June 2007 ‘Reform Treaty’, when ratified, would spell out this fact more empathetically by the deletion of the term’ Institutional’ and substituted by Government.
1. The Union shall have an institutional governmental framework which shall aim to promote its values, advance its objectives, serve its interests, those of its citizens and those of the Member States, and ensure the consistency, effectiveness and continuity of its policies and actions. The Union's institutions government shall be:
• The European Parliament
• The European Council
• The Council
• The European Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"),
• The Court of Justice of the European Union
• The European Central Bank,
• The Court of Auditors.
2. Each institution The government shall act within the limits of the powers conferred on it in the Treaties, and in conformity with the procedures and conditions set out in them. The institutions government shall practise mutual sincere cooperation.
Prior to EU accession our parliament had the freedom to enact any law, fiscal or admin., as long as it respected our Constitution. On accession we gave a guarantee to our EU Partners that we shall play on a level ground and therefore abide to EU Laws. Any law passed through our parliament which contravenes EU regulations would be considered illegal and the Government would be liable to hefty fines if it persists on its enforcement.
The suggestion that “One cannot refer to the VAT question as an 'overcharge'. It is a tax, period” is merely an attempt to justify the wrong doing of the Government. Charging VAT on tax is not an overcharge, nor a tax; it is the fruition of an illegally enacted fiscal law. It is also immoral and the government should be ashamed of itself.
The whole Country gained at the expense of the car-buyers and now the whole Country must refund back and thank the government for the consequences. Robbing Peter to pay Paul? Mhux hekk tghid !
1. One cannot refer to the VAT question as an 'overcharge'. It is a tax, period.
2. Although the tax was instituted before joining the EU, so did the negotiations leading to the acquis. Such info must have been available.
3. If indeed the tax goes against regulations, then a refund is in order, however those claiming that the tax is illegal are indirectly saying that our government is not sovereign and cannot tax as it wishes or deems necessary. One cannot have it both ways.
4. NP candidates for MEPs are free to express an opinion same as Labour MEP prospects do. The only difference is that NP candidates are not subject to censure and fines as the LP candidates are.
5. Many, not just me have a chip on our shoulders when it comes to the MLP and for good and varied reasons, one being that the MLP has always been the partit tal-LE and anti-everything. They jump on someone else's wagon because they have no ideas of their own.
Continued
6. The hunting scenario is a bit different. Malta obtained a derogation subject to the review of the EU and the ECJ. The govt tried to postpone the inevitable but the ECJ ruled against spring hunting.
7 Whether tax on vehicle registration, or higher income tax, the result is the same.. So, it will cost the govt 50 million euros and it will issue refunds if the courts decide so, but then the government can always recover the 50 million through new taxes or the delay of lowering same. What's the fuss all about?
The fact remains that when sitting in Opposition, it is always easy to criticize everything same as in 1996 and prior, the MLP criticized the VAT. So much so that it promised the removal of VAT and when elected, the promise was fulfilled. We all know the result - chaos, higher tax and the eventual reversion to VAT !
The Opposition had better understand that its function is to help and not to hinder government programmes because if in the future it finds itself governing, it will receive the same treatment in kind.
As they say 'What goes around, comes around'!
- unbelievable
- funny
- sad
- and downright pathetic.
Especially when these same in vain and through their own self indulgent vanity to shove their 'intelligence' & intellectual prowess down our throats.
Surely their self procalimed 'intelligence' alone should indicate to themselves the harm they are causing themselves and "their cause"....??
One therefore asks: in reality are they really that DUMB to think they can treat everyone as mere idiots and think that they are credible?
They should know better methinks....
How "the mighty" (sic!) have fallen, it seems.....
Truly a sad state of affairs, especially when, right now so much serious intercourse, input & even debate is to be had.
On VERY serious matter that merits real blogging not blogging(sic!).... if you understand what I mean.
I repeat, truly a sad state of affairs.
Your response in my direction is very poor, very biased and worthless. My point ,that the present Adminstration CANNOT treat us all ( locals) as third class EU citizens is to be condemned by one and all , stands loud and clear.
Infringments on our rights by the present administration MUST be ALWAYS condemned.
My question is-what happens when somebody was fraudulently over-charged and the victim becomes aware of the fraud after two years, would they be legally entitled to be reimbursed by the culprit?
Those who have bought a car within the last two years, from March 2007, do have a very strong case against the government and it still leaves it possible for buyers of cars from 1 May 2004 till March 2007 to sue for the disbursements.
In the very likely event that those who purchased their vehicles after March 2007 win the case and the others forfeit their right due to the prescriptive period of 2 years, the latter category would still have a moral right to get their money back and the government would be given a golden opportunity to put its money where its moral obligations are.
Stealing is a sin even when a legal prescriptive period makes it lawful and politics are about moral correctness not legalities.
"And one would think that the Ministry of Finance would have looked at EU regulations before instituting the tax and obtained legal advice.Tsk tsk tsk!"
1. The tax was made prior to Malta's entry in the EU.
2. One would also have thought that the Government would have looked at EU regulations regarding Spring Hunting and obtained legal advice. Same with satellite licenses. Things don't always happen that way, unfortunately.
"Let the courts decide and if found the tax was illegal, then let the refunds begin"
That's better.
"however, whatever it costs the government, remember, will eventually cost the taxpayers"
That's totally irrelevant. The income tax refunds recently given after decades in waiting, also came out of taxpayers' money. No one had a problem with that...and justly so. If something is owed, it should be given.
And one would think that the Ministry of Finance would have looked at EU regulations before instituting the tax and obtained legal advice.Tsk tsk tsk!
Let the courts decide and if found the tax was illegal, then let the refunds begin, however, whatever it costs the government, remember, will eventually cost the taxpayers.
So, all this hullaballoo amounts to no more than a theatrical performance which is regularly given by the LP and its puppet on a string.
"After the VAT issue, I believe that the LP will attack the government and sue for the return of income taxes as well?"
Red herring. The issue is about the legality (and ethics) of imposing a tax on another tax. Income tax is just one tax, and it is collected all over Europe.
All I said was, what my friend said ; That the Nationalist are `revolting`. And I answered; I know that.
To be serious, robbing people is robbing people and there is no argument about that, whether it is done by the LP or the NP makes no difference.
We are part of the EU, but we seem to abide by EU law only where it suit us.
Thus, why the present Administration is treating us all different from other EU citizens?
Is this not to be condemned by one and all?
It is not a question of "hating tax laws", it is a question of 'right and wrong'! Nor it is the PL that is embarassing the adminsitration but the Adminstration embarrasing itself and us all, by treating us all as ' third class citizens' within the EU.
I see no condemnation for being treated thus by the author of this article. On the contrary he 'created a joke' from such a grave situation. How pathetic!
"...government is afraid that such a support is existent and gaining ground". Support for getting some money back - you're absolutely right! " ...it’s a show of support for filling one’s wallet, that’s what it is".
@ Andrew Mangion
After the VAT issue, I believe that the LP will attack the government and sue for the return of income taxes as well? Jew b'xejn jew xejn - attitudes of three decades ago.
@ laurence schembri
IF Labour was governing and had instituted VAT on registration and the Opposition had raised a fuss, would you not have signed up for a refund? And if you received a refund, would you have switched to the NP ? Highly unlikely - so let the LP waste their time and money with the hopes of gaining a few votes, but then we shall see in four years time.
On the other hand, what if this whole fuss fizzles out?
One advice I give to those expecting a refund plus interest plus expense, I wouldn't spend the money just yet, - just in case...
I voted for EU entry to be treated like an EU citizen...no more and no less.
This really shows to what extent people can go to justify the unjustifiable just as long as one is defending the the blue untouchables.
In philosophy moral relativism is the position that moral or ethical propositions do not reflect objective and/or universal moral truths, but instead make claims relative to social, cultural, historical or personal circumstances. Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth.
I have taken this extract from Wikipedia - do you see anything common with your article? This should be a simple question to answer but just in case you're too bothered with 14,000 citizens that felt they have been robbed by the government and want their money back, here the answer:
Do not try to twist the TRUTH.
I understand that ABC tends to be cynical in his writings but I fail to understand why he tries to belittle certain events. Whether the event's outcome is support for Labour - I guess the people will have to show that when they are called upon to vote. But judging from Dr Frank Portelli's interview on another paper the party in government is afraid that such a support is existent and gaining ground