DOCSLIB.ORG

The Legal Framework for Budget

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Legal Framework for Budget «OECD Journal on Budgeting OECD Journal on Budgeting 4, Volume No. 3 Special Issue Special Issue The Legal Framework for Budget Systems The Legal AN INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON Framework for The legal basis for budget processes and budget actors varies enormously across OECD countries. For example, the United States has a dozen major laws Budget Systems to support federal government budget processes, while Denmark and Norway have never adopted any such law. AN INTERNATIONAL To understand this situation, this book compares legal frameworks for budgeting COMPARISON in 13 selected OECD countries. It presents detailed case studies of national budget system laws and identifies why the legal frameworks differ so much. The book also looks at theories of public finance and constitutional political economics, and discusses norms for an optimum legal framework. With a focus on similarities and differences in formal laws (constitutions and statutes relating to the budget system), the comparative analysis will be useful for any government planning to reform its budget laws. OECD Journal on Budgeting OECD’s books, periodicals and statistical databases are now available via www.SourceOECD.org, our online library. This book is available to subscribers to the following SourceOECD themes: Finance and Investment/Insurance and Pensions Governance [email protected] www.oecd.org ISSN 1608-7143 42 2004 05 1 P 2004 SUBSCRIPTION (4 ISSUES) Volume 4, No. 3 -:HRLGKI=\VYUUW: Volume 4, No. 3 OECD Journal on Budgeting Volume 4 – No. 3 ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members. This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries. Publié en français sous le titre : Revue de l’OCDE sur la gestion budgétaire Volume 4 – n° 3 © OECD 2004 No reproduction, copy, transmission or translation of this publication may be made without written permission. Applications should be sent to OECD Publishing: [email protected] or by fax (33 1) 45 24 13 91. Permission to photocopy a portion of this work should be addressed to the Centre français d'exploitation du droit de copie, 20, rue des Grands-Augustins, 75006 Paris, France ([email protected]). FOREWORD Foreword Budget design is a key policy instrument for public management. Budget system laws as an instrument of governance reform play a pivotal role in influencing patterns of public sector behaviour. The relationship between budget design and behavioural incentives is critical to the work of the OECD Working Party of Senior Budget Officials (SBO). Thus the Working Party decided to launch a comparative study of budget system laws in OECD member countries. This book is composed of four parts. Part I discusses theories of comparative law, constitutions, politics and budget systems. Part II presents a comparison of OECD country legal frameworks for budget systems. Part III examines the question of whether there is an optimum legal framework for the budget system and discusses legal norms for budgeting. Part IV contains case studies for selected OECD countries: Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. The study was initiated by the Budgeting and Management Division of the Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate (GOV). Moo-Kyung Jung began work on the study in early 2003. At the same time, Ian Lienert of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) was embarking on an identical project, and a partnership was thereby formed for completing the study. Through the SBO network, comments were provided by officials in national administrations; acknowledgement of the individuals concerned is contained in each country case study. Comments on earlier versions of various parts of this book were given by Professors James Chan (University of Illinois at Chicago, United States), Joanne Kelly (University of Sydney, Australia), Allen Schick (University of Maryland, United States), John Wanna (Griffith University, Australia) and Joachim Wehner (London School of Economics and Political Science, United Kingdom), as well as Professor Emeritus Gabriel Montagnier (University of Lyon-3, France). In addition, comments were received from OECD staff, particularly in the Budgeting and Management Division (notably Alex Matheson, Head of Division, Jón Blöndal, Dirk-Jan Kraan, Michael Ruffner and Joaquin Sevilla) and the OECD Economics Department, and Eivind Tandberg of the Fiscal Affairs Department of the IMF. The authors extend their thanks to all these persons. Any errors are the responsibility of the authors. This book is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries, or of the IMF. OECD JOURNAL ON BUDGETING – VOLUME 4 – NO. 3 – ISSN 1608-7143 – © OECD 2004 3 FOREWORD Authors Ian Lienert (author) is Senior Economist, Fiscal Affairs Department, IMF, Washington DC. He is grateful to the IMF for allowing him the necessary study leave at the OECD to write this book. Moo-Kyung Jung (co-author), from the Ministry of Planning and Budget of Korea, is Project Manager in the Budgeting and Management Division of GOV, OECD. The OECD Journal on Budgeting is a unique resource for policy makers, officials and researchers in public sector budgeting. Drawing on the best of the recent work of the OECD Working Party of Senior Budget Officials, as well as special contributions from Finance Ministries of member countries and others, the Journal provides insights on leading-edge institutional arrangements, systems and instruments for the effective and efficient allocation and management of resources in the public sector. We are anxious to receive feedback from our readers. Your views on how to improve the Journal are welcome and can be sent to: The Editors, The OECD Journal on Budgeting, OECD, 2 rue André-Pascal, F-75775 Paris Cedex 16, France. Fax:(331)44306334; e-mail: [email protected]. The Editors 4 OECD JOURNAL ON BUDGETING – VOLUME 4 – NO. 3 – ISSN 1608-7143 – © OECD 2004 FOREWORD Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate, OECD Odile Sallard Director Alex Matheson Head of Budgeting and Management Division Andrea Uhrhammer Communications and Information Manager OECD Journal on Budgeting Jón R. Blöndal Editor-in-Chief Board of Advisors Richard Emery (Chairman) Assistant Director, Office of Management and Budget, United States Peter DeVries Director, Fiscal Policy, Department of Finance, Canada Gerd Ehlers Director of the Budget, Federal Ministry of Finance, Germany Iain Rennie Deputy Secretary, The Treasury, New Zealand Peter Saurer Deputy Director, Federal Finance Administration, Switzerland Ian Watt Permanent Secretary, Department of Finance and Administration, Australia OECD JOURNAL ON BUDGETING – VOLUME 4 – NO. 3 – ISSN 1608-7143 – © OECD 2004 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents Preface . 11 Executive Summary . 13 Part I. Comparative Law, Constitutions, Politics and Budget Systems .23 1. Introduction. 24 2. Budget processes . 25 2.1. Budgeting: a five-stage process . 25 2.2. How are the different legal frameworks for budget systems organised? . 27 3. Can economic theory explain the differences? . 30 3.1. New institutional economics . 30 3.2. Law, economics and public choice theory. 31 3.3. Constitutional political economy: budgetary rules and budgetary outcomes . 32 3.4. Can game theory help? . 33 4. Can comparative law explain the differences? . 34 4.1. Families of legal systems and the importance of the constitution . 34 4.2. Absence of norms for constitutions partly explains differences in budget system laws . 37 4.3. Hierarchy within primary law also partly explains differences in budget-related laws . 38 4.4. Not all countries complete all steps of formal law-making processes. 40 4.5. Greater use is made of secondary law in some countries . 41 4.6. Decisions and regulations of the legislature are particularly important in some countries . 43
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Notes on Finance Bill 2015 Resolutions
    Notes on Finance Bill 2015 Resolutions 1. Amendment of the law Authorises the Finance Bill to contain those provisions which do not impose or increase a tax charge, in particular provisions that give relief from tax or which deal with tax administration. It also restricts the scope for amendments to VAT. 2. Income tax (charge and main rates) Provides for the charge and main rates to apply for the 2015-16 tax year. 3. Income tax (limits and allowances) Provides for the amount of the income limit for the personal allowance for those born before 6 April 1938, the blind person’s allowance, the minimum amount of the tax reduction for married couples and civil partners; the tax reduction for married couples and civil partners and the income limit for the tax reduction for married couples and civil partners for the 2015-16 tax year. 4. Personal allowances for 2015-2016 Provides for the personal allowance for those born after 5 April 1938 and the amount of the transferable tax allowance for married couples and civil partners for 2015-16. 5. Corporation tax (charge and main rate for financial year 2016) Authorises the Finance Bill to contain provision for corporation tax to be charged for the financial year 2016 (the year beginning 1 April 2016) and for that year the main rate to be 20%. 6. Taxable benefits (diesel cars) Provides for the Finance Bill to contain provision for a change to Chapter 6 of Part 3 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (taxable benefits: cars, vans and related benefits) to be introduced to increase the maximum appropriate percentage for diesel cars to 37% for the tax year 2015-16.
    [Show full text]
  • Download PDF on Financial Privilege
    Report Financial Privilege The Undoubted and Sole Right of the Commons? Sir Malcolm Jack KCB PhD FSA Richard Reid PhD FINANCIAL PRIVILEGE THE UNDOUBTED AND SOLE RIGHT OF THE COMMONS? By Sir Malcolm Jack KCB PhD FSA and Richard Reid PhD Acknowlegements The authors thank The Constitution Society for commissioning and publishing this paper. First published in Great Britain in 2016 by The Constitution Society Top Floor, 61 Petty France London SW1H 9EU www.consoc.org.uk © The Constitution Society ISBN: 978-0-9954703-0-9 © Malcolm Jack and Richard Reid 2016. All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book. FINANCIAL PRIVILEGE 3 Contents Acknowlegements 2 About the Authors 4 Summary 5 PART 1 Conventions in Respect of Financial Privilege 6 PART 2 Parliament Acts 19 PART 3 Handling of Bills with Financial Provisions 30 PART 4 Secondary Legislation 41 PART 5 The Strathclyde Review 51 Appendix 1 Parliament Act 1911 62 Appendix 2 Parliament Act 1949 67 4 FINANCIAL PRIVILEGE About the Authors Sir Malcolm Jack was Clerk of the House of Commons from 2006–2011. He is editor of the current, twenty-fourth edition of Erskine May’s Parliamentary Practice, 2011. He lectures and writes on constitutional and historical subjects, having published widely on the history of ideas as well as on aspects of British, European and South African history.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES SENATE 135Th Anniversary
    107th Congress, 2d Session Document No. 13 Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES SENATE 135th Anniversary 1867–2002 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 2002 ‘‘The legislative control of the purse is the central pil- lar—the central pillar—upon which the constitutional temple of checks and balances and separation of powers rests, and if that pillar is shaken, the temple will fall. It is...central to the fundamental liberty of the Amer- ican people.’’ Senator Robert C. Byrd, Chairman Senate Appropriations Committee United States Senate Committee on Appropriations ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia, TED STEVENS, Alaska, Ranking Chairman THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi ANIEL NOUYE Hawaii D K. I , ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RNEST OLLINGS South Carolina E F. H , PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico ATRICK EAHY Vermont P J. L , CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri OM ARKIN Iowa T H , MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky ARBARA IKULSKI Maryland B A. M , CONRAD BURNS, Montana ARRY EID Nevada H R , RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama ERB OHL Wisconsin H K , JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire ATTY URRAY Washington P M , ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah YRON ORGAN North Dakota B L. D , BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL, Colorado IANNE EINSTEIN California D F , LARRY CRAIG, Idaho ICHARD URBIN Illinois R J. D , KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas IM OHNSON South Dakota T J , MIKE DEWINE, Ohio MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JACK REED, Rhode Island TERRENCE E. SAUVAIN, Staff Director CHARLES KIEFFER, Deputy Staff Director STEVEN J. CORTESE, Minority Staff Director V Subcommittee Membership, One Hundred Seventh Congress Senator Byrd, as chairman of the Committee, and Senator Stevens, as ranking minority member of the Committee, are ex officio members of all subcommit- tees of which they are not regular members.
    [Show full text]
  • 11-01-2021 These Matters Were Called on for Hearing Today
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.¼¼¼¼¼/2021 (Diary No. 45777/2018) IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 494 OF 2012 Beghar Foundation through its Secretary and Anr. Petitioner(s) versus Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) and Ors. Respondent(s) with REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 3948 OF 2018 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 231 OF 2016 Jairam Ramesh Petitioner(s) versus Union of India and Ors. Respondent(s) with REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 22 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1014 OF 2017 1 M.G. Devasahayam Petitioner(s) versus Union of India and Anr. Respondent(s) with REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 31 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1058 OF 2017 Mathew Thomas Petitioner(s) versus Union of India and Ors. Respondent(s) with REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.¼¼¼¼¼/2021 (Diary No. 48326/2018) IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 494 OF 2012 Imtiyaz Ali Palsaniya Petitioner(s) versus Union of India and Ors. Respondent(s) with REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 377 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 342 OF 2017 2 Shantha Sinha and Anr. Petitioner(s) versus Union of India and Anr. Respondent(s) with REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 924 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 829 OF 2013 S.G. Vombatkere and Anr. Petitioner(s) versus Union of India and Ors. Respondent(s) O R D E R Permission to file Review Petition(s) is granted. Delay condoned. Prayer for open Court/personal hearing of Review Petition(s) is rejected. The present review petitions have been filed against the final judgment and order dated 26.09.2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2019, and for Other Purposes
    H. J. Res. 31 One Hundred Sixteenth Congress of the United States of America AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday, the third day of January, two thousand and nineteen Joint Resolution Making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019’’. SEC. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS. Sec. 1. Short title. Sec. 2. Table of contents. Sec. 3. References. Sec. 4. Statement of appropriations. Sec. 5. Availability of funds. Sec. 6. Adjustments to compensation. Sec. 7. Technical correction. DIVISION A—DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019 Title I—Departmental Management, Operations, Intelligence, and Oversight Title II—Security, Enforcement, and Investigations Title III—Protection, Preparedness, Response, and Recovery Title IV—Research, Development, Training, and Services Title V—General Provisions DIVISION B—AGRICULTURE, RURAL DEVELOPMENT, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019 Title I—Agricultural Programs Title II—Farm Production and Conservation Programs Title III—Rural Development Programs Title IV—Domestic Food Programs Title V—Foreign Assistance and Related Programs Title VI—Related Agency and Food and Drug Administration Title VII—General Provisions DIVISION C—COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019 Title I—Department of Commerce Title II—Department of Justice Title III—Science Title IV—Related Agencies Title V—General Provisions DIVISION D—FINANCIAL SERVICES AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2019 Title I—Department of the Treasury Title II—Executive Office of the President and Funds Appropriated to the President Title III—The Judiciary Title IV—District of Columbia H.
    [Show full text]
  • Vetoes and Venues: Economic Crisis and the Roads to Recovery in Michigan and Ontario
    Vetoes and Venues: Economic Crisis and the Roads to Recovery in Michigan and Ontario JOHN CONSTANTELOS Grand Valley State University The Great Recession in 2008–2009 was devastating to the Great Lakes region, exacerbating a nearly decade-long industrial crisis that had already eliminated one million manufacturing jobs. This article examines how subnational governments in Canada and the United States adjusted to the cascading economic disaster. It compares and analyzes the cases of Ontario and Michigan, which have similar economies but important politi- cal institutional differences, notably in the executive-legislative relationship and in their policy-making power. These cases, which share an international border, offer control over an unusually large number of alternative explan- atory factors, permitting a focused analysis of the impact of divided govern- ment and fiscal decentralization on executive policy making. The analysis draws on and integrates the veto player and venue shopping literatures. After presenting the research problem and design, the article turns to the two case studies. These review executive responses to the economic challenges in the years leading up to, during and immediately after the Great Recession. The article finishes with a comparative evaluation of the executives’ economic strategies and the factors that explain the observed differences. The main thesis is that Ontario’s more robust policy response to the economic crisis was related to its institutional advantage of having greater fiscal resources than Michigan and a parliamentary system instead of a separation of powers and divided government. Limited resources and Acknowledgments: My thanks go to Angela Foreman, Ashley Vande Bunte, Abby Vance and Kylene Kalawart for their research assistance, to Michaël Tatham for the ab- stract translation and to Paul Cornish, Polly Diven, Peter Graefe, Lotte Jensen, Francesco Stolfi and the journal’s anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • What the Crown May Do
    WHAT THE CROWN MAY DO 1. It is now established, at least at the level of the Court of Appeal (so that Court has recently stated)1, that, absent some prohibition, a Government minister may do anything which any individual may do. The purpose of this paper is to explain why this rule is misconceived and why it, and the conception of the “prerogative” which it necessarily assumes, should be rejected as a matter of constitutional law. 2. The suggested rule raises two substantive issues of constitutional law: (i) who ought to decide in what new activities the executive may engage, in what circumstances and under what conditions; and (ii) what is the scope for abuse that such a rule may create and should it be left without legal control. 3. As Sir William Wade once pointed out (in a passage subsequently approved by the Appellate Committee2), “The powers of public authorities are...essentially different from those of private persons. A man making his will may, subject to any rights of his dependants, dispose of his property just as he may wish. He may act out of malice or a spirit of revenge, but in law this does not affect his exercise of power. In the same way a private person has an absolute power to release a debtor, or, where the law permits, to evict a tenant, regardless of his motives. This is unfettered discretion.” If a minister may do anything that an individual may do, he may pursue any purpose which an individual may do when engaged in such activities.
    [Show full text]
  • The Estimates of Appropriations 2021/22 - Justice Sector B.5 Vol.7 | I
    B.5 Vol.7 The Estimates of Appropriations for the Government of New Zealand for the Year Ending 30 June 2022 Justice Sector 20 May 2021 ISBN: 978-1-99-004520-2 (print) 978-1-99-004521-9 (online) Guide to the Budget Documents A number of documents are released on Budget day. The purpose of these documents is to provide information about the Government’s fiscal intentions for the year ahead and the wider fiscal and economic picture. The documents released on Budget day are as follows: Budget at a Glance The Budget at a Glance is an overview of the Budget information and contains the main points for the media and public. This summarises the Government’s spending decisions and key points raised in the Budget Speech, the Wellbeing Budget 2021, and the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update. Wellbeing Budget 2021 The Wellbeing Budget 2021 is the main source of Budget information. It sets out the Government’s priorities for the Budget, the approach taken to develop it, and a summary of all initiatives included in Budget 2021. It also contains reports on fiscal strategy and child poverty, as required by the Public Finance Act 1989. These outline respectively the Government’s short-term fiscal intentions and long-term fiscal objectives, and how the Government is progressing towards its child poverty targets. The Summary of Budget Initiatives document is included as an annex. Budget Speech The Budget Speech is the Budget Statement the Minister of Finance delivers at the start of Parliament's Budget debate. The Budget Statement generally focuses on the overall fiscal and economic position, the Government’s policy priorities and how those priorities will be funded.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Dictionary T
    Leach’s Tax Dictionary. Version 9 as at 5 June 2016. Page 1 T T Tax code Suffix for a tax code. This suffix does not indicate the allowances to which a person is entitled, as do other suffixes. A T code may only be changed by direct instruction from HMRC. National insurance National insurance contribution letter for ocean-going mariners who pay the reduced rate. Other meanings (1) Old Roman numeral for 160. (2) In relation to tapered reduction in annual allowance for pension contributions, the individual’s adjusted income for a tax year (Finance Act 2004 s228ZA(1) as amended by Finance (No 2) Act 2015 Sch 4 para 10). (3) Tesla, the unit of measure. (4) Sum of transferred amounts, used to calculate cluster area allowance in Corporation Tax Act 2010 s356JHB. (5) For the taxation of trading income provided through third parties, a person carrying on a trade (Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 s23A(2) as inserted by Finance (No 2) Act 2017 s25(2)). (6) For apprenticeship levy, the total amount of levy allowance for a company unit (Finance Act 2016 s101(7)). T+ Abbreviation sometimes used to indicate the number of days taken to settle a transaction. T$ (1) Abbreviation: pa’anga, currency of Tonga. (2) Abbreviation: Trinidad and Tobago dollar. T1 status HMRC term for goods not in free circulation. TA (1) Territorial Army. (2) Training Agency. (3) Temporary admission, of goods for Customs purposes. (4) Telegraphic Address. (5) In relation to residence nil rate band for inheritance tax, means the amount on which tax is chargeable under Inheritance Tax Act 1984 s32 or s32A.
    [Show full text]
  • Explanatory Notes Finance Bill 2005
    Explanatory Notes Finance Bill 2005 May 2005 © Crown copyright 2005 Published with the permission of HM Treasury on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. The text in this document (excluding the Royal Coat of Arms and departmental logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Any enquiries relating to the copyright in this document should be sent to: The Licensing Division HMSO St Clements House 2-16 Colegate Norwich NR3 1BQ Fax: 01603 723000 E-mail: [email protected] HM Treasury contacts This document can be accessed from the Treasury Internet site at: www.hm-treasury.gov.uk For further information on the Treasury and its work, contact: Correspondence and Enquiry Unit HM Treasury 1 Horse Guards Road London SW1A 2HQ Tel: 020 7270 4558 Fax: 020 7270 4861 E-mail: [email protected] HM REVENUE AND CUSTOMS FINANCE BILL 2005 RESOLUTION 2 CLAUSE 1 EXPLANATORY NOTE CLAUSE 1: GOODS SUBJECT TO WAREHOUSING REGIME: PLACE OF ACQUISITION OR SUPPLY SUMMARY 1. Clause 1 confers on HM Revenue and Customs power to make regulations prescribing circumstances in which the relief from VAT applying to supplies of goods within customs warehouses, contained in section 18(1) of the VAT Act 1994, shall not apply. DETAILS OF THE CLAUSE 2. Supplies of goods within UK customs warehouses are treated as taking place outside the UK for VAT purposes.
    [Show full text]
  • HC 138 Published on 27 January 2005 by Authority of the House of Commons London: the Stationery Office Limited £17.50
    House of Commons Treasury Committee The 2004 Pre–Budget Report First Report of Session 2004–05 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 17 January 2005 HC 138 Published on 27 January 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £17.50 The Treasury Committee The Treasury Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the HM Treasury and its associated public bodies. Current membership Rt Hon John McFall MP (Labour, Dumbarton) (Chairman) Mr Nigel Beard MP (Labour, Bexleyheath and Crayford) Mr Jim Cousins MP (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne Central) Angela Eagle MP (Labour, Wallasey) Mr Michael Fallon MP (Conservative, Sevenoaks) Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory MP (Conservative, Wells) Norman Lamb MP (Liberal Democrat, Norfolk North) John Mann MP (Labour, Bassetlaw) Mr George Mudie MP (Labour, Leeds East) Mr James Plaskitt MP (Labour, Warwick and Leamington) Mr Robert Walter MP (Conservative, North Dorset) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in the House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No. 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk The Committee has power to appoint a Sub-committee, which has similar powers to the main Committee, except that it reports to the main Committee, which then reports to the House. All members of the Committee are members of the Sub- committee, and its Chairman is Mr Michael Fallon. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
    [Show full text]
  • Bill Explanatory Notes Introduction
    FINANCE (No. 3) BILL EXPLANATORY NOTES INTRODUCTION EXPLANATORY NOTES INTRODUCTION 1. These explanatory notes relate to the Finance (No. 3) Bill as introduced into Parliament on 31 March 2011. They have been prepared jointly by the HM Revenue & Customs and HM Treasury in order to assist the reader in understanding the Bill. They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament. 2. The notes are designed to be read alongside with the Bill. They are not, and are not meant to be, a comprehensive description of the Bill. So, where a section or part of a section does not seem to require any explanation or comment, none is given. FINANCE (No. 3) BILL RESOLUTION 2 CLAUSE 1 EXPLANATORY NOTE CLAUSE 1: CHARGE AND MAIN RATES FOR 2011-12 SUMMARY 1. Clause 1 imposes the income tax charge for 2011-12 and sets the basic rate of income tax at 20 per cent, the higher rate at 40 per cent and the additional rate at 50 per cent. DETAILS OF THE CLAUSE 2. Subsection (1) imposes the income tax charge for 2011-12. 3. Subsection (2)(a) sets the basic rate of income tax at 20 per cent. 4. Subsection (2)(b) sets the higher rate of income tax at 40 per cent. 5. Subsection (2)(c) sets the additional rate of income tax at 50 per cent. BACKGROUND NOTE 6. Income tax is an annual tax re-imposed by Parliament (even if the proposed rates are the same as for the previous year). The table below sets out the main rates and rate limits for 2011-12 and for reference includes the amounts for 2010-11: 2010-11 2011-12 Basic rate £0 - £37,400 at 20 per cent £0 - £35,000 at 20 per cent Higher rate £37,401 - £150,000 at 40 per £35,001 - £150,000 at 40 per cent cent Additional rate Over £150,000 at 50 per cent Over £150,000 at 50 per cent The basic rate limit of £35,000 as identified in the table above is set by clause 2 of this Bill.
    [Show full text]