DOCSLIB.ORG

Taxes in the Field of Aviation and Their Impact

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Taxes in the Field of Aviation and Their Impact Taxes in the Field of Aviation and their impact Final report CE Delft June 2019 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport Directorate Aviation Unit E.1 Contact: Flor Diaz Pulido, Head of Unit E-mail: [email protected] European Commission B-1049 Brussels 2 EUROPEAN COMMISSION Taxes in the Field of Aviation and their impact Final report Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport 2019 3 4 Taxes in the Field of Aviation and their impact – Final report Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (*) The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you). LEGAL NOTICE This document has been prepared for the European Commission however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://www.europa.eu). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019 ISBN 978-92-76-08132-6 doi: 10.2832/913591 © European Union, 2019 Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. Content 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 13 1.1 Aim of the study ......................................................................................... 13 1.2 Scope of the study ...................................................................................... 13 1.3 Methodology of modelling aviation taxes ........................................................ 15 1.4 Outline of the report ................................................................................... 16 2. INVENTORY OF TAXES .......................................................................................... 17 2.1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 17 2.2. Data sources ............................................................................................ 17 2.3.1. IATA Ticket Tax Box Service (TTBS) .............................................................. 17 2.3.1. IATA Airport Charges Intelligence Centre ....................................................... 17 2.3.2. QPX Express API ......................................................................................... 17 2.3.3. ‘Taxes in Europe’ database .......................................................................... 18 2.3.4. Use of the various data sources in the study .................................................. 18 2.4. Type of taxes ............................................................................................. 19 2.4.1. Ticket taxes ............................................................................................... 19 2.4.2. Value Added Tax......................................................................................... 26 2.4.3. Taxation of aircraft fuel ............................................................................... 28 2.4.4. Environmental charges ................................................................................ 31 2.4.5. Taxes for air cargo ...................................................................................... 31 2.5. Comparison of taxes ................................................................................ 32 2.5.1. Aviation taxes in Europe .............................................................................. 32 2.5.2. Aviation taxes outside Europe ...................................................................... 35 2.6. Policies in the case of no-shows .............................................................. 37 3. MODELLING THE IMPACTS OF AVIATION TAXES ...................................................... 43 3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 43 3.1.1. How the model can be applied ...................................................................... 44 3.1.2. Treatment of fiscal revenues in the model ...................................................... 45 3.1.2. Outline of the chapter ................................................................................. 46 3.2. Data inputs .............................................................................................. 46 3.2.1. Base year .................................................................................................. 46 3.2.2. Passenger volumes ..................................................................................... 47 3.2.3. Ticket prices .............................................................................................. 48 3.2.4. Employment data ....................................................................................... 51 3.2.5. GDP data ................................................................................................... 51 3.3. Passenger groups .................................................................................... 51 3.4. Modelling taxes ....................................................................................... 52 3.4.1. Ticket taxes ............................................................................................... 52 3.4.2. VAT .......................................................................................................... 52 3.4.3. Excise duty ................................................................................................ 53 3.5. Impacts ................................................................................................... 54 3.5.1. Passenger demand ...................................................................................... 54 3.5.2. Change in number of flights and connectivity ................................................. 55 3.5.3. Jobs .......................................................................................................... 56 3.5.4. GDP .......................................................................................................... 58 3.5.5. Fiscal revenue from the aviation sector.......................................................... 60 3.5.6. CO2 emissions from the aviation sector.......................................................... 60 3.5.7. Noise ........................................................................................................ 61 4. IMPACTS OF AVIATION TAXES ON EU MEMBER STATES AND THE EU28 ...................... 62 4.1. Austria ..................................................................................................... 63 6 4.2. Belgium ................................................................................................... 65 4.3. Bulgaria ................................................................................................... 67 4.4. Croatia ..................................................................................................... 68 4.5. Cyprus ..................................................................................................... 70 4.6. Czech Republic......................................................................................... 71 4.7. Denmark .................................................................................................. 73 4.8. Estonia .................................................................................................... 75 4.9. Finland ..................................................................................................... 76 4.10. France ..................................................................................................... 78 4.11. Germany .................................................................................................. 80 4.12. Greece ..................................................................................................... 82 4.13. Hungary ................................................................................................... 84 4.14. Ireland..................................................................................................... 86 4.15. Italy ......................................................................................................... 88 4.16. Latvia ...................................................................................................... 90 4.17. Lithuania ................................................................................................. 91 4.18. Luxembourg ............................................................................................ 93 4.19. Malta ....................................................................................................... 94 4.20. The Netherlands ...................................................................................... 96 4.21. Poland ..................................................................................................... 98 4.22. Portugal ................................................................................................... 99 4.23. Romania ................................................................................................ 101 4.24. Slovakia ................................................................................................. 103 4.25. Slovenia ................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TTF Federal Election Spotlight – PMC 2016
    TTF 2016 ELECTION PASSENGER SPOTLIGHT #2 MOVEMENT CHARGE Introduction The visitor economy provides $11 billion in taxes to the Government bank account on the products it sells. The most obvious of these in the Australian context is the Passenger Movement Charge (PMC), a $55 ‘holiday’ tax imposed on all travellers departing Australia – domestic and international – over 12 years of age. The PMC is a direct hit on the visitor’s hip pocket and is artificially constraining demand, especially as international competition for visitors continues to intensify. Australia’s PMC is a $1 billion tax hit on our visitor economy, imposed on both Australians and international visitors departing the country. While originally introduced as a cost recovery levy for passenger processing, numerous price hikes and a growing number of travellers means that the PMC has now become a ‘cash cow’ for Government – collecting three times more than what the cost to process passengers at international borders. Unnecessary travel taxes have real impacts on demand for travel to a destination and spending by visitors. Recognising the gains to be made in capturing the visitation of close neighbours, our competitors have taken steps to abolish travel taxes. This is why the industry welcomed the Federal Government’s commitment to freezing the PMC at $55 for the current term of Parliament.1 Recognising that visitor taxes can damage a destination’s price competitiveness, the industry very much hopes to see the current freeze on the PMC continue for the next term of Parliament, and for a commitment from all political parties to implement a timetable of phased reductions of the PMC to return it to a genuine cost recovery levy.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparison of World Airline Rankings with Different Criteria: Best Airline Ranking and EVAMIX Method Rank
    American Research Journal of Humanities Social Science (ARJHSS)R) 2019 American Research Journal of Humanities Social Science (ARJHSS) E-ISSN: 2378-702X Volume-02, Issue-03, pp-38-46 March-2019 www.arjhss.com Research Paper Open Access Comparison of World Airline Rankings with Different Criteria: Best Airline Ranking and EVAMIX Method Rank Assoc. Prof. Dr. Ozlem Deniz Basar, Istanbul Commerce UniversityDepartment of Statistics Sutluce Mah., Imrahor Cad., No :90, Beyoglu / Istanbul / Turkey Phone : +90-212-444-0413/4613 ABSTRACT:- Competition in the transportation sector is in constant rise as in all sectors today. It is crucial for airlines, which are one of the most important shareholders in the transportation sector, to be recognized and reliable in order to have a place in the market. For this reason, different companies prepare and share a world airline ranking with public each year. These rankings are prepared using different criteria and methodologies. Hence, each of these rankings differs from each other. This study considers the Best Airline Ranking prepared by Airhelp in 2018. The first 15 airlines in this ranking are re-ranked with the EVAMIX method using unused criteria and the results are compared with the Best Airline Ranking. In the conclusion of the study, it is found out that rankings changed significantly; hence, it is greatly important to determine what is desired to measure when the airlines are compared. Keywords: Airline, Ranking, EVAMIX, Critic Method I. INTRODUCTION It is of importance to meet the changing consumer demands, reach and serve more customers in the aviation sector as in all other sectors.
    [Show full text]
  • Aviation Rankings' Misjudgment: Inspiration of Egypt Air and Cairo International Airport Cases
    Journal of the Faculty of Tourism and Hotels-University of Sadat City, Vol. 4, Issue (2/1), December, 2020 Aviation Rankings' Misjudgment: Inspiration of Egypt Air and Cairo International Airport Cases 1Farouk Abdelnabi Hassanein Attaalla 1Faculty of Tourism and Hotels, Fayoum University Abstract This study aims to make a comprehensive assessment of the three most popular aviation rankings; Skytrax, AirHelp and TripAdvisor from a critical perspective supported by a global field study conducted in the same methodology as these three rankings have been done. This study is based on the descriptive statistics to analyze field data gathered about EgyptAir and other airlines, Cairo International Airport and other airports and comparing these results with what is published in these three rankings in 2018. The current study reveals that the results of these three global rankings are characterized by shortcomings and lack of value and unfairness. Finally, the study suggests a model for fairness and equity in the rankings of airlines and airports. Keywords: Air Rankings, Egypt Air, Cairo International Airport, Equity. 1- Introduction Through scanning the international airlines and airports rankings for the recent five years from 2013 to 2018, it is found that no understandable and embarrassing absence for Egypt Air (MS) and Cairo International Airport (CAI). However, Arabic airlines and Airports such as Qatar Airways, Emirates Airways, Oman Air, Etihad Airways, Saudia Airlines, Royal Jordanian and Air Maroc, Hamad International Airport and Queen Alia International Airport have occupied different ranks through these years. Their ranks may be one of the top 10 airline and airport positions, while others occupy one of the top 100 airlines and airports in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • A Scottish Approach to Taxation - CIOT/ ATT Members Survey
    A Scottish Approach to Taxation - CIOT/ ATT members survey The Scottish Government has committed itself to a tax system that adheres to Adam Smith’s four principles. Do you agree with the four principles that tax policy should: Response Answer Options Yes No Undecided No comment Count Be proportionate to the ability to pay 135 11 19 0 165 Provide certainty to the taxpayer 162 0 3 0 165 Provide convenience / ease of payment 160 2 2 1 165 Be efficient 160 0 2 2 164 If you wish, you may provide further comments e.g. the reasons why you agree or disagree with a particular principle. 27 answered question 165 skipped question 0 The Scottish Government has committed itself to a tax system that adheres to Adam Smith’s four principles. Do you agree with the four principles that tax policy should: 180 160 140 120 Yes 100 No Undecided 80 No comment 60 40 20 0 Be proportionate to Provide certainty to Provide Be efficient the ability to pay the taxpayer convenience / ease of payment A Scottish Approach to Taxation - CIOT/ ATT members survey Do you think the Scottish Government can achieve a taxation system underpinned by Adam Smith’s four principles? Response Response Answer Options Percent Count Yes 24.1% 39 No 34.0% 55 Undecided 40.7% 66 No comment 1.2% 2 If you answered ‘yes’, please explain how you think this might best be 65 answered question 162 skipped question 3 Do you think the Scottish Government can achieve a taxation system underpinned by Adam Smith’s four principles? Yes No Undecided No comment A Scottish Approach to Taxation - CIOT/ ATT members survey Are there any other principles you think that the Scottish taxation system should adhere to? Response Answer Options Count 82 answered question 82 skipped question 83 A Scottish Approach to Taxation - CIOT/ ATT members survey Council Tax – Council Tax has been devolved to Scotland since 1993, and local authorities have the power to set its level.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Departure Tax: Who Benefits? Analysis for Scottish Policymakers
    air departure tax: who benefits? analysis for scottish policymakers fellow travellers air departure tax: who benefits? About Fellow Travellers fellowtravellers.org Fellow Travellers is a not-for-profit, unincorporated association campaigning for fair and equitable solutions to the growing environmental damage caused by air travel. We aim to protect access to reasonable levels of flying for the less well-off, whilst maintaining aviation emissions within safe limits for the climate. About the authors Leo Murray is the founder of the Free Ride campaign and Director of strategy at climate change charity 10:10. Twitter @crisortunity Charlie Young is an independent researcher with a background in economics and climate change. He focuses on new economics and analyses the socio- economic impacts of policy interventions. Twitter @CMaxwellYoung Acknowledgements This paper was produced with the kind support of Scottish Green Party MSPs. We would also like to thank statisticians at Transport Scotland, HMRC and the CAA for their help compiling and making sense of the data that informs this analysis. Permission to share This document is published under a creative commons licence: Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 UK http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/uk/ This paper was first published in June 2017. introduction This paper explores the clearest dimensions of the distributional impacts of the Scottish Government’s planned 50% cut in air passenger taxes, asking the question: who benefits? Our analysis of Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) Passenger Survey data from Scottish airports reveals that this £160m+ annual tax giveaway will predominantly go to line the pockets of wealthy frequent flyers and corporations, while the majority of Scots will lose out.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Passenger Duty and Air Departure Tax - Highlands and Islands Exemption
    SPICe Briefing Pàipear-ullachaidh SPICe Air Passenger Duty and Air Departure Tax - Highlands and Islands exemption Anouk Berthier This is a short note on the Air Passenger Duty exemption for passengers departing from areas in the Scottish Highlands and Islands and the Scottish Government's intention to put in place a similar exemption under Air Departure Tax. 12 October 2017 SB 17-70 Air Passenger Duty and Air Departure Tax - Highlands and Islands exemption, SB 17-70 Contents Background ____________________________________________________________3 Air Passenger Duty (APD) Highlands and Islands exemption ___________________4 Air Departure Tax (ADT) exemption for the Highlands and Islands _______________7 Fiscal framework considerations___________________________________________9 Bibliography___________________________________________________________ 11 2 Air Passenger Duty and Air Departure Tax - Highlands and Islands exemption, SB 17-70 Background Following the recommendations of the Smith Commission (2014), the Scotland Act 2016 provides for the power to charge tax on air passengers leaving Scottish airports to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The Air Departure Tax (Scotland) Bill was introduced in the Scottish Parliament on 19 December 2016 and received Royal Assent on 25 July 2017. The Air Departure Tax (Scotland) Act 2017 introduces an Air Departure Tax (ADT) which is intended to replace Air Passenger Duty (APD) in Scotland. The fiscal framework agreement between the Scottish and UK Government states that APD will be devolved in April 2018. 1 Tax bands and tax rate amounts are not provided for in the Act and will be set by secondary legislation. The Air Departure Tax (Scotland) Bill as introduced 2 did not provide for exemptions. However, the Finance and Constitution Committee ("the Committee") stated in its Stage 1 report on the Bill: 3 “ The Committee asks the Scottish Government to respond to the suggestion that flights to Highlands and Islands airports from other Scottish airports should be exempted from the definition of chargeable aircraft.
    [Show full text]
  • All 23 Taxes.Pdf
    Air passenger duty 1 Alcohol duty 2 Apprenticeship levy 3 Bank corporation tax surcharge 4 Bank levy 5 Business rates 6 Capital gains tax 7 Climate change levy 8 Corporation tax 9 Council tax 10 Fuel duty 11 Income tax 13 Inheritance tax 15 Insurance premium tax 16 National insurance 17 Petroleum revenue tax 19 Soft drink industry levy 20 Stamp duty land tax 21 Stamp duty on shares 22 Tobacco duty 23 TV licence fee 24 Value added tax 25 Vehicle excise duty 26 AIR PASSENGER DUTY What is it? Air passenger duty (APD) is a levy paid by passengers to depart from UK (and Isle of Man) airports on most aircraft. Onward-bound passengers on connecting flights are not liable, nor those on aircraft weighing under 10 tonnes or with fewer than 20 seats. It was introduced in 1994 at a rate of £5 per passenger to EEA destinations, and £10 to non-EEA destinations. In 2001 a higher rate for non-economy class seats was introduced. In 2009 EEA and non-EEA bands were replaced with four distance bands (measured from the destination’s capital city to London, not the actual flight distance) around thresholds of 2,000, 4,000 and 6,000 miles. In 2015 the highest two bands were abolished, leaving only two remaining: band A up to 2,000 miles and band B over 2,000 miles. For each band there is a reduced rate (for the lowest class seats), a standard rate and a higher rate (for seats in aircraft of over 20 tonnes equipped for fewer than 19 passengers).
    [Show full text]
  • Best & Worst Airlines and Airports of 2019 Revealed
    IN THIS ISSUE President’s Letter Page 3 Articles Page 19-40 Vice President’s Letter Page 4 Letters Page 41-45 About the Cover Page 6 In Memoriam Page 45-47 Local Reports Page 7-19 Calendar Page 48 Volume 22 Number 6 (Journal 717) June, 2019 —— OFFICERS —— President Emeritus: The late Captain George Howson President: Bob Engelman………………………………………....954-436-3400…………………………………….………[email protected] Vice President: John Gorczyca…………………………………..916-941-0614……………...………………………………[email protected] Sec/Treas: John Rains……………………………………………..802-989-8828……………………………………………[email protected] Membership Larry Whyman……………………………………...707-996-9312……………………………………[email protected] —— BOARD OF DIRECTORS —— President - Bob Engelman — Vice President — John Gorczyca — Secretary Treasurer — John Rains Rich Bouska, Phyllis Cleveland, Cort de Peyster, Ron Jersey Jonathan Rowbottom, Bill Smith, Cleve Spring, Larry Wright —— COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN —— Cruise Coordinator……………………………………..Rich Bouska………………. [email protected] Eblast Chairman……………………………………….. Phyllis Cleveland [email protected] RUPANEWS Manager/Editor………………………… Cleve Spring [email protected] RUPA Travel Rep………..…………………………….. Pat Palazzolo [email protected] Website Coordinator………………………………….. Jon Rowbottom rowbottom0@aol,com Widows Coordinator…………………………………... Carol Morgan [email protected] Patti Melin [email protected] RUPA WEBSITE………………………………………………………..…………..…….http://www.rupa.org —— AREA REPRESENTATIVES —— Arizona Hawaii Phoenix Road Runners...Ken Killmon……………………. [email protected] Hawaiian Ono Nene’s…Larry Becker…………….. [email protected] Tucson Toros...Randy Ryan……………………….. [email protected] Big Island Stargazers...Linda Morley-Wells…………[email protected] Beth Ann Raphael………………[email protected] California Dana Point...Joe Udovch……………………………….. [email protected] Illinois Los Angeles South Bay.Sharon Crawford…[email protected] Greater Chicago Area Group...Bob Helfferich…. [email protected] Monterey Peninsula...Phyllis Cleveland…………[email protected] Dick Kane……………..
    [Show full text]
  • Nota De Prensa Las Aerolíneas "Made in Spain
    Publicado en Madrid el 06/06/2018 Las aerolíneas "made in Spain" de las peores según AirHelp Score 2018 AirHelp Score analiza aeropuertos y aerolíneas de todo el mundo respecto a su calidad de servicio, procedimiento de las reclamaciones, desempeño en tiempo, y satisfacción del cliente. Qatar Airways la mejor aerolínea del mundo en puntualidad, satisfacción del cliente y procedimiento de reclamaciones.Iberia, una de las peores aerolíneas del ranking con una puntuación de 6,13 sobre 10 AirHelp, la plataforma online líder que ayuda a los viajeros en todas las compensaciones por retrasos, cancelaciones o denegaciones de embarque de las compañías aéreas, ha presentado hoy su ranking anual de AirHelp Score sobre las mejores aerolíneas y aeropuertos del mundo. Este 2018 destaca la aerolínea Qatar Airways como la mejor aerolínea del mundo con una valoración de 9,08, seguida de Lufthansa, con un 8,57, y Etihad Airways, con 8,43. Estas puntuaciones de AirHelp son de las más completas y precisas del mercado, que se basan en datos de aerolíneas y aeropuertos, valorándolos en función de su calidad de servicio, su puntualidad, el procesamiento de sus reclamaciones y de un análisis de las opiniones online de sus usuarios. Las aerolíneas que se centran en sus pasajeros son las que ocupan las primeras posiciones del AirHelp Score 2018 Las mejoras en el tiempo de espera y en los procesos de reclamaciones de sus clientes han hecho que Qatar Airways, en primera posición este año, desbanque a Singapore Airlines, que actualmente está en cuarto puesto entre las 72 aerolíneas de 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of Survey
    Report of Survey Public and Private Initiatives in Each Country and Region to Revive International Tourism Exchange from the COVID-19 Crisis Japan Tourism Agency （2021） Table of contents Executive summary ............................................................................................................. 2 1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4 2. Review of the response to COVID-19 to date ................................................................ 6 2.1. Public sector’s measures that have been effective in each country or region in responding to the COVID-19 crisis ..................................................................................... 6 2.1.1. Management of travelers and their behavioral regulations .................................... 6 2.1.2. Supports for Tourism-related Businesses.............................................................. 8 2.1.3. Stimulating Demand for Domestic Travel .............................................................10 2.1.4. Revival of International Tourism Exchange ..........................................................14 2.1.5. Measures related to hosting the MICE events .....................................................15 2.1.6. Other Measures ...................................................................................................16 2.2. Private Sector’s Effective Solutions in Responding to the COVID-19 crisis ................19 2.2.1. Before-Travel .......................................................................................................19
    [Show full text]
  • Air Passenger Duty: Implications for Northern Ireland
    House of Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Air Passenger Duty: implications for Northern Ireland Second Report of Session 2010–12 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 5 July 2011 HC 1227 Published on 8 July 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £0.00 The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Northern Ireland Office (but excluding individual cases and advice given by the Crown Solicitor); and other matters within the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (but excluding the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, Northern Ireland and the drafting of legislation by the Office of the Legislative Counsel). Current membership Mr Laurence Robertson MP (Conservative, Tewkesbury) (Chair) Mr Joe Benton MP (Labour, Bootle) Oliver Colvile MP (Conservative, Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) Mr Stephen Hepburn MP (Labour, Jarrow) Lady Hermon MP (Independent, North Down) Kate Hoey MP (Labour, Vauxhall) Ian Lavery MP (Labour, Wansbeck) Naomi Long MP (Alliance, Belfast East) Jack Lopresti MP (Conservative, Filton and Bradley Stoke) Dr Alasdair McDonnell MP (SDLP, Belfast South) Ian Paisley MP (DUP, North Antrim) David Simpson MP (DUP, Upper Bann) Mel Stride MP (Conservative, Central Devon) Gavin Williamson MP (Conservative, South Staffordshire) The following Member was also a member of the Committee during the Parliament: Stephen Pound MP (Labour, Ealing North) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152.
    [Show full text]
  • TAC0094 Written Evidence Submitted by Rebecca Evans
    TAC0094 Written evidence submitted by Rebecca Evans (Minister for Finance and Trefnydd at Welsh Government); Kate Forbes (Cabinet Secretary for Finance at Scottish Government); Conor Murphy Murphy (Minister of Finance at Northern Ireland Executive) We welcome the UK Parliamentary Treasury Committee’s inquiry into tax after coronavirus. Please find attached our written submission to the inquiry. Devolved taxation requires special consideration by the Committee in its inquiry. Taxes administered by the democratically-elected governments of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland are an increasingly important component of the UK tax system. Moreover, the interactions between the devolved and reserved parts of the UK tax system have significant financial and policy implications for the Devolved Administrations. Our submission highlights some of the weaknesses in the current inter-governmental mechanisms for developing and implementing tax policy in the UK. Addressing these weaknesses and managing the distribution of responsibilities concerning taxation between the UK Government and the Devolved Administrations necessitates more effective inter-governmental mechanisms and governance structures than those currently in place. We hope the UK Government will recognise the importance and mutual benefits of a shared approach to tax reform by engaging fully with the Devolved Administrations on both the principles and the detail of any changes to the tax system. We stand ready to reciprocate. We are copying this letter to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Secretary of State for Wales, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Key Points Devolved taxation is an increasingly important component of the UK’s tax system, and therefore require special consideration by the Committee in its inquiry.
    [Show full text]