Talk:European Union withholding tax

Barbados
Removed this statement:
 * In the case of the latter, it is popularly thought that this is an oversight by the EU due to a mistaken belief that the island was a British territory.

Not only is that unsourced, its just silly. Do you really think the EU would make that kind of mistake? The whole idea is just nonsense. --SJK 13:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement you deleted referred to Bermuda (rather than Barbados), which was left off the list of dependencies and territories in error. Well, that's what Big 4 accountancy firm Ernst & Young say anyway http://www.ey.com/global/download.nsf/Austria/EU_Savings_Directive_0106/$file/EUSD%20Alert_V4.pdf Bosh 78 21:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Bosh_78


 * Both Barbados and Bermuda were left off by "mistake" in the sense that they were both intended to be caught in the dragnet and the EU has evinced an intention to put pressure on both to sign up. The difference is that Bermuda is a dependancy (and thus, in theory, the UK's FCO can impose legislation on it by Order in Council), but Barbados is not (and so is in a stronger negotiating position).  As to the issue of whether one should "really think the EU would make that kind of mistake"... oh, if you only knew.  To be fair, the withholding tax was so fiercely negotiated with so many different countries (both within and outside of the EU - Britain was hugely opposed in principle), the failure to get a sign-up from Barbados and Bermuda ranks amongst the smaller failings of the process. The fact that it does not affect capital growth bonds, interest paid to companies and trusts, or any interest accruing in other major offshore banking centres like Hong Kong and Singapore are of rather more concern to the EU. Legis 09:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

"...depositing funds in tax havens with strong bank secrecy laws."? This statement seems to be rather partisan. Perhaps it should be re-written to be more neutral in tone: "...depositing funds in countries beyond the reach of EU taxation powers." (I'm being objective here - my heart tells me "...beyond the grasp of EU taxation")!125.231.3.48 00:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

UK non-dom rules and Beckham law
Beckham law is also applied to Spanish citizens who have been out of Spain for a certain period. Beckham law establishes a lower taxation percentage in national income than the Spanish law. Therefore it is not only restricted to national income but ALSO the taxation is lower. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.34.171.76 (talk) 10:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC) Are these two sub-headings really connected in any way with the EU withholding tax? They seem to me to just be comments on the general tax laws with respect to cross-border matters in two EU states. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are connected because they define areas where exemption from the tax is applicable Although 23:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that is correct. The EU withholding tax does not have any carve-outs for national law.  David Beckham had to pay the full EU withholding tax on any deposits that he had in banks in Spain, and likewise any British non-doms who are resident in another EU state will have to pay the withholding. --Legis (talk - contribs) 16:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Implementation of the EU Savings Directive is down to the domestic rules of the coutries which deduct it. Spain does not deduct EU Withholding Tax, (presumably only Spanish withholding Tax), therefore Beckham would not have paid the EU Savings Tax in Spain, but of course he would have been liable for Spanish Tax on his Spanish income. However, the domestic directives of certain countires such as Switzerland and Jersey effectively exempt a person from the EU Savings tax if prove they are not liable for tax in their home country except if they remit the funds to their home country.  For example, Article 37 of the Swiss Directive reads as follows:

'37. Si le bénéficiaire des intérêts est résident dans un Etat membre de l’UE, mais n’y est pas assujetti aux impôts pour toutes les composantes de son revenu, la fiscalité de l’épargne de l’UE est tout de même applicable. S’il est toutefois prouvé à l’agent payeur que le bénéficiaire des intérêts est exonéré de manière générale de l’impôt sur le revenu dans l’Etat membre de l’UE dans lequel il a son domicile ou que, à défaut de leur transfert dans l’Etat de domicile („remittance“), les intérêts qui lui ont été payés n’y sont pas soumis à une imposition, la fiscalité de l’épargne de l’UE ne trouve pas application.'

The full Swiss directive is here (in French I am afraid). Swiss implementation of EU Savings Directive in French

Clearly under the above rule UK resident but non-UK domiciled individuals who prove their status as well as any Foreign resident of Spain who can prove that he has obtained a ruling of exemption from tax on foreign income eill be exempt from paying the EU Savings Tax in Switzerland.

Isle of Man - citation please
An editor reports that the Isle of Man has changed its stance to "full disclosure" and removed it from the list. A citation for this (here, not in the article) would be good. --Red King (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Banking secrecy
An editor placed the following onto the article page:

No ! this is certainly not  up to  date : the Channel Islands  will no longer have banking secrecy but will have information exchange. Also the Isle of Man. PLEASE correct this article, thank you.

I have added a disputed-section tag and this talk section to discuss correction.212.159.70.147 (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Countries providing for the exchange of information and Countries providing for the withholding tax retention under the Transitory Provisions
Please find below two citations for Belgium abolishing the european withholding tax and subscribing to full exchange of information:

https://multimediafiles.kbcgroup.eu/ng/published/CBC/PDF/SPB_DRP_Fiscalite_europeenne_epargne_EN.pdf https://www.ing.be/en/retail/investments/useful-information/pages/tax-aspects.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.169.9.14 (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:46, 29 April 2016 (UTC)