Windfall Profit Taxation in Europe (and Beyond)

IF 1.3 Q1 LAW
Laws Pub Date : 2023-12-20 DOI:10.3390/laws13010001
M. Greggi, Anna Miotto
{"title":"Windfall Profit Taxation in Europe (and Beyond)","authors":"M. Greggi, Anna Miotto","doi":"10.3390/laws13010001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2022, the European Commission introduced, for the first time in its history, a windfall profit tax to be applied on “excessive” profits realized by qualified businesses operating in the “Oil and Gas” sector. Immediately after its implementation, questions arose as to its sustainability and its consistency with constitutional principles of the different member states regulating the domestic power to tax. To assess the consistency with the aforesaid rules, the article samples two countries, inside and outside the EU (Italy and Australia, respectively), and the historical precedents of the matter. Italy has been chosen due to the particularly stringent set of principles regulating the power of the legislature to tax, and Australia has been chosen because of the long-standing experience with superprofit taxes. In most of the scenarios analyzed, one common feature emerged: the complexity in defining the “Extra” nature of the profits and, consequently, the uncertainties in the calculation of the taxable base. In the case of Italy, for instance, the legislator had to intervene in several different moments to fine-tune the taxable base and restore certainty to the tax system. As a conclusion, while the taxation of extra profits should not per se be disregarded, its implementation demands a more robust and precise legal framework together with the understanding that the introduction of such a levy would be a one-way journey for the tax systems: windfall profits taxes would be here to stay.","PeriodicalId":30534,"journal":{"name":"Laws","volume":"3 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laws","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/laws13010001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2022, the European Commission introduced, for the first time in its history, a windfall profit tax to be applied on “excessive” profits realized by qualified businesses operating in the “Oil and Gas” sector. Immediately after its implementation, questions arose as to its sustainability and its consistency with constitutional principles of the different member states regulating the domestic power to tax. To assess the consistency with the aforesaid rules, the article samples two countries, inside and outside the EU (Italy and Australia, respectively), and the historical precedents of the matter. Italy has been chosen due to the particularly stringent set of principles regulating the power of the legislature to tax, and Australia has been chosen because of the long-standing experience with superprofit taxes. In most of the scenarios analyzed, one common feature emerged: the complexity in defining the “Extra” nature of the profits and, consequently, the uncertainties in the calculation of the taxable base. In the case of Italy, for instance, the legislator had to intervene in several different moments to fine-tune the taxable base and restore certainty to the tax system. As a conclusion, while the taxation of extra profits should not per se be disregarded, its implementation demands a more robust and precise legal framework together with the understanding that the introduction of such a levy would be a one-way journey for the tax systems: windfall profits taxes would be here to stay.
欧洲(及其他地区)的暴利税
2022 年,欧盟委员会在其历史上首次引入暴利税,适用于在 "石油和天然气 "部门经营的合格企业实现的 "超额 "利润。该政策实施后,立即引发了关于其可持续性以及是否符合不同成员国规范国内征税权的宪法原则的问题。为了评估与上述规则的一致性,本文以欧盟内部和外部的两个国家(分别是意大利和澳大利亚)以及该问题的历史先例为样本。之所以选择意大利,是因为该国有一套特别严格的原则来规范立法机构的征税权;之所以选择澳大利亚,是因为该国有长期征收超利润税的经验。在分析的大多数方案中,都出现了一个共同特点:界定利润的 "额外 "性质非常复杂,因此在计算应税基础时存在不确定性。以意大利为例,立法者不得不在几个不同的时刻进行干预,以微调应税基数并恢复税制的确定性。总之,虽然对额外利润征税本身不应被忽视,但其实施需要一个更健全、更精确的法律框架,同时还需要认识到,这种征税的引入将是税收制度的单行道:暴利税将继续存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Laws
Laws LAW-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
77
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信