European Union financial transaction tax


The European Union financial transaction tax is a proposal made by the European Commission to introduce a financial transaction tax within some of the member states of the European Union.
The proposed EU financial transaction tax would be separate from a bank levy, or a resolution levy, which some governments are proposing to impose on banks to insure them against the costs of any future bailouts. It was initially claimed the tax, as proposed, would raise 57 billion Euros per year if implemented across the entire EU.
The first proposal for the whole of the EU was presented by the European Commission in 2011 but did not reach a majority. Instead, the Council of the European Union authorized member states who wished to introduce the EU FTT to use enhanced co-operation. The Commission proposed a directive for an EU FTT in 2013 but the proposal stalled. In 2019 Germany and France released a proposal based on the French financial transaction tax and the finance ministers of the states participating in the enhanced cooperation came to the consensus that the EU FTT should be negotiated using this proposal.
According to early plans, the tax would impact financial transactions between financial institutions charging 0.1% against the exchange of shares and bonds and 0.01% across derivative contracts, if just one of the financial institutions resides in a member state of the EU FTT. To avoid an unwanted negative impact on the real economy, the FTT will not apply to:
  1. Day-to-day financial activities of citizens and businesses.
  2. Investment banking activities in the context of raising capital.
  3. Transactions carried out as part of restructuring operations.
  4. Refinancing transactions with central banks and the ECB, with the EFSF and the ESM, and transactions with EU.

    History

On 28 June 2010, the European Union's executive said it will study whether the European Union should go alone in imposing a tax on financial transactions after G20 leaders failed to agree on the issue. The following day the European Commission called for Tobin-style taxes on the EU's financial sector to generate direct revenue for the European Union. At the same time it suggested to reduce existing levies coming from the 27 member states.

European Commission proposal

On 28 September 2011, president of the European Commission José Barroso officially presented a plan to create a new financial transactions tax "to make the financial sector pay its fair share", pointing out that the financial sector received 4.6 trillion euros from EU member states during the crisis. In December 2012 the European Commission's State Aid Scoreboard revealed a new figure saying the volume of national support to the financial sector between October 2008 and 31 December 2011 amounted to around 1.6 trillion euros, two-thirds of which came in the form of State guarantees on banks' wholesale funding.
Given 10 EU member states already have a form of a financial transaction tax in place, the proposal would effectively introduce new minimum tax rates and harmonise different existing taxes on financial transactions in the EU. According to the European Commission this would also "help to reduce competitive distortions in the single market, discourage risky trading activities and complement regulatory measures aimed at avoiding future crises".
The Commission proposal requires unanimity from the 27 Member States to pass. France, Germany, Spain, Belgium, Finland spoke in favor of the EU proposal. Austria and Spain are also known to support an EU FTT. Nations that oppose the proposal include the United Kingdom, Sweden, the Czech Republic and Bulgaria. Particularly the UK government has expressed strong views about the negative impact of the tax and is expected to use its power of veto to block the implementation of this proposal, unless the tax was to be introduced globally. The likelihood of a global FTT is low due to opposition from the United States. As a way out, advocates of the FTT such as the finance ministers from Germany, Austria and Belgium have suggested that the tax could initially be implemented only within the 17-nation eurozone, which would exclude reluctant governments like the United Kingdom and Sweden. If adopted, the EU FTT would have come into effect on 1 January 2014.
In October 2012, after discussions failed to establish unanimous support for an EU-wide FTT, the European Commission proposed that the use of enhanced co-operation should be permitted to implement the tax in the states which wished to participate. The proposal, supported by 11 EU member states representing more than 90% of Eurozone GDP was approved in the European Parliament in December 2012 and by the Council of the European Union in January 2013 with 4 EU members abstaining: Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Malta and the UK. On 14 February, the European Commission put forward a revised proposal outlining the details of the FTT to be enacted under enhanced co-operation, which was only slightly different from its initial proposal in September 2011. The proposal was approved by the European Parliament in July 2013, and must now be unanimously approved by the participating states before coming into force. EU member states which have not signed up to the FTT are able to join the agreement in the future.
On 14 February 2013, the European Commission put forward a revised proposal outlining the details of the FTT to be enacted under enhanced co-operation, which was only slightly different from its initial proposal in September 2011. The proposal was approved by the European Parliament in July 2013, and must now be unanimously approved by the 11 initial participating states before coming into force. The legal service of the Council of the European Union concluded in September 2013 that the European Commission's proposal would not tax "systemic risk" activities but only healthy activities, and that it was incompatible with the EU treaty on several grounds while also being illegal because of "exceeding member states' jurisdiction for taxation under the norms of international customary law". The Financial Transaction Tax can no longer be blocked by the Council of the European Union on legal grounds, but each individual EU member state is still entitled to launch legal complaints against the FTT if approved to the European Court of Justice, potentially annulling the scheme. On 6 May 2014, ten out of the initial eleven participating member states agreed to seek a "progressive" tax on equities and "some derivatives" by 1 January 2016, and aimed for a final agreement on the details to be negotiated and unanimously agreed upon later in 2014.
In June 2013, the Commission announced that a January 2014 launch for the FTT was no longer realistic, but that it "could still enter into force towards the middle of 2014." The following month, Algirdas Šemeta, European Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, Audit and Anti-Fraud, said that "The Commission is ready to examine the suggestions made for an initial introduction of the tax with lower rates for products of specific market segments" including "both government bonds and pension funds." He left open the possibility the rate for these segments could be increased in the future.
On 6 May 2014, ten out of the initial eleven participating member states agreed to seek a "progressive" tax on equities and "some derivatives" by 1 January 2016, and aimed for a final agreement on the details to be negotiated and unanimously agreed upon later in 2014.
In December 2015, Estonia announced that it no longer supports the financial transactions tax, due to concerns that the latest revised version of the tax would hardly generate any revenue, while at the same time scaring away traders.
The United Kingdom's vote in 2016 to withdraw from the EU would complicate collection of the taxes, which has led to delays in negotiations.

Scope

The tax would be levied on all transactions on financial instruments between financial institutions when at least one party to the transaction is located in the EU. It would cover 85% of the transactions between financial institutions. House mortgages, bank loans to small and medium enterprises, contributions to insurance contracts, as well as spot currency exchange transactions and the raising of capital by enterprises or public bodies through the issuance of bonds and shares on the primary market would not be taxed, with the exception of trading bonds on secondary markets.
Following the "R plus I" solution an institution would pay the tax rate appropriate to the country of its residence, regardless of the location of the actual trade. In other words, the tax would cover all transactions that involve European firms, no matter whether these transactions take place within the EU or elsewhere in the world. If acting on behalf of a client, e.g., when acting as a broker, it would be able to pass on the tax to the client. Hence, it would be impossible for say French or German banks to avoid the tax by moving their transactions offshore.

Tax rate and revenues

Naturally estimated revenues may vary considerably depending on the tax rate but also on the assumed effect of the tax on trading volumes. An official study by the European Commission suggests a flat 0.01% tax would raise between €16.4bn and €43.4bn per year, or 0.13% to 0.35% of GDP. If the tax rate is increased to 0.1%, total estimated revenues were between €73.3bn and €433.9bn, or 0.60% to 3.54% of GDP.
The official proposal suggests a differentiated model, where shares and bonds are taxed at a rate of 0.1% and derivative contracts, at a rate of 0.01%. According to the European Commission this could approximately raise €57 billion every year. Much of the revenue would go directly to member states. The United Kingdom e.g. would receive around €10bn in additional taxes. The part of the tax that would be used as an EU own resource would be offset by reductions in national contributions. EU member states may decide to increase their part of the revenues by taxing financial transactions at a higher rate.
The levy that 11 Eurozone countries are expected to introduce could raise as much as €35bn a year.

Legal challenge

In March 2013, the UK's European Union Committee of the House of Lords urged the British government to challenge the FTT at the European Court of Justice due to concerns over the impact of the tax on non-participating states such as the UK. Lyndon Harrison, chair of the committee, suggested that "although the European Commission denies it, it is our view that UK authorities will be under an obligation to collect the tax." A report, commissioned by the City of London Corporation, which was published in April 2013 claimed that the tax would raise the UK's debt financing costs by £4 billion. On 3 April 2013, Czech Prime Minister Petr Necas said that the FTT was unacceptable, and refused to rule out challenging it with the European Court of Justice.
In April 2013, George Osborne, the UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced that his country had filed a legal challenge of the decision authorizing the use of enhanced cooperation to implement the FTT with the European Court of Justice. Osborne said that "we're not against financial transaction taxes in principle but we are concerned about the extra-territorial aspects of the Commission's proposal". A Finance Ministry spokesman said that "we will not stand in the way of other countries, but only if the rights of countries not taking part are respected" and that the current Commission proposal "does not meet these requirements." Luxembourg's Minister for Finance Luc Frieden said that his country was "very sympathetic" to the UK's legal challenge and would "bring arguments in support of the case".
On 30 April 2014, the European Court of Justice dismissed the United Kingdom's action against the authorization of the use of enhanced cooperation, but didn't rule out the possibility the UK could challenge the legality of the FTT itself if it is eventually approved. Osborne has threatened a new challenge if the FTT is approved.

Evaluation and reception

;European Commission
The European Commission itself expects the EU FTT to have the following impact on financial markets and the real economy:
A long-run reduction in gross domestic product in the EU by 0.53% if "mitigating effects" take hold, or up to 1.76% if they don't. In May 2012 the EU Commission corrected its analysis and now predicts a slightly smaller negative impact on economic growth of 0.3%, and even a positive impact of at least 0.1% or €15bn if the generated tax revenues are spent on growth enhancing public investments. Algirdas Semeta, European Commissioner for taxation, customs, audit and anti-fraud argues that "if the projected €57bn per year is put towards consolidating national budgets, reducing other taxes or investing in public services and infrastructure, the direct economic effect of the FTT should be positive for growth and employment in Europe".
In its latest study from May 2012 the European Commission also dismissed the belief that financial institutions could avoid the tax by moving their transactions offshore, saying they could only do so by giving up all their European customers.
;Council of the European Union
In an opinion dated 6 September 2013, the legal service of the Council of the European Union, assessing the European Commission's proposal, stated that it would tax activities that "are not liable to contribute to systemic risk and which are indispensable for the activities of non-financial business entities" and concluded that it was illegal because it "exceeds member states' jurisdiction for taxation under the norms of international customary law" and is not compatible with the EU treaty "as it infringes upon the taxing competences of non participating member states".
The opinion further stated that the tax would be in violation of the EU Treaty because it would be an obstacle to the free movement of capital and services and it would be "discriminatory and likely to lead to distortion of competition to the detriment of non participating member states".
Algirdas Semeta, European Commissioner, responded to the opinion by stating that the Commission would continue working on the FTT and that "the approach which has been taken in the proposal is the correct one and does not breach any provisions of the Treaty." A legal opinion prepared for the Commission which refuted the Council opinion was subsequently leaked. It argued that the FTT was "in conformity both with customary international law and EU primary law".
The Financial Transaction Tax can no longer be blocked by the Council of the European Union on legal grounds, but each individual EU member state is still entitled to launch legal complaints against the FTT if approved to the European Court of Justice, potentially annulling the scheme.
;External experts
In February 2012, the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs of the European Parliament discussed the European Commission proposal with financial experts. Avinash Persaud of Intelligence Capital, Sony Kapoor of Re-Define and Stephany Griffith-Jones of Columbia University have all welcomed the suggested financial transaction tax which, they argued would hit the right players, such as high frequency traders and intermediary financial players, and not the real economy, and which could lead to a 0.25% increase in GDP. Griffith Jones and Persaud estimate the positive impact on economic growth to amount to at least €30bn until 2050. At the Committee meeting Griffith-Jones and Persaud presented a report which goes into more detail about this position, claiming that an FTT could lead to an 0.25% increase in GDP on the assumption that the FTT would "decrease the probability of crises by a mere 5%". However, they do not believe that a Financial Transaction Tax on its own would prevent financial crises. The authors argue:
In May 2012, member of the executive board of the European Central Bank Jörg Asmussen also spoke out in favour of an EU FTT, citing additional revenues and justice to be the main reasons.
Former International Monetary Fund Chief Economist Kenneth Rogoff is critical of a FTT, saying "Europeans concluded that an FTT's political advantages outweigh its economic flaws... there certainly is a case to be made that an FTT has so much gut-level popular appeal that politically powerful financial interests could not block it." Similarly, Oxera, the Sveriges Riksbank
and the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis have all come out with detailed analysis and criticisms of the proposed EU FTT.

Public opinion

A Eurobarometer poll of more than 27,000 people published in January 2011 found that Europeans are strongly in favour of a financial transaction tax by a margin of 61% to 26%. Of those, more than 80% agree that if global agreement cannot be reached – a FTT should, initially, be implemented in just the EU. Support for a FTT, in the UK, is 65%. Another survey published earlier by YouGov suggests that more than four out of five people in the UK, France, Germany, Spain and Italy think the financial sector has a responsibility to help repair the damage caused by the economic crisis. The poll also indicated strong support for a FTT among supporters of all the three main UK political parties.

Position of member states

Requested participation in enhanced co-operation

The following 10 countries are participating in the proposal of the European Commission to implement a FTT using enhanced co-operation. :