[ad_1]
Nobody speaks of the "word D". Do you remember the controversial abolition of the dividend tax? The "melon" who came to the table in the formation and that partners of the coalition of the Prime Minister of the VVD, Mark Rutte had to swallow and say goodbye? Bring the headquarters of companies like Unilever to the Netherlands. Good for the Netherlands
"There is a dirty little dirt from the past, which is called Shell"
We know how it ended. It was a failure. With Polman, director of Unilever, this weekend in the NA was a confusing interview, in which he gave the measure to the investigators ("I think you live in a country too small and think too small"). Mark Rutte saw his plan and argumentation die. It was filmed ruthlessly by my colleague Matthias Pauw: "Unilever exposes the lies of the Prime Minister".
Is this ready? No. There is a dirty land of the past. This dirt is called Shell. And it can still be boring. This year, a study by Professor Jan van de Streek (University of Amsterdam) showed that Shell had an agreement with the tax authorities in 2004. This agreement related to the merger between the Dutch and British branches and to the Headquarters of Royal Dutch Shell – Netherlands.
The agreement consisted of the conclusion of a "settlement agreement". UK shareholders were not to pay tax on dividends after the merger on the sums paid by the company. Thanks to a special trust in Jersey. Since 2005, Shell has contributed $ 45 billion through this construction, the Foundation for Multinational Enterprises Research (Somo) has calculated. This means that the state has generated up to 7 billion in tax revenue.
"Remove billions of free tax revenue for Shell this year, next year forever"
Trouw published in June. The cabinet vowed that everything was fine, that everything had happened in accordance with the rules in force at the time. And that they could not say anything about the agreement because the tax laws forbade it. Prime Minister Rutte turned out to have forgotten a memo, but could not say anything about it. An urgent debate followed. The opposition asked for the disclosure of information (rejected), insisted on a parliamentary inquiry (rejected) and the debate ended on a censorship vote that did not succeed either. .
RTL Nieuws' research now shows that in this Shell agreement, from 2004, there is no end date, as the sources confirm. It is customary, when the tax authorities make agreements or decisions, to apply them for 5 or 10 years. If it is not in this case. This opens the way for billions more tax dollars for Shell (for UK foreign shareholders). This year. The next year. Forever. And the House of Representatives was made complicit and gagged by the cabinet. Because the parliament was informed during a technical briefing. And now, the organ of control of our democracy is bound to the duty of confidentiality.
Aware of the absence of an end date, read the minutes of the June 28 parliamentary debate. Prime Minister Rutte and Secretary of State Menno Snel (Finance) strive to break the neck to avoid lying. A play in our national meeting room
"Eternal agreement is possible"
This begs the question: if you do not tell the whole truth, is it also a joke?
We see The same thing as Renske Leijten, member of the European Parliament, later asks a series of written questions without naming Shell. Menno Snel then juggles the edges of the truth: create as much fog as possible and hope that reality remains hidden.
Between the lines, you can read here that an eternal agreement is therefore possible. And that it can only be broken by a change of law – it is precisely this amendment of the law (abolition of the tax on dividends) which is now out of the question. And so the Shell case goes on as usual.
There is more and more evidence that something is wrong. A little earlier, I mentioned the involvement of Prime Minister Balkenende at the time in 2004 and the Secretary of State Joop Wijn in the framework of the agreement concluded in 2004 and 2005.
"Or Shell is a Taxpayer Like Us All or Not"
Other than Snel State Secretary stated in the parliamentary debate on June 28 that politicians had actually sent them conscientiously. This case was not on the advice of an inspector. Vin has personally instructed the officials; negotiations with Shell lasted months.
In all other cases, this would be called "the exploration of fiscal boundaries", which is totally forbidden because it amounts to cheating. Whether a contract is suitable for tax authorities under the law or not. Or you have to pay tax on dividends, or not. Shell is a taxpayer like us all or not.
The fact that the Ministry of Finance seems to have fallen behind also emerges from a Somo Wob proceeding on the business climate from January 2004: the year 2004 was miraculously derived decision [19659002] "This could bring Shell to pay billions"
According to a procedure of RTL News dating from the same year 2004, new documents are appearing, elements that the House has not . None of the pieces we see, and most of the documents are not even named, because of the so-called secret. Interesting is what is named. You need to get the initial request from RTL News to understand what's going on.
In July, we asked for all documents, including – item 6 of the application – documents indicating whether the transaction was (possibly) bad. If the settlement agreement with Shell was perhaps "contra legem" – contrary to law. What does finance say? Not that such a document simply does not exist. Or that such a room is not "found" and that there is nothing wrong.
No, item 6 is thrown into the big pile with other parts of the application; there are three documents, says the ministry: a note to Joop Wijn of 3 September 2004, a memo dated February 2015 to the direction of the tax authorities (during the period when the agreement was stretched because Shell British Gas took over), and moreover, I found another document: "& # 39; In connection with the obligation of confidentiality, I can not say anything else about this document. Enigmatic
New rounds and new opportunities for the House of Representatives
The finance knows that the ministry can not maintain this if "Brussels" was to be questioned. After PvdA MEP Paul Tang complained, European Commissioner Vestager (Concurrence) opened an exploratory investigation into the Shell deal in October to determine if there was public support secret and illegal. This could force Shell to pay billions. According to Tang, the lack of delay indicates that Shell has received a "sweetness": "I hope this will be taken into account in the investigation as to whether Shell's tax decision does not does not constitute unlawful State aid ".
The Snel State Secretary has already The leap forward: tighter rules for decisions, tax evasion is tackled harder, more – anonymously – transparency on transactions is closed, and last Thursday, he explained his plans
He also reads a new tour and new opportunities for the House of Representatives, who will also want to know: what do these new rules mean for the old agreements and what to do with an agreement with a multinational that does not end? Catch-22: Why change your legislation, like the old agreement, that Shell itself called "good plan" for the Netherlands?
Pieter Klein
Ps: In recent days I have filed Shell and Ministry of Finance for a number of issues. You will find the questions and answers here
Source link
