Our monthly commentary on the latest public finances data and how it compares to our most recent forecast.
Cookies on FT Sites
In-depth discussion and technical papers, devolved tax forecasts, press releases and disclosures. Fiscal sustainability report — July 13th July — 3 MB.
Fiscal sustainability report - data sources 13th July — 66 kB. Fiscal sustainability report — Press notice 13th July — 39 kB. Fiscal sustainability report - Executive summary July 13th July — kB. Fiscal sustainability report - annexes - July 13th July — kB.
July Fiscal sustainability report - long-term projections - annual data series 13th July — 2 MB. July Fiscal sustainability report - main report charts and tables 13th July — 5 MB. Oil and gas projection determinants - Fiscal sustainability report July 24th January — 47 kB. Fiscal sustainability report - press conference speaking note 13th July — kB. The Philippines also challenged a number of measures imposed on imported cigarettes under the Thai VAT regime. According to the Philippines, the excessive tax liability imposed on the imported cigarette resellers also results in additional administrative requirements for these resellers.
In particular, the Philippines challenged the Thai government system under which certain government officials simultaneously served on the board of TTM, a state-owned domestic cigarette manufacturer.
As for the Philippines' claim on the use of a guarantee value in calculating the Excise, Health and Television taxes, the Panel concluded that the Thai government's use of the guarantee value as the tax base and the absence of an automatic refund mechanism for these taxes, concern the substantive aspects of such laws and regulations rather than the manner in which they are put into practical effect. The Panel found that Thailand violated Article X:3 b by failing to maintain an independent tribunal for the prompt review of the concerned administrative actions relating to customs matters.
Further, the Panel did not make a recommendation for the December MRSP Notice as it was not disputed that it had expired and does not continue to exist for the purpose of Article On 3 December , Thailand and the Philippines requested the DSB to adopt a draft decision extending the day time period stipulated in Article On 22 February , Thailand notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretation covered in the panel report.
It was estimated that the report would be circulated to Members no later than 17 June On 17 June , the Appellate Body report was circulated to Members.
The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the UK
The Appellate Body upheld the core findings challenged by Thailand on appeal. The Appellate Body agreed with the Panel that this measure affects the respective tax liability imposed on imported and like domestic products. The Thai measure at issue consists of an exemption from three sets of VAT-related administrative requirements for resellers of domestic cigarettes, together with the imposition of these requirements on resellers of imported cigarettes. The Appellate Body found that the Panel properly analyzed this measure and its implications in the marketplace, and therefore agreed with the Panel that this measure accords less favourable treatment to imported cigarettes by imposing the additional administrative requirements only on resellers of imported cigarettes.
- Language selection;
- UK government debt and deficit as reported to the European Commission: March 2018;
- The Optimal Health Revolution: How Inflammation Is the Root Cause of the Biggest Killers and How the Cutting-edge Sceince of Nutrigenomics Can Transform Your Long-term Health.
Due to an error in the Panel's identification of the basis for its finding, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel's finding that Thailand had not satisfied its burden of proving its defence under Article XX d of the GATT In completing the legal analysis, however, the Appellate Body found, as had the Panel, that Thailand failed to establish that the administrative requirements at issue are justified under Article XX d of the GATT Thai Customs requires importers to provide a guarantee in order to obtain the release of goods from customs pending a final determination of customs value. On 11 August , Thailand informed the DSB that it intends to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a manner that respects its WTO obligations and that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so.
On 23 September , Thailand and the Philippines informed the DSB that they had mutually agreed on the reasonable period of tiem for Thailand to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. With respect to the DSB's recommendation and rulings regarding paragraphs 8. With respect to the DSB's recommendation and rulings regarding all other measures, the reasonable period of time to comply shall be 10 months, expiring on 15 May At the DSB meeting on 28 January , Thailand reported that it had completed the final outstanding steps in its implementation process.
However, the Philippines did not agree that Thailand had fully implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings.
Financialisation and the New Swedish Model | Cambridge Journal of Economics | Oxford Academic
At the DSB meeting on 18 June , Thailand reported that it did not have to take any further action to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The Philippines disagreed and was of the view that Thailand had failed to comply. On 4 May , the Philippines requested consultations pursuant to Article At its meeting on 21 July , the DSB agreed to refer to the original panel, if possible, the matter raised by the Philippines.
The compliance panel had to be composed because two of the original panelists were not available to serve in these compliance proceedings. On 7 December , the Philippines requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the panel. On 16 December , the Director-General composed the panel. On 15 May , the Chair of the compliance panel informed the DSB that the compliance panel expected to issue its final report to the parties in the first quarter of , in accordance with the timetable adopted after consultation with the parties. On 8 November , the Chair of the compliance panel informed the DSB that it had issued its final report to the parties on 12 March , and that public circulation of the report was originally scheduled for 25 September Following a request from the Philippines, the circulation of the report had been postponed until 12 November On 12 November , the compliance panel report was circulated to Members.
In this first recourse to Article These three sets of measures are described below. On 16 November , the BoA issued a ruling regarding the customs valuation of shipments of cigarettes imported by PM Thailand in —, in which it rejected PM Thailand's declared transaction values and determined a higher revised customs value for these entries.
The BoA then proceeded to determine a higher customs value using the so-called deductive method under Article 5 of the CVA. The second category of measures relates to a set of criminal charges filed in January by the Public Prosecutor against PM Thailand and seven of its employees. The third category of measures relates to the Ministry of Finance's administration of the value-added tax VAT regime for cigarettes. Under this regime, PM Thailand must notify the average actual market price of their cigarettes in Thailand for the purpose of determining the base for calculating the VAT due on those cigarettes.
The Philippines challenged this notification requirement, including the required timing of the notification, and the government's refusal to publish an unwritten rule allegedly followed in implementing this requirement.
No recovery in 2013
Regarding the requirement to notify the average actual market price of cigarettes for the purpose of determining the VAT base for cigarettes, the Panel concluded that:. On 9 January , Thailand notified the DSB of its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the compliance panel report.
On 8 March , upon expiry of the day period provided for in Article The Appellate Body indicated that, as communicated to the participants, it would not be possible to staff this appeal for some time, and expressed appreciation for the participants' understanding. The Appellate Body informed the DSB that the Appellate Body would communicate appropriately with participants as soon as it knew more precisely when the Division can schedule the hearing in this appeal.
On 4 July , the Philippines requested for the second time consultations pursuant to Article The second recourse to Article