It is

Unilever believes €11bn Dutch ‘departure tax’ is illegal

It’s not believes here, it is.

EU law says free movement of legal persons…..

15 thoughts on “It is”

  1. So Much For Subtlety

    It may be. But in Europe does that matter? If the Eurocrats want it to be legal?

    It is interesting that Unilever is fleeing Europe for Britain. So Brexit was going to destroy the British economy was it?

  2. Poe’s Law ahoy! but isn’t fleecing fleeing persons with a departure tax stock in trade for Nazi Germany?

    And aren’t they British anyway, Lever Brothers. The same with HSBC being both British and Chinese.

    Mutter mutter, must find my Hang Seng bank book and register for my free don’t-rock-the-boat bribe.

  3. jgh said:
    “And aren’t they British anyway, Lever Brothers”

    Merger of Lever Bros and the Dutch Margerine Union (or some such), hence Unilever.

  4. It is interesting that Unilever is fleeing Europe for Britain.

    As I am sure you are aware, the Remainer answer for that is:’La la la, we can’t hear you bigot”.

    Speaking of the deluded and pathetic, Sajid Javid writes in the Terriblegraph today about how Creepy Joe is the best presidential candidate from the British point of view because “blah blah international rules-based groan bore fart orange man bad trade deal blah”, without mentioning that Biden has already stated that he’s on Ireland/the EU’s side with regard to the UK’s exit and a subsequent trade deal or remembering that Biden was VP in an administration which actively disliked the UK and was always ready to leg us over.

    There’s no mention of the current Hunter furore, because the Telegraph doesn’t think that’s a story….

  5. Gamecock: Lots of billions. I think the only way we get out of it is if there is no deal, and even then it’ll probably be paid as Danegeld, or perhaps Flemgeld as it goes to Brussels, for something else.

  6. Godwin’s law (or Godwin’s rule of Hitler analogies) is an Internet adage asserting that “as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1”.

    Poe’s law is the one about people who are so batshit crazy that they are impossible to satirise iirc.

  7. The U.K. has Departure tax for emigrating companies – basically a recapture of the excess of capital allowances claimed over book depreciation of fixed assets. I expect the Dutch have something similar.

  8. Hmmm.. Unilever.. That’s a fun one..

    First.. The political party that proposed this know they don’t stand a chance in hell in getting this through. It’s the runup to our elections in april next year, so they’re trying to Score Points, in this case on National Sentiment.

    Groen Links properly translates as Green Socialists, which is what they are: Grauniad-reading Greenies with delusions of grandeur. They average at about 8% of the seats in our house of commons, representing the “green” part of the left-radicals and “communists” in our system.
    They’re an eternal opposition party, that may play a minor part in formation of government come election time depending on how the chips fall, hence the posturing.
    Newmania and Murphy are the types that would vote for them..

    The whole proposition itself is in line with what you’d expect from a party like that: Tax anything we don’t like to hell and back. The proposed unification of headquarters to the UK is just an excuse. They’d love to tax every multicorporate for “sins” past, present and future if they could get away with it.

    The unification of the Unilever headquarters is a problem, however, since Unilever never actually merged, but is in fact still legally a partnership between a dutch and a UK company, with the dutch part “emigrating”.
    Which does have legal and tax consequences from the dutch side. Something the fans of unification desperately try to sweep under the rug.
    But that bit is already being handled by the Powers that Be ( and complicated enough for me to not have an actual opinion about except the bare basics ).
    GroenLinks is just pissing all over on top of that to try and mark their territory, or possibly to try to derail those negotiations.

  9. @ Alex
    Yes, we do.
    Which is why the legal wrangling exists over whether UniLever is a merged company or a partnership. It’s a de facto/de jure gordian knot of epic proportions which has played up several times already.
    And with a hefty price tag either way depending on which side you stand on.

  10. Yes, Unilever is complicated. Two different holding companies; if you buy shares in London you get shares in the UK company; buy them in Amsterdam and you get shares in the Dutch one; buy them in New York and you can get either. There’s no legal corporate group structure (they are two separate companies, each with their own independent shareholders), but common directors and a 100-year old agreement to equalise profits between the two. Quite insane; it sort of works, but I can see why they want to rationalise it.

    Mind you, I once saw a group structure diagram for Virgin, and that made Unilever look simple.

  11. Since January 2019 the Second EU Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive requires all member states to impose an exit tax on redomiciling companies. They have all gradually been introducing it over the past coupl;e of years, with only Germany, Greece, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, and Spain still non-compliant at the last count.

  12. Bloke in North Dorset

    Mind you, I once saw a group structure diagram for Virgin, and that made Unilever look simple.

    When I first started working in HK and the rest of Asia someone gave me an article that explained how a founder of a listed company can appear to sell most of his stake in the company yet, through a web of subsidiaries, sister companies, family shareholdings in the companies and a myriad other arcane shenanigans maintained full control of the original company. It was mind boggling.

    I believe a lot of that has been cleaned up and some transparency added.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *