Details

  • Type: Press release
  • Date: 10/14/2010

EU Proposes Bank Levies 

The financial crisis has triggered much international political debate on whether to introduce a levy on banks and similar financial institutions and, if so, what form this should take.  This discussion has taken place at both an international level, in particular within the IMF and the European Council, as well as at national level. A number of individual countries have already adopted or are actively looking at introducing such measures, and more are likely to follow. At the EU level, the European Commission has been advocating a coordinated approach to these national initiatives, in particular, in order to prevent market distortions and double taxation.
 

In parallel to the above initiatives, that are aimed primarily at ensuring future financial sector stability and risk management, consideration has also been given to additional ways of taxing the financial sector. The European Commission has now set out its vision on this, which consists of a two pronged approach: firstly a global tax on financial transactions (a “Financial Transactions Tax”, or “FTT”) and secondly, an EU-wide tax on profit and remuneration of financial sector companies (“Financial Activities Tax”, or “FAT”). The FTT would be broadly intended to raise important revenues for solutions to global problems, as well as contributing to more stable and efficient financial markets. How the revenue from the FAT would be used is yet to be determined.

 

Whether such levies are introduced and, if so, how they are structured may have important practical implications for affected financial institutions. One of the key aims of many of the proposals is in fact to influence the behaviour of financial institutions, for example by discouraging excessive risk-taking. For this reason most countries would exclude certain items, such as Tier 1 capital and insured loans, from the levy, and it may be expected that financial institutions will respond accordingly by adapting their funding structures. On the assumption that certain jurisdictions do not introduce such a levy, this may be an important factor in determining where to headquarter a given financial institution. 

 

Other differences that could have practical implications include the different rates, including caps and thresholds, and also the situation where the levy is tax deductible in one jurisdiction but not in another. These differences could create distortions, but also present important opportunities.