Agrégateur de flux

Responsibility for tax expenditures: In the United Kingdom (UK) government ministers introduce and amend tax reliefs including tax expenditures. They are a joint responsibility: HM Treasury takes strategic oversight while HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) administers them, including their monitoring, maintenance and evaluation.
Their number and scale: Tax expenditures in the United Kingdom result in a considerable release of fiscal resources by central government, little known and off-budget. The official estimated cost comes to 7.6 per cent of GDP in 2023-24, equivalent to a quarter of total tax revenue collected, although that cost is only based on the generally larger 107 of the 344 tax expenditures identified where costs were estimated for that year. Since 2020 significantly fuller listings of tax expenditures with many more estimated costs and explanations have been released annually.
Benchmarking: This term is not used in UK official documents. Tax expenditures are generally described as ‘non-structural’ tax reliefs as opposed to ‘structural’ ones. They make up about one-third of all acknowledged tax reliefs. Little is provided on the criteria for distinguishing the two, which do not appear to have greatly changed in many years. The classification is still not sufficiently clearly formulated, especially as it is acknowledged that many tax reliefs contain both structural and non-structural elements.
Transparency: Much more needs to be done to improve the UK’s transparency score with greater openness to public discussion and response given its current ranking of 39th out of 105 assessed countries, scoring 51.3 out of 100, in the Global Tax Expenditures Transparency Index (GTETI) (Redonda et al. 2024).
Complex landscape: The plans to provide a fuller accounting of tax expenditures have been markedly ambitious in relation to previous progress. While there has been substantial improvement, their actual implementation has been at best variable. On several issues fuller accounts have been provided in the latest reports. Further analysis needs to be carried out and published assessing the impact of tax expenditures and their interaction with other government interventions instead of keeping them within their own silo.
Evaluation challenges: It is not clear how much systematic evaluation is being carried out within the government. Recent reviews based on published guidelines are improving the extent and quality of fiscal data. The release of the evaluation plans is encouraging, as it signals that further work is likely in this area. The continuing contrast with the regular and published scrutiny of public spending is still emphasised by external analysts.
Distributional and behavioural impact: Regular reporting on the behavioural and distributional impacts of tax expenditures by HM Treasury or HMRC is limited. Official consideration of behavioural responses is generally confined to tackling issues of exploitation and abuse of tax expenditures, and there is less on examining and reporting on their value for money or the broader social, economic, environmental and political impact of reliefs and any options for change. Who gets what and how with what effect on the distribution of resources, individually and across society, is mostly neglected.
Fiscal Sustainability: There appears little government recognition of the fact that tax expenditures effectively have automatic priority because of their pre-distribution before the regular budgetary process allocating public spending. In consequence the government has not given sufficient attention to the workings of tax expenditures and the results of changes in uptake and costs in them. The effects of their interactions with public spending measures and their impacts on the overall economy have also been neglected.
Maintaining momentum for greater openness: How much the momentum for providing greater accountability and openness will be maintained amid continuing staffing cuts, resource constraints and competing policy priorities is unclear. Long-term resistance to opening up the area may not have disappeared. Progress may well depend on how much extra-governmental pressure is maintained by, for example, NAO, with its series of valuable scrutinising reports, and by parliamentary select committees, thinktanks and other groups and individuals. Meanwhile many bodies and groups that benefit from existing tax expenditures are active in defending them and opposing any reduction, especially behind the scenes.
Policy recommendations: There needs to be fuller and open recognition by HM Treasury and HMRC of tax expenditures as policy interventions that merit wider scrutiny and discussion just as other policy measures. Their conjunction with these policies also deserves closer examination.
The strong case for a regular tax expenditure budget is strengthened by the present lack of specific budgetary restraint on tax expenditures. This has resulted in limited control of costs and awareness of other effects, although the increased public accounting annually may now be leading to greater official awareness and closer management.
Such democratic accountability would help to increase knowledge and understanding among a wider and larger audience outside government. That could enable a clearer view of tax expenditures as instruments of policy and encourage a broader debate on their impacts and options for change.

Adrian Sinfield is Professor Emeritus of Social Policy, University of Edinburgh.

Responsibility for tax expenditures: In the United Kingdom (UK) government ministers introduce and amend tax reliefs including tax expenditures. They are a joint responsibility: HM Treasury takes strategic oversight while HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) administers them, including their monitoring, maintenance and evaluation.
Their number and scale: Tax expenditures in the United Kingdom result in a considerable release of fiscal resources by central government, little known and off-budget. The official estimated cost comes to 7.6 per cent of GDP in 2023-24, equivalent to a quarter of total tax revenue collected, although that cost is only based on the generally larger 107 of the 344 tax expenditures identified where costs were estimated for that year. Since 2020 significantly fuller listings of tax expenditures with many more estimated costs and explanations have been released annually.
Benchmarking: This term is not used in UK official documents. Tax expenditures are generally described as ‘non-structural’ tax reliefs as opposed to ‘structural’ ones. They make up about one-third of all acknowledged tax reliefs. Little is provided on the criteria for distinguishing the two, which do not appear to have greatly changed in many years. The classification is still not sufficiently clearly formulated, especially as it is acknowledged that many tax reliefs contain both structural and non-structural elements.
Transparency: Much more needs to be done to improve the UK’s transparency score with greater openness to public discussion and response given its current ranking of 39th out of 105 assessed countries, scoring 51.3 out of 100, in the Global Tax Expenditures Transparency Index (GTETI) (Redonda et al. 2024).
Complex landscape: The plans to provide a fuller accounting of tax expenditures have been markedly ambitious in relation to previous progress. While there has been substantial improvement, their actual implementation has been at best variable. On several issues fuller accounts have been provided in the latest reports. Further analysis needs to be carried out and published assessing the impact of tax expenditures and their interaction with other government interventions instead of keeping them within their own silo.
Evaluation challenges: It is not clear how much systematic evaluation is being carried out within the government. Recent reviews based on published guidelines are improving the extent and quality of fiscal data. The release of the evaluation plans is encouraging, as it signals that further work is likely in this area. The continuing contrast with the regular and published scrutiny of public spending is still emphasised by external analysts.
Distributional and behavioural impact: Regular reporting on the behavioural and distributional impacts of tax expenditures by HM Treasury or HMRC is limited. Official consideration of behavioural responses is generally confined to tackling issues of exploitation and abuse of tax expenditures, and there is less on examining and reporting on their value for money or the broader social, economic, environmental and political impact of reliefs and any options for change. Who gets what and how with what effect on the distribution of resources, individually and across society, is mostly neglected.
Fiscal Sustainability: There appears little government recognition of the fact that tax expenditures effectively have automatic priority because of their pre-distribution before the regular budgetary process allocating public spending. In consequence the government has not given sufficient attention to the workings of tax expenditures and the results of changes in uptake and costs in them. The effects of their interactions with public spending measures and their impacts on the overall economy have also been neglected.
Maintaining momentum for greater openness: How much the momentum for providing greater accountability and openness will be maintained amid continuing staffing cuts, resource constraints and competing policy priorities is unclear. Long-term resistance to opening up the area may not have disappeared. Progress may well depend on how much extra-governmental pressure is maintained by, for example, NAO, with its series of valuable scrutinising reports, and by parliamentary select committees, thinktanks and other groups and individuals. Meanwhile many bodies and groups that benefit from existing tax expenditures are active in defending them and opposing any reduction, especially behind the scenes.
Policy recommendations: There needs to be fuller and open recognition by HM Treasury and HMRC of tax expenditures as policy interventions that merit wider scrutiny and discussion just as other policy measures. Their conjunction with these policies also deserves closer examination.
The strong case for a regular tax expenditure budget is strengthened by the present lack of specific budgetary restraint on tax expenditures. This has resulted in limited control of costs and awareness of other effects, although the increased public accounting annually may now be leading to greater official awareness and closer management.
Such democratic accountability would help to increase knowledge and understanding among a wider and larger audience outside government. That could enable a clearer view of tax expenditures as instruments of policy and encourage a broader debate on their impacts and options for change.

Adrian Sinfield is Professor Emeritus of Social Policy, University of Edinburgh.

Responsibility for tax expenditures: In the United Kingdom (UK) government ministers introduce and amend tax reliefs including tax expenditures. They are a joint responsibility: HM Treasury takes strategic oversight while HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) administers them, including their monitoring, maintenance and evaluation.
Their number and scale: Tax expenditures in the United Kingdom result in a considerable release of fiscal resources by central government, little known and off-budget. The official estimated cost comes to 7.6 per cent of GDP in 2023-24, equivalent to a quarter of total tax revenue collected, although that cost is only based on the generally larger 107 of the 344 tax expenditures identified where costs were estimated for that year. Since 2020 significantly fuller listings of tax expenditures with many more estimated costs and explanations have been released annually.
Benchmarking: This term is not used in UK official documents. Tax expenditures are generally described as ‘non-structural’ tax reliefs as opposed to ‘structural’ ones. They make up about one-third of all acknowledged tax reliefs. Little is provided on the criteria for distinguishing the two, which do not appear to have greatly changed in many years. The classification is still not sufficiently clearly formulated, especially as it is acknowledged that many tax reliefs contain both structural and non-structural elements.
Transparency: Much more needs to be done to improve the UK’s transparency score with greater openness to public discussion and response given its current ranking of 39th out of 105 assessed countries, scoring 51.3 out of 100, in the Global Tax Expenditures Transparency Index (GTETI) (Redonda et al. 2024).
Complex landscape: The plans to provide a fuller accounting of tax expenditures have been markedly ambitious in relation to previous progress. While there has been substantial improvement, their actual implementation has been at best variable. On several issues fuller accounts have been provided in the latest reports. Further analysis needs to be carried out and published assessing the impact of tax expenditures and their interaction with other government interventions instead of keeping them within their own silo.
Evaluation challenges: It is not clear how much systematic evaluation is being carried out within the government. Recent reviews based on published guidelines are improving the extent and quality of fiscal data. The release of the evaluation plans is encouraging, as it signals that further work is likely in this area. The continuing contrast with the regular and published scrutiny of public spending is still emphasised by external analysts.
Distributional and behavioural impact: Regular reporting on the behavioural and distributional impacts of tax expenditures by HM Treasury or HMRC is limited. Official consideration of behavioural responses is generally confined to tackling issues of exploitation and abuse of tax expenditures, and there is less on examining and reporting on their value for money or the broader social, economic, environmental and political impact of reliefs and any options for change. Who gets what and how with what effect on the distribution of resources, individually and across society, is mostly neglected.
Fiscal Sustainability: There appears little government recognition of the fact that tax expenditures effectively have automatic priority because of their pre-distribution before the regular budgetary process allocating public spending. In consequence the government has not given sufficient attention to the workings of tax expenditures and the results of changes in uptake and costs in them. The effects of their interactions with public spending measures and their impacts on the overall economy have also been neglected.
Maintaining momentum for greater openness: How much the momentum for providing greater accountability and openness will be maintained amid continuing staffing cuts, resource constraints and competing policy priorities is unclear. Long-term resistance to opening up the area may not have disappeared. Progress may well depend on how much extra-governmental pressure is maintained by, for example, NAO, with its series of valuable scrutinising reports, and by parliamentary select committees, thinktanks and other groups and individuals. Meanwhile many bodies and groups that benefit from existing tax expenditures are active in defending them and opposing any reduction, especially behind the scenes.
Policy recommendations: There needs to be fuller and open recognition by HM Treasury and HMRC of tax expenditures as policy interventions that merit wider scrutiny and discussion just as other policy measures. Their conjunction with these policies also deserves closer examination.
The strong case for a regular tax expenditure budget is strengthened by the present lack of specific budgetary restraint on tax expenditures. This has resulted in limited control of costs and awareness of other effects, although the increased public accounting annually may now be leading to greater official awareness and closer management.
Such democratic accountability would help to increase knowledge and understanding among a wider and larger audience outside government. That could enable a clearer view of tax expenditures as instruments of policy and encourage a broader debate on their impacts and options for change.

Adrian Sinfield is Professor Emeritus of Social Policy, University of Edinburgh.

Positive Group v Council
Common foreign and security policy
War in Ukraine: the General Court upholds the restrictive measures against Positive Group PAO, an entity operating in the Russian IT sector with a license issued by Russia’s domestic intelligence services

Positive Group kontra Tanács
Közös kül- és biztonságpolitika
War in Ukraine: the General Court upholds the restrictive measures against Positive Group PAO, an entity operating in the Russian IT sector with a license issued by Russia’s domestic intelligence services

Positive Group / Conseil
Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune
Guerre en Ukraine : le Tribunal confirme les mesures restrictives contre Positive Group PAO, une entité active dans le secteur russe des technologies de l’information et titulaire d’une licence délivrée par les services de renseignement intérieurs russes

Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission
Approximation of laws
Digital Services Act: the General Court annuls the Commission’s decisions setting the supervisory fee applicable to Facebook, Instagram and TikTok

Meta Platforms Ireland kontra Bizottság
Jogszabályok közelítése
Digital Services Act: the General Court annuls the Commission’s decisions setting the supervisory fee applicable to Facebook, Instagram and TikTok

Meta Platforms Ireland / Commission
Rapprochement des législations
Règlement sur les services numériques : le Tribunal annule les décisions de la Commission fixant la redevance de surveillance applicable à Facebook, Instagram et TikTok

Austria v Commission
Austria’s action against the inclusion of nuclear energy and fossil gas in the sustainable investment scheme dismissed

Ausztria kontra Bizottság
Austria’s action against the inclusion of nuclear energy and fossil gas in the sustainable investment scheme dismissed

Autriche / Commission
Le recours de l’Autriche contre l’inclusion de l’énergie nucléaire et du gaz fossile dans le régime des investissements durables est rejeté

Wednesday 10 September

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Wednesday 10 September

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Wednesday 10 September

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Wednesday 10 September

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

Wednesday 10 September

Source : © European Union, 2025 - EP

En Slovénie, Milorad Dodik n'a que des amis, à commencer par le maire de Ljubljana, Zoran Janković. Il a aussi beaucoup d'intérêts économiques dans la petite république, qui hésite à mettre sous sanctions l'homme fort des Serbes de Bosnie-Herzégovine.

- Articles / Une - Diaporama, Slovénie, Bosnie-Herzégovine, Economie, Relations régionales, RS sécession, Courrier des Balkans

En Slovénie, Milorad Dodik n'a que des amis, à commencer par le maire de Ljubljana, Zoran Janković. Il a aussi beaucoup d'intérêts économiques dans la petite république, qui hésite à mettre sous sanctions l'homme fort des Serbes de Bosnie-Herzégovine.

- Articles / Une - Diaporama, Slovénie, Bosnie-Herzégovine, Economie, Relations régionales, RS sécession, Courrier des Balkans

Le fabricant néerlandais d'équipements de semi-conducteurs ASML et le développeur français de modèles de base revêtent tous deux une importance stratégique pour les entreprises technologiques européennes.

The post Mistral AI, la startup française spécialisée dans l’IA, lève 1,7 milliard d’euros et booste la tech européenne  appeared first on Euractiv FR.