Tài liệu ENVIRONMENTAL TAXATION LAW doc

Environmental Taxation LawPolicy, Contexts and Practice JOHN SNAPE School of Law, University of Warwick, UK andJEREMY DE SOUZA Consultant to White and Bowker, UK... 5 Technical Justificat

Environmental Taxation Law

Policy, Contexts and Practice

JOHN SNAPE

School of Law, University of Warwick, UK

andJEREMY DE SOUZA

Consultant to White and Bowker, UK

All rights reserved No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.The authors hereby assert their moral rights to be identified as the authors of the work, in accordance with the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988.

Published by

Ashgate Publishing Limited Ashgate Publishing Company

Environmental taxation law : policy, contexts and practice

1.Environmental impact changes Law and legislation

1 Environmental impact charges Law and legislation Great Britain 2

Environmental impact charges Law and legislation I De Souza, Jeremy II

Title

KD3382.E58S63 2005

344.4104'6 dc22

2005048265ISBN 0 7546 2304 1

Printed and bound in Great Britain by MPG Books Ltd, Bodmin, Cornwall

Ashgate website: http://www.ashgate.com

PART I: PROLOGUE

1.3 International, European, national and regional contexts 19

2.2 Trade associations, policy-makers and pressure groups 38

2.6 Air passenger and road freight transport sectors 51

4.2 Institutions of central, regional and local government 63

5 Technical Justifications 109

5.4 Economic instruments and market failures 1155.5 The efficient level of fiscal intervention 120

6.2 Integrated Pollution Control, Integrated Pollution Prevention and

6.4 Control of air and atmospheric pollution 1446.5 Air passenger and road freight transport regulation 159

7.3 Status of the main levies and subsidies under consideration 176

PART III: PRACTICE

Part III, Section A: Environmental Levies and Other Economic Instruments

11.3 Design and implementation of the two post-1997 taxes 240

13.3 Problems caused by the legal structure 312

16.7 Non-UK residents 346

Division 3: Local Levies

Division 4: Other Economic Instruments

19.7 The future of packaging waste recovery notes 378

20.2 Design and implementation of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme 38120.3 Subsequent development of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme 38320.4 Operation of the UK Emissions Trading Scheme 38920.5 The regime applicable to direct participants 390

20.7 Landfill Allowances Trading Scheme (‘the LATS’) 392

Division 5: The Instruments in Operation

21.3 Hypothecation, ‘recycling’ of revenue and tax subsidies 399

21.7 Problems with electricity supply industry structures 433

21.10 The effect of Community law and policy 449

Part III, Section B: Greening the UK Tax System

Division 1: Removing Subsidies and Creating Incentives

24.7 Emissions trading scheme corporation tax and VAT treatment 47324.8 Direct tax treatment of environmental trust contributions 475

Division 2: The Provisions in Operation

PART IV: PROSPECTS AND NEW DIRECTIONS

26.2 The consolidation of the tax base 48526.3 The future of non-property-based taxes in the internet world 48726.4 International trade treaty problem for federations and economic

26.5 Employer’s national insurance contributions 494

27.2 Economic instruments and housing development 500

27.4 Nationwide satellite-based congestion charging 503

28.2 Background to the EU Emissions Trading Directive 514

28.4 Transposition of the EU ETS Directive into UK law 52928.5 Developments since transposition of the EU ETS Directive 532

PART V: PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT

29.2 How do the UK taxes measure up to this standard? 537

About the Authors

Jeremy de Souza was educated at Charterhouse and New College, Oxford Articled

to Mr John Emrys Lloyd of Farrer & Co, he subsequently became an assistant solicitor and associate at that firm Between 1976 and 1996, after which he became

a consultant (enabling him to devote more time to writing), he was the firm’s tax partner During his 32 years with the firm, he contributed to the newsletters for the Agricultural Estates Group, the Employment and Pensions Group, the Charities

Group and the Briefing Service for in-house lawyers

In 1999, he became a part-time consultant to White and Bowker in Winchester, and

has contributed to that firm’s newsletters: The Law of the Land, W&B Charity Law, Private Client Newsletter and Ins and Outs.

He was a member of The Law Society Revenue Committee’s Corporation Tax Committee between 1989 and 1992 Since 1995, he has been the Chairman of the Holborn and, from 2001, City of Westminster and Holborn, Law Society’s Revenue

Sub-Committee, writing a monthly article in the monthly journals, Holborn Report and The Report.

In 1969, he was a co-author of Reform of Taxation and Investment Incentives He was a contributor to Volume 35 of The Encyclopedia of Forms and Precedents (Sale

of Land) in 1989 He was co-author of The Property Investor and VAT in 1990 and

of The Conveyancer’s Tax Primer in 1999 Since 1991, he has been the General Editor of the Sweet and Maxwell looseleaf, Land Taxation Since 2001, he has been

a contributor to The Lawyer’s Factbook.

He has contributed articles to The Law Society’s Gazette, STEP Journal, Private Client Business, The British Tax Review, Taxation, The Tax Journal, The Estates Gazette, Property Law Journal, Rural Practice, The Environmental Law Review, Trust Law & Practice, Trusts & Estates Tax Journal, Hampshire Chronicle, Negotiator, Butler & Co Farming News, Christie’s Bulletin and The Investor’s Chronicle He has

also lectured on tax topics

In addition to being a solicitor, he belongs to the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners, the Stamp Taxes Practitioners Group and the Royal Institute of International Affairs

John Snape was educated at St Mary’s College, Blackburn, and St Edmund Hall,

Oxford He qualified as a solicitor in 1989 and subsequently worked in corporate and commercial legal practice In 1993, he joined Nottingham Law School, the Nottingham Trent University, moving to the University of Leeds in 2002 In 2005,

he took up a lectureship at the School of Law, the University of Warwick He has written on a range of legal topics, including property law and tax law

Authorsʼ Preface

During the last seven years or so, the government of the United Kingdom has embarked on a range of far-reaching social and economic reforms Among these, none is more striking, especially to those who have followed its development, than the enterprise of environmental taxation

The use of a tax, for long regarded as a means of raising government revenue, redistributing wealth or of managing the economy, in order to discourage certain forms of undesirable industrial behaviour, had no systematic antecedent in UK law prior to 1997 Of course, there had for centuries been duties on cigarettes, petrol and alcohol, but no tax, not even landfill tax, introduced in the dying days of Prime Minister John Major’s government, had been researched and designed specifically

to steer the behaviour of those liable to pay it True, landfill tax had attempted to put a price on the environmental costs of landfilling waste but, except to a slight extent, it had not been intended, when originally designed and implemented, to steer behaviour By contrast, the two main taxes introduced after 1997, climate change levy, which is a tax on the industrial, commercial and agricultural consumption of non-environmentally-friendly forms of energy, and aggregates levy, a tax on the extraction of minerals, have been specially designed, via their structures and rates, to encourage the use of alternative resources This is not the only way in which, if the reader will forgive the pun, these environmental taxes have been groundbreaking The other way in which they have marked a departure, which the authors regard as highly characteristic, is their use in combination with other economic instruments, such as trading schemes, green certificates, road and cordon pricing and special reliefs within non-environmental tax codes

All of the factors just rehearsed explain the book’s title We cannot, against the policy background outlined above, treat of environmental taxes in isolation from the other instruments which are designed to complement them So the range of instruments involved is not the least of the contexts envisaged by the title However,

we have tried to look for other contexts, primarily legal ones, which will help us to explain the various aspects of environmental taxation more usefully As an energy tax, climate change levy is imposed on gas and electricity supplies Both the gas supply industry and the electricity supply industry are sectors of extreme technical complexity, as a result of their privatisation, in another characteristic adventure, this time of a decade or more ago and a different government Grafting climate change levy onto these post-nationalisation structures, without a consistent energy policy, has contributed to producing a tax of such extraordinary complexity that it would be impossible to appreciate its subtleties without a knowledge of ‘what lies beneath’

So discussions of the post-nationalisation energy sector structures and regulation have been included as well as environmental regulation and tax law Again, since the regulation of air transport and road freight transport affects plans to introduce new airline taxes, emissions trading schemes and road pricing schemes, we have

also included a brief discussion of how these sectors are structured and regulated In every case, we seek to provide, not just a UK context for the material but an EU-wide and international one also We hope, as a result, that this book will be no less useful

to the overseas reader than to the UK one

This brings us to another set of contexts: the European Union and international governance structures within which the UK’s economic instruments for environmental protection have been designed and implemented

The more obvious governance structure is the EU one, since the EU’s institutions – notably the European Commission – provide both the impetus for action at national level, via the Sixth Environmental Action Programme, and the terms on which that action can be taken, via the European Treaty and the legislation made thereunder Finding the right level of governance is an important question with economic instruments In its enthusiasm to introduce emissions trading, partly as a sweetener to sectors already hit both by Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control and climate change levy, the government managed, with the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, to turn, in Sorrell’s words, an ‘early start into a false start’ This is because the period

of the last 18 months to two years has also seen the creation of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, under which carbon dioxide emissions will be capped, parcelled out and traded among all the Member States of the enlarged Union The government claims that the UK scheme, set up in 2002, will be good practice for the EU scheme, due to commence in January 2005 Its detractors claim that the UK scheme was an irrelevance, nonsensically unilateral and designed simply to buy off opposition to the government’s environmental policy from sectors most badly hit by climate change levy and IPPC At the very least, there is a measure of over-regulation

Although less obvious, governance is also felt at the international level, via the United Nations-sponsored 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, and its 1997 Kyoto Protocol, as well as the rules of the WTO/GATT 1994-based system

of multilateral agreements on international trade Both the EU itself and its Member States are parties to both sets of agreements Although there are signs that the position may be changing, the values of the latter, which have governed international trade

at least since the mid-twentieth century, may be difficult or impossible to reconcile with those of the former, whose values are, of course, much newer The influence

of Kyoto is to be felt, not only in the creation of the two emissions trading schemes referred to above, each of which take Kyoto as their inspiration, but also in the design

of environmental taxes Climate change levy, an energy tax, neatly sidesteps design problems created by GATT 1994’s concept of the border tax adjustment and, in doing

so, may sacrifice something of its environmental effectiveness

The trade-off just referred to is, of course, a matter of political judgement No less characteristic of the UK’s environmental taxes and other economic instruments than their regulatory context and their place within European and international governance structures are the political choices they represent These are shown both in present political compromises and in the political possibilities for the future Lord Butler memorably described politics as ‘the art of the possible’ Whether the structuring of climate change levy as a downstream energy tax owed more to fear of the political consequences of taxing domestic energy consumption and alienating what remained

of the coal industry, than it did to economic and environmental principles, is a matter for historians to debate The authors have some well-founded suspicions on these

points Nevertheless, it remains the case that, with these taxes in place, it would remain open to a future government, in a time of falling revenues, to supplement the Exchequer by increasing the rates of aggregates levy and climate change levy instead of turning to the much more politically sensitive expedient of increasing rates of income tax The mechanisms are all now in place, thanks to the enterprise of environmental taxation.

The controversies on these points will surely continue For our part, we have tried

to offer a critical account of an area of UK policy, law and practice which has not,

so far as we know, been systematically explored to date in this jurisdiction by any other lawyer authors In an age when the expounding of a legal subject – however complex – does not perhaps enjoy the high reputation that once it did, we seek (as lawyers) to explain how the different instruments interact at a regulatory level We

do occasionally pass judgment but we do so, not on matters outside our expertise (neither of us being economists and, as yet, unwilling to succumb to the siren song of law and economics), but on the basis of the various accountability mechanisms in the UK’s unwritten constitutional arrangements In the last 12 to 18 months, the panoply

of Select Committees at Westminster has begun to take a keen interest in the flutter of creative activity in environmental regulation in Whitehall In fact, these accountability mechanisms and the network of departments, committees, advisory bodies and executive bodies that have been involved in the design and implementation of the measures under discussion, feature prominently in what follows We have included the explanations of who they are and what they do because of the difficulties facing the non-specialist or non-UK lawyer in finding his or her way through the myriad of institutional actors

What we offer, then, is a pragmatic, critical, account We do not purport to offer any empirical conclusion but we think that we can at least provoke others to test our conclusions

Each of the authors brings something different to the book John Snape is an academic lawyer with an interest in international economic law and in the crossovers between environmental regulation, energy law and tax law Jeremy de Souza is a senior practitioner who retired from full-time practice as a partner in Farrer & Co in

1996 He has written extensively on tax law matters and is referred to in reference books as a leading specialist in the environmental taxation area Thus do we seek

to bring together our different but hopefully complementary skills Although each author has read and commented in detail on the work of the other, we have each taken responsibility for writing different Chapters Setting aside the very short Chapters 3,

9 and 10, which are very much joint efforts, John Snape was responsible for Chapters 1–12 and 28, while Jeremy de Souza was responsible for Chapters 13–27 and 29 In addition, Jeremy carried out the herculean task of compiling the tables and indices.Warm thanks are due in several quarters and we would like to record them as follows: to Caroline de Souza and to Angela Kershaw, our respective wives, who, despite many commitments of their own, have taken time to bear with detailed verbal critiques of government policy; to former colleagues of John Snape at the University

of Leeds, especially to Ann Blair, Michael Cardwell, Oliver Gerstenberg, Roger Halson and Anna Lawson, each for their wisdom and support; to colleagues of Jeremy

de Souza at the City of Westminster and Holborn Law Society Revenue Committee and at White and Bowker, especially John Steel, Oliver Sowton and (in putting up

with interruptions to her printing facilities), Abi Martin John Snape began work on the book in 2000/2001 in a period of sabbatical leave from Nottingham Law School, the Nottingham Trent University His thanks are due to Professors Michael Gunn and Peter Kunzlik, as well as to colleagues at Nottingham Trent who shouldered his teaching and administrative responsibilities in the period of his absence.

Over the period of writing the book, the subject matter has expanded almost daily

We must also record our thanks to John Irwin and Alison Kirk at Ashgate, for their patience and enthusiasm in awaiting a manuscript which therefore became rather later and rather larger than either of us authors could originally have envisaged

In the footnotes, we have tended to confine case references to Simon’s Tax Cases,

the series now used by most UK tax academics and practitioners References to other reports are to be found in the Tables

We have attempted to reflect developments and to state the law, unless otherwise indicated, as at 2 December 2004 (the date of the Pre-Budget Report)

John Snape,Jeremy de Souza,

20 December 2004

Table of Cases

Air Caledonie v The Commonwealth, (1988) 165 CLR 462 7.2.2.2

Airservices Australia v Canadian Airlines International Ltd, (1999)

Alliance Against the Birmingham Northern Relief Road v Secretary of

State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Midlands

ARCO Chemie Nederland Ltd and others v Minister van Volkshuisvesting;

Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, Vereninging Dorpsbelang Hees

and others v Directeur van der Dienst Milieu en Water van de Provincie

Ayrshire Employers Mutual Association v IRC, (1946) 27 TC 331, [1946]

Barclays Mercantile Business Finance Ltd v Mawson, [2002] EWHC

1527 (Ch), [2002] STC 1068, reversed CA [2002] EWCA Civ 1853,

Beco Products Ltd; BAG Building Contractors v C & E Commrs, (2004)

Benjamin v Austin Properties Ltd, [1998] 19 EG 163, [1998] 2 EGLR 147,

Bergandi v Directeur Général des Impôts, C–252/86, [1988] ECR 1343 12.3.3.1

Berkeley v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the

Blackland Park Exploration Ltd v Environment Agency, [2003] EWCA

Brambletye School Trust Ltd v C & E Commrs, LON/00/458 16.16

Bresciani v Amministrazione della Finanze dello Stato, C–87/75, (1976)

Cape Brandy Syndicate v IRC, [1921] 1 KB 64, (1920) 12 TC 358 26.3.3.1

Chemial Farmaceutici v DAF SpA, C–140/79, [1981] ECR 1, [1981]

Chemische Afvalstoffen Dusselforp BV and others v Minister Van

Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer, C–203/96,

Claimants under the Loss Relief Group Litigation Order v I.R.C.,

[2004] EWHC 3588 (Ch), [2004] STC 594, reversed [2004] EWCA

Clark v Oceanic Contractors Inc, [1983] AC 130, [1983] STC 35 1.4.2.5

Cogis v Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato, C–216/81, [1982]

Commission of the European Communities v France, C–196/85, [1987]

Compagnie Commerciale de l’Ouest and others v Receveur Principal

des Douanes de las Pallice Port, C–78 to 83/90, [1994]

Craven v White, [1989] AC 398, [1988] 3 All ER 495, [1988] STC 476 26.3.3.1

C & E Commrs v Dave, [2002] EWHC 969 (Ch), [2002] STC 900 16.13

C & E Commrs v Glassborow, [1974] STC 142, [1975] QB 465, [1974]

C & E Commrs v Sinclair Collis Ltd, [2001] UKHL 30, [2001] STC 989 4.3.7

Dansk Denkavit ApS v Skatteministeriet, C–200/90, [1992] ECR I–2217 1.2.1.4

Daymond v South West Water Authority,

De Coster v College des Bourgmestre et Echevins de Watermael-Boitsfort,

Deutschmann v Germany, C–10/65, [1968] CMLR 259 7.2.2.3

Diamantis v Greece, C–373/97, [2000] ECR I–1705, [2001] 3 CMLR 41 26.3.2

Diammantarbeiders v Indiamex, C–37–38/73, [1973] ECR 1600 8.4.1

East Midlands Aggregates Ltd v C & E Commrs, (2003) A1, affirmed

Ebbcliff Ltd v C & E Commrs, (2003) L.16, reversed [2003] EWHC

3181 (Ch), [2004] STC 391affirmed [2004] EWCA (Civ) 1071,

Edwards v Bairstow and Harrison, [1956] AC 14, [1955] 3 All ER

Emsland-Stärke v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas, C–110/99 26.3.2

Ensign Tankers (Leasing) Ltd v Stokes, [1992] 1 AC 655, [1992] 2

Re Eurig Estate, (1999) 165 DLR (4th) 1 1.2.1.1, 1.2.1.2, 1.2.1.4, 7.2.1, 7.2.2.2

Euro Tombesi, C–304/94, C–330/94, C–342/94, C224/95, [1998]

Fazenda Pública v Câmera Muncipal do Porto (Ministério Público,

Fazenda Pública v Fricarnes SA, C–28/96, [1997] STC 1348 26.7

Fazenda Pública v Solisnor-Estaleiros Navais SA, C–130/96, [1998]

Fazenda Pública v União das Cooperativas Abestacedores, C–347/95,

Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Farley, (1940) 63 CLR 278 26.4

Finanzamt Kohn-Altstadt v Schumacker, C–279/93, [1995] STC 306,

[1996] QB 28, [1995] All ER (EC) 319, [1995] ECR I–225, [1996]

Furniss v Dawson [1984] AC 474, [1984] 1 All ER 530, 55 TC 324,

F A Gamble & Sons Ltd v C & E Commrs, (1998) L.4 15.3

NV Giant v Commune of Overijse, C–109/90, [1993] STC 651 26.7

GIL Insurance Ltd v C & E Commrs, C–308/01, [2004] STC 961 21.10

Hoverspeed Ltd and others v C & E Commrs, [2002] EWCA 1630 (Admin),

reversed in part [2002] EWCA Civ 1804, [2003] STC 1273 22.1

Andreas Hoves Internationaler Transport-Service SARL v Finanzamt

Iannelli & Volpi v Meroni, C–74/76, [1977] 2 CMLR 688 7.2.2.3

ICI Chemicals & Polymers Ltd v C & E Commrs, (1998) V&DR 15.3

Imperial Chemical Industries plc v Colmer, C–264/96, [1999] 1 WLR

108, [1998] All ER (EC) 585, [1998] STC 874, [1998] 3 CMLR 293,

IRC v Alexander von Glehn & Co Ltd, (1919) 12 TC 232 24.7

IRC v Burmah Oil Co Ltd, [1982] STC 30, 54 TC 200 26.3.3.1

IRC v Church Commissioners for England, [1977] AC 329, [1976] 2

Lancashire Waste Services Ltd v C & E Commrs, (1999) L.8 15.3

John Laing & Son Ltd v Kingswood Area Assessment Committee,

[1949] 1 KB 344, [1949] 1 All ER 224, 47 LRG 64, 42 R & IT 15 16.16

Lawson v Interior Tree, Fruit and Vegetable Committee of Direction,

Lirutti and Bizzaro, C–175, 177/98, [2001] ECR I–6881 12.2.5.2

Lower Mainland Dairy Products Sales Adjustment Committee v Crystal

MacCormick v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, (1984) 158 CLR 672 7.2.2.2

McIntosh Plant Hire v C & E Commrs, (2001) L.10 15.3

Macniven v Westmoreland Investments Ltd, [2001] UKHL 6, [2001] 1

Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd v Environment Agency (No.1), [1999] Env

Metal Industries (Salvage) Ltd v ST Harle (Owners), [1962]

Northwest Corp v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 108 TC 265 (1997) 21.3.3

Re OECD Local Costs Standard, Opinion 1/75, [1975] ECR 1355 8.4.1

Parkwood Landfill Ltd v C & E Commrs, [2002] EWCA Civ 1717,

[2002] STC 1536, reversing [2002] STC 417 6.3.2.1, 12.1, 15.3, 26.3.3.1

Pepper v Hart, [1993] AC 593, [1993] 1 All ER 42, [1992]

PreussenElektra AG v Schleswag AG (Windpark Reussenköge III GmbH

and another intervening), C–379/98, [2002] 2 CMLR 36 12.2.7.3

Procurer du Roi v Dassonville, C–8/74, [1974] ECR 837 12.4

W T Ramsay Ltd v IRC; Eilbeck v.Rawling, [1982] AC 300, [1981] 1

All ER 865, (1981) 54 TC 101, [1981] STC 174 26.3.3.1

Ratford v Northavon District Council, [1987] 1 QB 357 16.16

R (on the application of British Aggregates Association and others)

v C & E Commrs, [2002] EWHC 926 (Admin), [2002] 2 CMLR 51,

[2002] EuLR 394 1.4.2.3, 2.5, 8.4.5.1, 11.3.2, 12.1,

R (on the application of Federation of Technological Industries

and others) v C & E Commrs and Attorney-General, [2004] EWHC

254 (Admin), [2004] STC 1008; [2004] EWCA (Civ) 1020,

sub nom C & E Commrs and Attorney-General v Federation of

R (on the application of The Mayor, Citizens of Westminster and

others) v The Mayor of London, [2002] EWHC 2440 (Admin) 6.2.4, 18.2

R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions,

ex p Spath Holme Ltd, [2001] 1 All ER 195, [2001] 2 WLR 15 26.3.3.1

R v North Yorkshire County Council, ex parte Brown, [2000] 1 AC 397 6.2.4

Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with

Paragraph 63 of the Court’s Judgment in the 1974 Nuclear Tests case,

Rewe v Hauptzollamt Landau/Pfalz, C–43/75, [1976] ECR 181 12.3.3.1

Rewe-Zentrale AG v Bundesmonopolverwaltung für Branntwein,

Saunders and Sorrell v C & E Commrs, (1980) VATTR 53 16.4

Schöttle & Söhne OHG v Finanzamt Freudenstadt, C–20/76, [1977] 2

Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products

Société Centrale d’Hypothesques v Cité de Quebec, [1961] QLR 661 7.2.1

Sociaal Fonds voor de Diamantarbeiders v SA Ch Brachfeld & Sons

and Chougal Diamond Co, C–2–3/69, [1969] ECR 211 8.4.3

Re Tax on Foreign Legations and High Commissioner’s Residence, (1943)

Thanet District Council v Kent County Council, [1993] Env LR 391 6.2.3.1

Trail Smelter arbitration, (1939) 33 AJIL 182, (1941) 35 AJIL 684 8.3.1.2

Restrictions on the Imports of Tuna (‘the Tuna-Dolphin I Case’), (1991)

Restrictions on the Imports of Tuna (‘the Tuna-Dolphin II Case’), (1994)

Re the Uruguay Round Treaties, Opinion 1/94, [1995] 1 CMLR 205 8.4.1

Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline (‘the US Gasoline

Verrall v Hackney LBC, [1983] 1 QB 445, [1983] 1 All ER

Vessoso and Zanetti, C–206, 207/88, [1990] ECR I–1461 12.2.5.2

Criminal Proceedings against de Walle and others, C–1/03 12.2.5.2

Weyl Beef Products BV v Commission of the European Communities,

Westminster City Council v National Asylum Support Service, [2002]

Zurstrassen v Administrations des Contributions Directes, C–87/99,

Table of Statutes

Bill of Rights 1689

Constitution Act 1867 [Canada]

Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967

Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968 11.3.2Administration of Justice Act 1969

ss.12–15 4.2.1.5Taxes Management Act 1970

s.2 4.2.1.5s.3 4.2.1.5s.4 4.2.1.5s.31 4.2.1.5s.56(6) 4.2.1.5s.56A(1) 4.2.1.5s.74(1) 11.3.3s.100A(1) 11.3.3Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 [USA] 8.4.2 National Environmental Protection Act of 1972 [USA] 12.2.4

Fair Trading Act 1973

Water Act 1973

s.30 7.2.2.1Control of Pollution Act 1974

ss.60–67 6.6

Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

s.15 6.4.3.3

s.43 6.4.3.3

s.82 6.4.3.3

s.77 6.5.2

National Audit Act 1983

Clean Air Act of 1990 [USA] 8.4.2

Environmental Protection Act 1990 1.4.4.2, 6.3.2, 14.2

s.78A(2) 6.7s.78E 6.7s.78F(2) 6.7s.78M 6.7s.79(1)(g) 6.6s.79(1)(ga) 6.6

Town and Country Planning Act 1990

s.106 27.2

Planning and Compensation Act 1991

s.22 6.2.4

Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992

s.1(6) 1.4.3.2s.10 23.2s.172 1.4.3.2Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992

s.38(1)(b) 21.3.3s.42 24.7s.44 24.7Sched A1

s.30(1) 6.4.3.3s.30(3) 6.4.3.3s.32(1) 6.4.3.3s.63(1) 6.4.3.3

Ecotax Law 1993 [Belgium]

s.369 1.2.1.5Coal Industry Act 1994

s.7(1) 6.4.3.4s.7(3) 6.4.3.4

Human Rights Act 1998

s.296 1.4.2.4, 17.1, 17.4s.424(1) 4.2.3

Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 4.2.1.3, 6.2.1, 6.3.2, 14.6s.2 6.2.3Sched 1, Pt I