Austria Tackles Tax Loophole Behind Defunct Signa's Opacity
Austria's government is looking to close a property transaction tax loophole that was seen as one of the reasons for the complex corporate structure at the bankrupt Signa conglomerate.
In his budget tax bill submitted to parliament, Finance Minister Markus Marterbauer has proposed to raise the bar for landlords wanting to avoid the tax on property share deals by off-loading a minority stake to a different owner. The bill is currently under public review.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
33 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Springsteen's Berlin concert echoes with history and a stark warning
Updated [hour]:[minute] [AMPM] [timezone], [monthFull] [day], [year] BERLIN (AP) — Veteran rock star Bruce Springsteen, a high-profile critic of President Donald Trump, slammed the U.S. administration as 'corrupt, incompetent and treasonous' during a concert Wednesday in Berlin. He was addressing tens of thousands of fans at a stadium built for the 1936 Olympic Games that still bears the scars of World War II and contains relics from the country's dark Nazi past. 'Tonight, we ask all who believe in democracy and the best of our American experiment to rise with us, raise your voices, stand with us against authoritarianism, and let freedom reign,' he said. Springsteen, long a political opponent of the president, has made increasingly pointed and contentious public statements in recent concerts. He denounced Trump's politics during a concert last month in Manchester, calling him an 'unfit president' leading a 'rogue government' of people who have 'no concern or idea for what it means to be deeply American.' Springsteen is no stranger to Berlin. In July 1988, he became one of the first Western musicians to perform in East Germany, performing to a ravenous crowd of 160,000 East Germans yearning for American rock 'n' roll and the freedom it represented to the youth living under the crumbling communist regime. An Associated Press news story from that period says 'fireworks steaked through the sky' and hundreds of people in the audience waved handmade American flags as they sang along to 'Born in the USA.' Almost four decades later, Springsteen issued a stark warning: 'The America that I love, the America that I've sung to you about, that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent, and treasonous administration.'
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
France Moves to Curb ‘Ultra-fast' Fashion With Bill Targeting Shein and Temu
PARIS — As major brands scale back their sustainability initiatives, France is pressing ahead with legislation aimed at reining in 'ultra-fast fashion' platforms such as Shein and Temu, known for their extremely low-cost clothing. The bill, introduced by Anne-Cécile Violland, a member of parliament from the Horizons party, passed the Senate one year after clearing the lower house of the French Assembly. More from WWD Inditex Sales Slow as Economic Headwinds Hit the High Street Rebag Expands Access to Pre-loved Luxury Goods With New Amazon Collaboration Designer Vincent Van Duysen Opens Antwerp Home for Zara Home+ 4th Collection The unusually long gap between votes led to some watering down of the original provisions, exempting traditional fast-fashion players such as H&M, Primark, and Inditex-owned Zara. 'It's a relief that it moved forward, but there has been a shift in the goal of the legislation that it is now specifically targeting what is called 'ultra-fast fashion,'' said Pierre Condamine, spokesperson for the Anti Fast Fashion Coalition, an umbrella group of 11 environmental organizations in France. Earlier drafts had adopted a broader definition of fast fashion that included Europe-based brands. 'There is sort of a shift in what was supposed to be an environmental legislation, with the objective to shift the whole sector towards sustainable practices, while now it's sort of becoming a protectionist text,' he told WWD. The revised bill targets ultra-fast fashion directly, proposing a tax on small parcels shipped from outside the EU ranging from 2 to 4 euros per package. The fee is intended to slow the influx of packages from Chinese platforms to France, in a move reminiscent of the U.S. ending its de minimis exemption. Shein and Temu together shipped 800 million packages to France in 2024 — more than half of all parcels sent to the country. The French government will first notify the European Commission, as several measures, including a total advertising ban on ultra-fast-fashion platforms, require approval at the EU level. This process could take up to three months before the bill goes to the Assembly and Senate joint committee for resolution, likely in the fall in late September or October. Several key provisions may face scrutiny in Brussels, including the parcel fee, which could conflict with the European Commission's plan for a bloc-wide fee by 2028, and the proposed national advertising ban. Although Shein is registered in Singapore, its European headquarters in Ireland could present a legal loophole. As it stands, the bill mandates eco-contributions from fashion companies based on a 'bonus-malus' system — rewarding sustainable practices and penalizing environmental harm. Penalties could rise to 10 euros per item by 2030, though the methodology for valuing items has yet to be defined. The bill would also eliminate tax advantages for 'donating' unsold stock by ultra-fast-fashion brands, which are not permitted to destroy unsold items under an anti-waste law passed in 2020. A critical element of the bill is its specific definition of 'ultra-fast' or 'ultra-express' fashion. This distinction leaves out more traditional fast-fashion companies that have a retail presence like H&M, Primark and Zara. By differentiating between ultra-fast platforms and fast-fashion brands with physical retail locations, the legislation potentially creates a loophole for companies headquartered in Europe — Sweden, Ireland and Spain respectively — even though their production relies heavily on low-wage countries like China, India and Bangladesh via subcontractors and diffuse supply chains. The original bill passed by the Assembly featured the broader definition, but companies lobbied intensively over the past year for the narrower language, arguing that they contribute to local employment. Senator Sylvie Valente Le Hir of Les Républicains, who ushered the bill through the Senate, highlighted its targeted approach: 'We have drawn a clear line between those we want to regulate — ultra-express fashion — and those we want to preserve, accessible but rooted fashion, which employs in France, which structures our territories, which creates links and supports a local economic fabric,' she said. The industry group La Fédération Française du Prêt à Porter Féminin praised the bill as a 'step forward' in tackling ultra-fast fashion. 'It formalizes the long-standing collective commitment of many stakeholders to defend a fashion industry that respects workers, consumers, citizens, French businesses, and the planet,' the organization said in a statement. However, Condamine noted that while large global fast-fashion retailers remain profitable – Zara's parent company Inditex reported sales were up 4.2 percent in constant-currency in the first quarter on Wednesday — French high street brands like Camaieu and NafNaf have entered administration, and independent stores continue to shutter. 'The economic crisis in the clothing industry in France, it started way before Shein,' Condamine said. 'It started when fast fashion — Zara, H&M, Primark — arrived. Now they are saying if they're targeted, it will be a catastrophe [for jobs]. But they're doing great economically, and they're part of the problem.' Some lawmakers described the bill as a 'strong first signal' and indicated that fast fashion as a whole — including the European players with physical presence — could face future regulation due to unsustainable business practices. On the other hand, critics — chiefly Shein — have said the legislation punishes cost-conscious consumers and lower-income households. The company, which markets itself under the slogan 'Fashion is a right, not a privilege,' has staged events in French cities like Béziers. On Sunday, its director of government relations, Fabrice Layer, held a presentation in front of the southeastern town's city hall to rally public support for the company. 'We ultimately find ourselves with a law that is not only anti-Shein, but anti-Shein customer,' Quentin Ruffat, Shein's spokesperson in France, told AFP. 'This law, if passed, will directly penalize our customers' wallets and drastically reduce their purchasing power.' The company has also accused France's fashion establishment of protecting legacy brands and says it will continue lobbying to amend the bill further. Shein representatives did not respond to requests for comment. New research from l'Institut Français de la Mode (IFM) shows that in the first quarter of 2025, Amazon, Shein and Temu together accounted for 24 percent of online apparel sales by value, representing 7 percent of total apparel consumption across all channels. Online sales made up 29.4 percent of apparel purchases by value, including the online stores of traditional retailers. Best of WWD Walmart Calls California Waste Dumping Lawsuit 'Unjustified' Year in Review: Sustainability's Biggest Controversies of 2021 Year in Review: Sustainability's New Strides
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The charts that show why Reeves's spending plans are a fantasy
Rachel Reeves claims she is investing in the country's Chancellor was cheered on by her front benches as she announced more money for the NHS, defence and schools in a move she boasted would lead to 'a national renewal'. In some senses, there were few surprises on Wednesday. We already knew how much Reeves had to dole out in her maiden spending review. The NHS gobbled up most of the money, with day-to-day spending on the Department of Health and Social Care growing by an average of 2.8pc a year over the forecast period. Defence spending has also received a significant boost as pressure from Nato mounts. Other departments, notably the Home Office, were squeezed as Reeves sought to make the sums add up. But while the numbers may tally on paper, economists are already questioning whether they will work in reality as pressures build from a more dangerous world and an older population. There are also fears that Reeves's announcement will pave the way for massive increases in council tax to keep Britain's streets safe. Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), says that while health and defence are big winners 'in pounds and pence, even here, one has to wonder whether this will be enough'. There are other pressures elsewhere. The Chancellor once vowed to never make an unfunded spending commitment but this week announced she will restore winter fuel payments to most pensioners with no clues as to how it will be paid for. She has also announced a Fair Pay Agreement for social care, which will set minimum terms across the sector without any clarity on how the proposals will be funded. Welfare spending, which sits outside Whitehall budgets, is poised to keep ballooning over the next five years as the Government prepares another about-turn to planned cuts to disability benefits. And unresolved questions over levies such as fuel duty will also pile more pressure on the Chancellor. While Reeves's statement is meant to set in stone government spending plans for at least the next three years, her £40bn tax raid last year may not be enough to foot the eventual bill. The tax burden is already on course to reach a peacetime high, but JP Morgan and Capital Economics both believe that Reeves will have to raise taxes by more than £20bn in the Budget this autumn to cover her increased spending plans and fend off increasing pressure from Reform. 'The spending review contains few surprises,' says Elliott Jordan-Doak, at Pantheon Macroeconomics. 'The question is only how big tax hikes will be in October.' The Government hinted on Wednesday that council tax would rise sharply to pay for policing after Reeves cut the Home Office budget by 2.2pc. Reeves claimed 'police spending power' would increase by 2.3pc in the coming years, which documents suggest could include more money from council tax. The Liberal Democrats said families in typical Band D households now faced a £395 increase in council tax by the next election. While the NHS is clearly a winner, there are already questions over whether the money will be enough to keep the health service running. Analysis by the IFS shows there have been just two occasions – in 1991 and 2004 – where health spending grew more slowly than envisaged in the spending review. More often, governments have been forced to top up health budgets to boost day-to-day health spending, which is on course to rise from a 26pc share of Whitehall budgets in 1999 to more than 40pc by the end of the decade. Reeves has set out plans to increase the NHS day-to-day budget more slowly than its historical average – by 3pc in real terms compared to 3.6pc – despite growing pressures on the health service. The plan set out by the previous Conservative government assumed real-terms funding increases of around 3.6pc per year. Johnson says: 'Aiming to get back to meeting the NHS 18 week target for hospital waiting times within this parliament is enormously ambitious – an NHS funding settlement below the long-run average might not measure up.' The plans also revealed the front-loaded nature of many of the settlements, with NHS capital spending set to remain flat in real terms for the rest of the decade after this year. The Office for Budget Responsibility, the Government's tax and spending watchdog, believes pressures from an older and sicker population will increase demand for NHS services by 1.1pc per year alone. 'The pressure to spend more on the NHS will still be great even after today's announcement,' says Jordan-Doak. Economists also questioned whether the health department's pledge to find £9bn in efficiency savings by the end of the decade was credible. Labour will unveil a refreshed NHS 10-year plan in the coming months, which is expected to demand more spending on staff and equipment to deal with Britain's demographic challenge. Another winner from Wednesday's spending review was defence, with spending in this area on track to rise to 2.6pc of GDP by 2027. But there was no mention of a 3pc target which Sir Keir Starmer has committed to, let alone the 3.5pc goal Nato is piling pressure on countries to reach. Increasing defence spending from 2.5pc of GDP to 3pc represents an increase of £17bn by the end of the decade. That's the equivalent of an extra 2p on income tax. Johnson says: 'On defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6pc of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' There are also doubts about whether Reeves will be able to force through the cuts envisioned for the departments that lost out in Wednesday's announcement – including the Home Office, transport, Foreign Office and environment departments, which will suffer cuts in real terms. Even schools will get a real-terms freeze if you strip out the cost of expanding free school meals. In fact, departmental spending to 2028 will on average grow more slowly than under plans Rishi Sunak set out in the Conservatives' last spending review in 2021. 'We think that these real-terms spending cuts will be impossible to deliver given the pressure on public services and voters' demands for increased spending,' says Jordan-Doak. Then there are the Chancellor's investment plans. Capital spending is set to rise by £113bn over this parliament, with money going on everything from transport to green energy, new prisons and housing. Reeves is gambling that this investment blitz can kick-start growth. But as with any gamble, there is a risk it could go wrong. 'If the Government insists on accumulating the extra spending it's planning over the full parliament, it seems only fair to also draw attention to the £140bn of extra borrowing we're forecast to do over the same period,' says Johnson, at the IFS. Extra borrowing will keep Britain's debt pile rising every year until the end of the decade. 'That borrowing incurs a cost in the form of additional debt interest – and one that's bigger than it was a year ago,' says Johnson. The question was always whether the extra investment would bring sufficient benefits to make that worthwhile.' Government borrowing costs rose in the immediate aftermath of Reeves's announcement. Andrew Goodwin, at Oxford Economics, calculates that the Chancellor's already wafer-thin £9.9bn headroom to meet her borrowing rules has already been eroded by £2.5bn as a result of higher gilt yields. And while Reeves boasts about all the extra investment being pumped into the economy, another key question is: will she be able to get all of that money out the door? Previous analysis by the Resolution Foundation shows that successive governments of all stripes have struggled to spend all the money they wanted. Just £1 in every £6 in planned investment spending over the past seven spending reviews since 1998 actually went out the door. Why? Governments are often too optimistic about when projects become shovel-ready. There may be planning hold-ups, and the construction sector may not be able to cope with all that extra demand for engineers, project managers and construction workers to deliver these projects. 'We now know more about what sorts of projects the Government plans to invest in,' Johnson says. 'The focus must now shift to delivery and avoiding the all-too-common project over-runs.' Governments have in the past raided capital budgets in order to make their day-to-day spending budgets add up. New safeguards have been introduced to in theory prevent this from happening again. But this may simply make it harder for Labour to meet spending demands if plans go awry without putting up tax. Ben Ramanauskas, at Policy Exchange, casts doubt on Labour's ability to live within its means. He says: 'While the uplift to the defence and criminal justice budgets are welcome, this is unlikely to go far enough. Instead the Chancellor has chosen to prioritise the NHS by giving it even more money, without insisting on productivity improvements.' All this is expected to keep the size of the state permanently bigger than its pre-lockdown size. Ramanauskas says: 'The Government is yet to set out how it will fund its largesse to the public sector. However, it will almost certainly have to place even greater strain on the public finances by increasing borrowing or adding extra burdens to households and businesses by raising taxes.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. Sign in to access your portfolio
