Thoughts on a Fiscal Union in EMU

Using an estimated large-scale New Keynesian model, we assess the consequences of introducing a fiscal union within EMU. We differentiate between three different scenarios: public revenue equalisation, tax harmonisation and a centralised fiscal authority. Our results indicate that no country would significantly benefit from introducing any form of fiscal union. Comparing long-term, that is, steady state, effects we have winners and losers depending on the scenario. Differences in terms of business cycle statistics as well as in terms of risk sharing of asymmetric shocks are minor. This also explains why welfare differences are small across the fiscal union scenarios. A counterfactual exercise indicates that with a fiscal union regime already installed at the start of EMU, key macroeconomic variables would have reacted very similarly while debt dynamics would have changed notably.

Nigerian government faces critical revenue challenges

Significance Combined federal, state and local government revenues stood at only an estimated 7.8% of GDP in 2018. With expenditure continually outpacing revenue, and the country's debt burden reaching worrying levels, efforts to boost non-oil tax revenues has become even more pressing. Impacts Subnational governments will focus on tax harmonisation processes and introducing new state-controlled taxes (such as land-use charges). Influential state governors will increase pressure on Buhari’s administration to increase federal tax revenue. A recently announced oil production target of 4 million barrels per day by 2025 is unlikely to be achieved.

How Much Tax Harmonisation Is Needed?

The paper concentrates on tax harmonisation in the European Union. The author shows its development and results, and brings some case law examples. The paper deals with a problem whether taxes should be harmonised further – and how. It briefly looks back to the Austro–Hungarian Monarchy, and tries to find some parallels. In this context, some topical tax issues are discussed (e.g. ATAD, CCCTB)

The special economic zone in the Kaliningrad region: towards a more effective legal regime

In this article, I aim at identifying the main trends in the development of the laws on the special legal regime of entrepreneurship in the Kaliningrad region. I address the problems of the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) in the Kaliningrad region and provide recommendations for improving its legal regulation. I analyse the 12 years experience of the practical application of the federal law on the regional SEZ and examine the gaps and conflicts in the regulatory legal acts. In this study, I consider the legal requirements for the SEZ residents and their investment projects, as well as benefits provided to the residents. Another focus is the goals of the SEZ. I investigate the effectiveness of the benefits to the investors and of the applicable procedures and analyse the factors reducing the region’s investment attractiveness. I outline the 2017 amendments to the federal law on the SEZ in the Kaliningrad region and provide recommendations for the development of regulation and enforcement. I stress the need for tax harmonisation and the introduction of special procedures for the payment of taxes on profits and properties by the SEZ residents.