Satellite Dish Taxes
(continued from Page 4)
Click below to join our
forum
Ikklikkja hawn taħt biex tieħu sehem fil-forum
View or Post to our
Message Board!
Aqra jew ħalli messaġġ fuq it-tabella elettronika!
A report in The Times ('Satellite dish tax may go but...' The Times, July 30) indicated that the satellite dish tax as currently levied might be replaced by another tax.
Another ominous sign was the change in the name of the apparatus referred to in the (satellite) renewal notices from the Wireless Telegraphy Department. The department now refers to a "Satellite receiving terminal" instead of "Satellite dish" ('Satellite licences', Adrian Cardona, The Times, July 26). This indicates that the Wireless Telegraphy Department has something up its sleeve, namely, to tax the actual receiver or "terminal" rather than the "satellite dish". This is cunning but nonsensical. It will not fool the EU. Taxing the "terminal" will still prejudice the freedom of receiving foreign broadcasts via a satellite dish. The tax will thus remain a contravention of the EU ruling that any individual who wishes to have unhindered access to reception via a satellite dish must have that opportunity.
This, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is based on the fundamental principles of free movement of goods (Articles 28 to 30 EC) and services (Articles 49 et seq. EC).
It is clearly laid down by the EU that the authorities have an obligation not to adopt or maintain in force any regulations that are an obstacle to the use of satellite dishes, or which give preference to other types of reception.
In the context of attempts by Belgium to retain the tax, the EU also made specific reference to any bureaucratic subterfuges to justify retention of the tax. There is no loophole. Just changing the wording does not alter the nature of the tax one little bit. Taxing the "Satellite Receiving Terminal" would still constitute a contravention of the principle of free trade and cross-border services between states. (Dr George Debono)
Yet again, I urge you, dear readers, to continue sending in your letters in the hope that whoever is in a position to remove the tax is persuaded to do so. At the same time I must repeatedly remind the person or persons that, for as long as we fail to remove this illegal tax, we are earning a very bad reputation, particularly while bearing in mind that we have only just joined as EU members.
Another factor which makes it more poignant is the fact that Belgium has decided to abolish this tax.
In the meantime I urge you, dear readers, to continue sending me letters so that we can continue with our "Letter a week" campaign for as long as it takes.
