Italy, EU, and Bank Bailouts

In a Wall Street Journal piece about Italy’s banks in general, are these two items that illustrate both the Nanny State nature of Italy and the cultural differences in attitudes toward personal responsibility among the various constituent nations of the EU.  The backdrop includes the EU’s rule, enacted in 2014, that requires banks across the EU that face bankruptcy to have the banks’ stakeholders (as the WSJ calls them)—shareholders, bond holders, and depositors (but only some of those last…)—to take the losses first and foremost.  The backdrop also includes the trouble Italy’s banks, in particular, are in:

17% of banks’ loans are sour. That is nearly 10 times the level in the US, where, even at the worst of the 2008-09 financial crisis, it was only 5%. Among publicly traded banks in the eurozone, Italian lenders account for nearly half of total bad loans.

What to do, then?

The Italian government has sought EU permission to inject €40 billion [$52 billion] into its banks to stabilize the system.

Rome argues that bending this rule would be a small price to pay for erecting a firewall against possible bank contagion stemming from Brexit.

Because those responsible for a bank’s business strait shouldn’t have to bear the burden—taxpayers should have to pony up, too.

Rome has criticized the EU’s new banking regime and doesn’t want to use “bail-in” rules that prescribe the order in which stakeholders must bear losses for winding down an ailing bank, in part because of the peculiarities of the Italian banking system. About €187 billion of bank bonds are in the hands of retail investors, whose holdings would be wiped out by a bank resolution under the new rules.

Because personal responsibility—on the part of everyone in the society—should be waivable at convenience.

Other nations of the EU—Germany, for instance—demur from this exception-making and from this walking-away from responsibility of those involved.  Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel, referring to that 2014 rule:

We worked to set down certain rules about bank resolution and bank recapitalization. We can’t do everything again every two years.

Stick to the rules and hold those stakeholders responsible—as they are—in other words.

Add to this, the Italian government’s direct responsibility for a failing system of handling bankruptcy:

One reason for the low valuations [of bad loans] is the enormous difficulty in unwinding a bad loan in Italy. Italy’s sclerotic courts take eight years, on average, to clear insolvency procedures. A quarter of cases take 12 years.

This sort of basic difference on the nature of responsibility is a major part of why the EU as its comported will fail, and it’s the sort of thing that underlies Great Britain’s citizens’ decision to Leave.

Whose Money Is It?

Another in the annals: what is OPM—the EU’s use of money earned by European national citizens and paid over to the EU in the form of taxes?  Or is it the EU’s money, and it’s the citizens who are using OPM—the money the EU allows the citizenry to have?

This one comes from the world of (Spanish) sports.

Real Madrid, FC Barcelona, and five other Spanish soccer clubs will have to return tens of millions of euros to Spain’s government after benefiting from illegal tax breaks, the European Union’s antitrust regulator said Monday.

The European Commission said the tax breaks, property deals, and loans and bank guarantees granted by the Spanish government gave those clubs an unfair advantage over their competitors.

Because the worthies of the EU Know Better what the Spanish should do with their money than does the Spanish government.

Tax Complexity

A Private Letter Ruling is a letter the IRS issues to a particular taxpayer—corporate or business—to provide specific instructions/clearance to a specific taxpayer about that taxpayer’s particular circumstance.  PLRs set no precedent for any other taxpayer; even if that other has a substantially similar circumstance.  The price for such a Letter, charged by the IRS to the Letter’s recipient, ranges from $2,200 to $28,300.

The procedure for getting a PLR is set out in Internal Revenue Bulletin:  2016-1, which runs past 260 .pdf pages (the Table of Contents runs nearly 6 pages).  There’s a hint there.

Here’s another hint, from the opening paragraph of 2016-1‘s Section 1, which lays out the purpose of this procedure:

This revenue procedure explains how the Service provides advice to taxpayers on issues under the jurisdiction of the Associate Chief Counsel (Corporate), the Associate Chief Counsel (Financial Institutions and Products), the Associate Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting), the Associate Chief Counsel (International), the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries), the Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration), and the Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities). It explains the forms of advice and the manner in which advice is requested by taxpayers and provided by the Service. A sample format for a letter ruling request is provided in Appendix B. See section 4 of this revenue procedure for information on certain issues outside the scope of this revenue procedure on which advice may be requested under a different revenue procedure.

Seven different tax specialist head lawyers are needed by the IRS to explain the IRS’ own tax rules to prospective tax advice seekers.

Hmm….

Tony Blair Misunderstands

Great Britain’s Ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair has sensed danger from the Brits’ vote to leave the European Union.

Blair said in a Friday column in The Daily Telegraph that the future of the United Kingdom is at stake as the country faces negotiations on the terms of leaving the European Union.

Of course there’s danger—there always is when a change as large as this is embarked on.  But Great Britain didn’t get to be as great as it was and still is by being timid.  This move is a great opportunity for the nation, much more so than it is a risk, however real that risk is.

Blair also worried:

Britain is dangerously divided, with “profound dismay” felt by many of the 48 percent who wanted to remain in the EU.

He’s missing the other question, though: would Great Britain be any less divided had they voted to Remain?  Not a bit.

Look forward, not backward.

Another Government Overreach?

Before the government can measure the size of the gig economy—or is it the sharing economy? The digital economy?—the sector needs to be defined.

No, it doesn’t.  It doesn’t even need to measure the size of the gig economy; government has shown it’s not going to do anything useful, or freedom-promoting, with that measurement.

And this misconception, by Commerce Department Acting Under Secretary for Economic Affairs Justin Antonipillai:

In order to have good policy making, you have to have good data[.]

Again, no.  Government doesn’t need to make any policy in this area.  Not at all.  Government just needs to butt out, and let American entrepreneurs make their own way.

Only our Liberals are unable to function without being told every little thing every step of the way.  Even Liberals can learn how, though.