Not paying income tax...

[Michael Kilpatrick]

Can anyone explain and justify how it is possible that employees of a
European body which is constituted in Germany, but who live and work in
a facility of that body in the South Cambridgeshire, do not pay UK
income tax but instead pay German income tax?

The European Bioinformatics Institute shares the Hinxton genome campus
with the Sanger Institute (where Alena works).

I believe there are up to 300 people working at the EBI. There is
currently a new building being constructed, which was mostly paid for by
a grant from the British government (which in itself I don't have any
objections to other than the growing burden on the transport
infrastructure, it being placed in the middle of nowhere).

So, even the British citizens raised and born here who currently work at
the EBI in South Cambs pay no income tax to HMRC, instead to Germany.

There may or may not be some similar British-based institutions with
facilities around Europe in which the employees pay British income tax
rather than tax to the host country - which is equally objectionable.
These aren't embassies or overseas military postings, they're just
research facilities.

Why is this allowed?

Michael

[Paul Gotch]

Michael Kilpatrick <ne...@mkilpatrick.cospam.uk> wrote:
> Can anyone explain and justify how it is possible that employees of a
> European body which is constituted in Germany, but who live and work in
> a facility of that body in the South Cambridgeshire, do not pay UK
> income tax but instead pay German income tax?

Um according to the European Molecular Biology Laboratory (Immunity and
Privileges) Order 1994
(http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1994/1890/made) which also covers
the European Bioinformatics Institute:

"As from the date on which an internal effective tax for the benefit of
the Laboratory on the salaries and emoluments paid to him by the
Laboratory is applied, any member of staff of the Laboratory shall
enjoy exemption from income tax in respect of such salaries and
emoluments, provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be
interpreted as precluding such salaries and emoluments from being taken
into account for the purpose of assessing the amount of taxation to be
applied to income from other sources."

> Why is this allowed?

To allow free movement of researchers around the EU without causing
massive amounts of paperwork for HMRC to recover frankly small amounts
of tax for people who are on fixed term and often shortish contracts.

-p
--
Paul Gotch
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[Michael Kilpatrick]

On 16/06/2013 11:17, David Hough wrote:

> Paul Gotch wrote:
>
>>
>> To allow free movement of researchers around the EU without causing
>> massive amounts of paperwork for HMRC to recover frankly small amounts
>> of tax for people who are on fixed term and often shortish contracts.
>>

> Still doesn't sound right. Any other contractor who's doing short term
> contracts is going to have to do plenty of paperwork and pay tax, why should
> researchers be any different? I can understand someone who's normally based
> in Germany doing less than six months' work in the UK before returning to
> Germany, being paid from Germany and having a tax liability there, but once
> a person has been here long enough, then surely the tax liability shifts and
> they ought to be paying UK tax and NI.


Exactly. The world is full of people who work contracts of various
lengths who may travel around from country to country doing all sorts of
things which are *not* scientific research. I don't for a minute want to
disadvantage scientific research (my wife, as I said, is at the Sanger)
- quite the opposite as I believe it should be funded more - but this is
just bizarre.

The world is also full of people who know how to run payrolls. Each and
every corporation of any decent size in each and every country in Europe
has someone who runs their payroll - either internally or contracted -
and has an HR department which by necessity is conversant in local
employement law, not just taxation. I suggest it makes very little
difference to a large institution/corporation to have to manage local
payrolling rather than overseas payrolling.

Furthermore, the model of taxation presupposes that local taxes paid by
the employees contribute fairly towards the resources they use. If it
doesn't so presuppose then it appears to be a system contived only
through laziness to save a modicum of paperwork and no more, and which
implies that is intended for the local community to shoulder an undue
burden by having such an institution on their doorstep. Yet if it does
so presuppose fair local taxation contribution then it is at great
fault, for the model of taxation in the UK is such that local taxes only
provide a portion of the resources for local authorities which are
funded significantly, by proportion, by grants from the national
exchequer. Who knows what variance there is between EU states in this
respect? Certainly in the UK there is a considerably disparity between
the local tax paid and the drain on resources and the strain on
infrastructure caused by the residence and employment of people paying
no income tax in this manner.

As for the short-term nature of contracts, at the EBI certainly some of
the people are there for *many* years. I know of several with children
born here, starting school this September, for example.

Michael

[The Natural Philosopher]

In te same way that I paid UK tax on my earnings abroad when worked as
a software contractor. Tax is taken at the 'place of residence' in that
case, as an individual, and as a british COMPANY inocing the foreoign
clients, that part was tax free.

I.e. I remained at all times a UK employee of a UK company.And
officially resident in the UK.

Its yet more argument to scrap corporation and income tax altogether and
replace it with sales tax, with tax being paid AT THE POINT OF DELIVERY.

That even works for pure online stuff. With some care and thought.

I.e you apply the idea of a 'financial transaction' tax across the
board, everywhere.


> -p


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

[Michael Kilpatrick]

On 16/06/2013 12:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> In te same way that I paid UK tax on my earnings abroad when worked as
> a software contractor. Tax is taken at the 'place of residence' in that
> case, as an individual, and as a british COMPANY inocing the foreoign
> clients, that part was tax free.
>
> I.e. I remained at all times a UK employee of a UK company.And
> officially resident in the UK.
>

Scientific researchers are never contractors in that sense. They may
work contracted periods, but they are direct employees of the
institutions they work for. I've not heard of any researchers being
employed by any other method.

By the way, are you talking about yourself being a contractor using your
own British company, of which you are the sole owner director, as the
contracted and invoicing body?

Michael

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 16 Jun 2013 12:07:38 +0100, Michael Kilpatrick put finger to
keyboard and typed:

>On 16/06/2013 11:17, David Hough wrote:
>> Paul Gotch wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> To allow free movement of researchers around the EU without causing
>>> massive amounts of paperwork for HMRC to recover frankly small amounts
>>> of tax for people who are on fixed term and often shortish contracts.
>>>
>> Still doesn't sound right. Any other contractor who's doing short term
>> contracts is going to have to do plenty of paperwork and pay tax, why should
>> researchers be any different? I can understand someone who's normally based
>> in Germany doing less than six months' work in the UK before returning to
>> Germany, being paid from Germany and having a tax liability there, but once
>> a person has been here long enough, then surely the tax liability shifts and
>> they ought to be paying UK tax and NI.
>
>
>Exactly. The world is full of people who work contracts of various
>lengths who may travel around from country to country doing all sorts of
>things which are *not* scientific research. I don't for a minute want to
>disadvantage scientific research (my wife, as I said, is at the Sanger)
>- quite the opposite as I believe it should be funded more - but this is
>just bizarre.

I think you're both missing the point. And the point that you're missing is
that tax is for the benefit of the government, not the taxpayer. So if
various governments have agreed a reciprocal taxation policy for a certain
set of workers, because (as Paul Gotch says), the potential gain from not
having it is likely to be outweighed by the administration costs of dealing
with people who regularly move around from one country to another, that's
actually a good thing.

Whether or not the same principle ought to be applied to other sets of
workers in similar circumstances is, of course, a perfectly valid question.
It may well be that similar efficiency gains could be made by applying the
same principle to construction workers or doctors. But the fact that, at
the moment, it is not extended to them is not a reason why it shouldn't be
done for those it does currently apply to.

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk

[Michael Kilpatrick]

On 16/06/2013 14:35, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> I think you're both missing the point. And the point that you're missing is
> that tax is for the benefit of the government, not the taxpayer. So if
> various governments have agreed a reciprocal taxation policy for a certain
> set of workers, because (as Paul Gotch says), the potential gain from not
> having it is likely to be outweighed by the administration costs of dealing
> with people who regularly move around from one country to another, that's
> actually a good thing.

But the problem is not really that which you appear to be addressing.

There are many overseas researchers at the Sanger Institute (on the same
Hinxton campus as the EBI). My understanding is that they are, like my
wife, ultimately employees of the Wellcome Trust. What this amounts to
is not a "set of rules for research scientists for the overall benefit
of the furthering of science by reducing paperwork" but "a set of rules
for EU or govt or intergovernmental projects" which does not, as far as
I understand, extend to any non-governmental bodies conducting research
in the same sector of science.

In other words, governments are absolving themselves of the
responsibility to adhere to the laws and bureaucracy that they impose on
the general public and on commercial or other bodies or corporations.
This is hypocrisy, I reckon.

> Whether or not the same principle ought to be applied to other sets of
> workers in similar circumstances is, of course, a perfectly valid question.
> It may well be that similar efficiency gains could be made by applying the
> same principle to construction workers or doctors.

But we wouldn't be talking about "construction workers" here, we would
be talking about "construction workers working for intergovernmental
bodies", which is not the same thing at all.

Michael

[The Natural Philosopher]

yes, and the sole employee.:-)

Of course there was and still is another director.

> Michael

[The Natural Philosopher]

On 16/06/13 15:34, August West wrote:

> The entity calling itself The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>> On 16/06/13 12:51, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>>
>>> By the way, are you talking about yourself being a contractor using
>>> your own British company, of which you are the sole owner director,
>>> as the contracted and invoicing body?
>> yes, and the sole employee.:-)
>>
>> Of course there was and still is another director.

> No need for an "of course", these days; single director priave companies
> have been legal since the Companies Act 2006 (s.154(1)).
>
This was LONG before that.

Like 1983 IIRC.

[Paul Rudin]

The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> writes:

> On 16/06/13 15:34, August West wrote:
>> The entity calling itself The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>> On 16/06/13 12:51, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>>>
>>>> By the way, are you talking about yourself being a contractor using
>>>> your own British company, of which you are the sole owner director,
>>>> as the contracted and invoicing body?
>>> yes, and the sole employee.:-)
>>>
>>> Of course there was and still is another director.
>> No need for an "of course", these days; single director priave companies
>> have been legal since the Companies Act 2006 (s.154(1)).
>>
> This was LONG before that.
>
> Like 1983 IIRC.

August's point is (presumably) that there's no "of course" about the
"still is" bit.

[The Natural Philosopher]

Of course there was (and still is!) another director.

Better?

[Rupert Moss-Eccardt]

Because it is The Law.

European Bodies are placed according to intergovernmental agreement as
the location is seen as a benefit to the host nation but, in order to
avoid the host nation abusing the situation, the financial arrangements
(personal tax, business tax and a number of other things) are the same
for all parts of the EU.

It is the same for those other things that the British Government fought
hard to have in the UK such as Europol, the ECMWF and, of course the
EMBL-EBI

[Michael Kilpatrick]

On 17/06/2013 20:41, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:

> Because it is The Law.
>
> European Bodies are placed according to intergovernmental agreement as
> the location is seen as a benefit to the host nation but, in order to

"benefit" and "prestige" are two completely different animals.

> avoid the host nation abusing the situation, the financial arrangements
> (personal tax, business tax and a number of other things) are the same
> for all parts of the EU.
>
>

OK, but the "benefits" to the UK (and South Cambs in particular) are:

The Sanger Institute (run by the Wellcom Trust) wanted to expand and
build an extension to house the entire stem cell group, could not expand
because it did not have the money, yet the British Government put up the
£24 million to fund the new building for the EBI on the Hinxton Campus.
However, the fruits of the EBI's labour go to the German exchequer
whilst the fruits of the Wellcome Trust's labour go to HMRC.

There is no workplace nursery at the Hinxton Campus because the EBI,
owing to its status, prevents the campus as a whole from having one. The
nursery on the campus is obliged to be open to the public and is
oversubscribed, yet the EBI employees have, thanks to their German tax
system, a greater subsidy for nursery use whilst it is their presence on
the campus that prevents employees of the Wellcome Trust having the
benefits of a proper workplace nursery scheme.

The employees of the EBI South Cambs are subsidised to some extent by UK
tax-payers because they do not pay their share of UK income tax that
provides the funding for local authorities (only a portion of which
actually comes from Council Tax) to provide for the services they consume.

>
> It is the same for those other things that the British Government fought
> hard to have in the UK such as Europol, the ECMWF and, of course the
> EMBL-EBI

Britain shouldn't have to "fight" to get this, that or the other:
neither it nor any other country should have an unfairly large or
unfairly small slice of the cake. All these intergovernmental bodies
should, by rights, be distributed fairly and evenly across the EU
states, and each facility should be taxed in the same manner as any
other local facility, which, owing to the fair distribution across the
EU, would then result in a fair distribution of the income tax.

Michael

[Duncan Wood]

I'm fairly certain that the provision or otherwise of nursery places is a
very small part, almost negligible, of the effects of the Sanger
institute, no matter how much it irritates you. You can't distribute them
evenly as that defeats the point of having centres.

[Michael Kilpatrick]

On 17/06/2013 22:36, Duncan Wood wrote:

>
> I'm fairly certain that the provision or otherwise of nursery places is
> a very small part, almost negligible, of the effects of the Sanger
> institute, no matter how much it irritates you. You can't distribute
> them evenly as that defeats the point of having centres.

Sorry, not sure if you're referring to "centres" as in the institutes,
not the nurseries. I assume so. So:

The point is surely that there are many, many different institutes and
intergovernmental bodies around the EU, the EBI being just one of those
in one particular field (biosciences).

The EMBL-EBI can't be split between all 20-odd member states - that's
clearly unworkable. Nor should it be plonked in any old place where
there is no established bioscience industry (and pool of employees)
whatsoever.

But of the set of the intergovernment bodies *as a whole* (science,
engineering, law, environmental studies, you-name-it) the distribution
around the EU should be reasonably even. How could it possibly be fair
otherwise? How could it be fair if the UK and Germany between them
hosted every single institute with Italy, France, Spain, etc hosting
none at all? If the intergovernmental-body cake *as a whole* is not
fairly distributed around the EU states, there is something wrong, no?

If the cake is fairly distributed, I don't see why there then have to be
any such special measures for taxation, for the levels of employment,
and therefore of income tax potential, would likewise be reasonably and
fairly distributed between the member states. It would, as they say, all
come out in the wash,

That there are such silly tax measures might suggest that states such as
the UK and Germany are fighting (bullying?) for the prestige and
perceived self-interested of hosting the lion's share of everything -
with a sop to other nations through the tax arrangements - and that the
overall distribution of intergovernmental bodies is not at all fair. If
that's the case, I don't like it one bit.

Michael

[Duncan Wood]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2013 23:06:27 +0100, Michael Kilpatrick
<ne...@mkilpatrick.cospam.uk> wrote:

> On 17/06/2013 22:36, Duncan Wood wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm fairly certain that the provision or otherwise of nursery places is
>> a very small part, almost negligible, of the effects of the Sanger
>> institute, no matter how much it irritates you. You can't distribute
>> them evenly as that defeats the point of having centres.
>
> Sorry, not sure if you're referring to "centres" as in the institutes,
> not the nurseries. I assume so. So:
>
> The point is surely that there are many, many different institutes and
> intergovernmental bodies around the EU, the EBI being just one of those
> in one particular field (biosciences).
>
> The EMBL-EBI can't be split between all 20-odd member states - that's
> clearly unworkable. Nor should it be plonked in any old place where
> there is no established bioscience industry (and pool of employees)
> whatsoever.
>
> But of the set of the intergovernment bodies *as a whole* (science,
> engineering, law, environmental studies, you-name-it) the distribution
> around the EU should be reasonably even. How could it possibly be fair
> otherwise? How could it be fair if the UK and Germany between them
> hosted every single institute with Italy, France, Spain, etc hosting
> none at all? If the intergovernmental-body cake *as a whole* is not
> fairly distributed around the EU states, there is something wrong, no?
>

Fairly, evenly and efficiently will give different distributions.

> If the cake is fairly distributed, I don't see why there then have to be
> any such special measures for taxation, for the levels of employment,
> and therefore of income tax potential, would likewise be reasonably and
> fairly distributed between the member states. It would, as they say, all
> come out in the wash,
>

In which case the current arrangement works fine & reduces the paperwork.

[Michael Kilpatrick]

On 17/06/2013 23:10, Duncan Wood wrote:
>
> In which case the current arrangement works fine & reduces the paperwork.

Why should an international corporation with employees in several
different countries be subject to more paperwork than an
intergovermental body? One rule for the lawmakers, another for the rest?

Michael

[Michael Kilpatrick]

On 17/06/2013 23:24, August West wrote:

> For some organizations, it can cause more partwork. All employees at
> CERN are paid & taxed as if residents of their home country. The payroll
> system is, as a result, horendously complicated (my wife was, in some
> part, responsible for it).

Bloody hell, what a mess. One rule for normal people, another rule for
employees of intergovermental-funded institutes, another for CERN...any
more?

Michael

[Bourne Again]

On 17/06/2013 22:28, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
> The Sanger Institute (run by the Wellcom Trust) wanted to expand and
> build an extension to house the entire stem cell group, could not expand
> because it did not have the money, yet the British Government put up the
> £24 million to fund the new building for the EBI on the Hinxton Campus.

Are you seriously suggesting that the Wellcome Trust could not afford to
add a new wing to the Sulston building?

> However, the fruits of the EBI's labour go to the German exchequer
> whilst the fruits of the Wellcome Trust's labour go to HMRC.
>

This is incorrect. The income tax collected on EBI employees earnings
does not go to Germany. It's an EMBL internal tax.

> There is no workplace nursery at the Hinxton Campus because the EBI,
> owing to its status, prevents the campus as a whole from having one.

This is incorrect. The campus nursery is in the process of becoming a
workplace nursery.

> The
> nursery on the campus is obliged to be open to the public and is
> oversubscribed, yet the EBI employees have, thanks to their German tax
> system, a greater subsidy for nursery use whilst it is their presence on
> the campus that prevents employees of the Wellcome Trust having the
> benefits of a proper workplace nursery scheme.
>

WTSI staff can use the nursery voucher scheme, EBI staff get a modest
discount on the fees, but can't get vouchers. However, EBI staff only
get a discount if they use the campus nursery, WTSI staff can take the
vouchers anywhere.

> The employees of the EBI South Cambs are subsidised to some extent by UK
> tax-payers because they do not pay their share of UK income tax that
> provides the funding for local authorities (only a portion of which
> actually comes from Council Tax) to provide for the services they consume.
>

This is one of the factors considered when negotiating the UK's
contributions to EMBL.

Kind regards,

BA

[Michael Kilpatrick]

On 18/06/2013 08:09, Bourne Again wrote:
> On 17/06/2013 22:28, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>> The Sanger Institute (run by the Wellcom Trust) wanted to expand and
>> build an extension to house the entire stem cell group, could not expand
>> because it did not have the money, yet the British Government put up the
>> £24 million to fund the new building for the EBI on the Hinxton Campus.
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that the Wellcome Trust could not afford to
> add a new wing to the Sulston building?
>
>> However, the fruits of the EBI's labour go to the German exchequer
>> whilst the fruits of the Wellcome Trust's labour go to HMRC.
>>
>
> This is incorrect. The income tax collected on EBI employees earnings
> does not go to Germany. It's an EMBL internal tax.

OK, but it doesn't go to HMRC, which amounts to the same thing.

>
>> There is no workplace nursery at the Hinxton Campus because the EBI,
>> owing to its status, prevents the campus as a whole from having one.
>
> This is incorrect. The campus nursery is in the process of becoming a
> workplace nursery.

If it is, then some legislation has presumably overcome the problem -
which has existed for a long time. Rather late for lots of parents
who've struggled to get places in the past.

Michael

[Michael Kilpatrick]

On 18/06/2013 08:09, Bourne Again wrote:

> On 17/06/2013 22:28, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>> The Sanger Institute (run by the Wellcom Trust) wanted to expand and
>> build an extension to house the entire stem cell group, could not expand
>> because it did not have the money, yet the British Government put up the
>> £24 million to fund the new building for the EBI on the Hinxton Campus.
>
> Are you seriously suggesting that the Wellcome Trust could not afford to
> add a new wing to the Sulston building?

I don't know exactly how many fires the Wellcome Trust has its irons in,
but since I'm privy to some details of the last few years' pay reviews
at the Sanger thanks to my wife, it's clear that it either can't or
won't throw in a significant increase in resources, as is backed up by
the previous statement that "it didn't have the money for extension" -
whether the "it" refers to the Sanger rather than the Wellcome Trust
itsel...

Michael

[Paul Gotch]

Michael Kilpatrick <ne...@mkilpatrick.cospam.uk> wrote:
> whether the "it" refers to the Sanger rather than the Wellcome Trust
> itsel...

It will refer to how the Sanger chooses to spend the grant it is given
by the Wellcome Trust.

The Wellcome trust itself has substantial assets however many of them
will be illiquid.

[Bourne Again]

On 18/06/2013 08:32, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>> This is incorrect. The income tax collected on EBI employees earnings
>> does not go to Germany. It's an EMBL internal tax.
>
> OK, but it doesn't go to HMRC, which amounts to the same thing.
>

It really doesn't.

>
> If it is, then some legislation has presumably overcome the problem -
> which has existed for a long time. Rather late for lots of parents
> who've struggled to get places in the past.
>

The problem may only have existed in the collective delusions of WTSI's
corporate services team.

>
> I don't know exactly how many fires the Wellcome Trust has its irons in,
> but since I'm privy to some details of the last few years' pay reviews
> at the Sanger thanks to my wife, it's clear that it either can't or
> won't throw in a significant increase in resources, as is backed up by
> the previous statement that "it didn't have the money for extension" -

> whether the "it" refers to the Sanger rather than the Wellcome Trust
> itsel...
>

There's a huge difference between can't and won't and I don't think you
know which applies here.

Regarding the building work, EBI/EMBL applied for funding & got it. Did
WTSI apply for funding? Given they will soon be starting extensive
remodelling within the Sulston building they can't be that hard up.

Kind regards,

BA

[Duncan Wood]

If you do short term contracts abroad then you're normally taxed in your
home country, ignoring the edge cases for an intergovernmental
organisation without creating a large potential loophole for international
businesses seems eminently pragmatic.

[Michael Kilpatrick]

On 18/06/2013 20:37, Bourne Again wrote:
> On 18/06/2013 08:32, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>>> This is incorrect. The income tax collected on EBI employees earnings
>>> does not go to Germany. It's an EMBL internal tax.
>>
>> OK, but it doesn't go to HMRC, which amounts to the same thing.
>>
>
> It really doesn't.
>
>>
>> If it is, then some legislation has presumably overcome the problem -
>> which has existed for a long time. Rather late for lots of parents
>> who've struggled to get places in the past.
>>
>
> The problem may only have existed in the collective delusions of WTSI's
> corporate services team.

Speaking further to my wife about it, the negotiations for the nursery
becoming a Workplace Nursery have been going on for some considerable
time. There appear to be two problems, not one. The first is what may be
a legal problem (my wife gets the impression that the people don't
actually know, and from what she tells me about some of the goings on at
the Sanger, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't) with the EBI not
being able to offer employees the Workplace Nursery salary sacrifice
which of course the Sanger can be, the later being a regular British
employer paying income tax and NI, the former not. The second obstacle
is that the nursery was agreed with the council to be open to the public
(i.e. residents of Hinxton and a few other lucky people from
neighbouring villages who somehow blagged a place). That second obstacle
has, I believe now been overcome. It will no longer be open to the
general public and therefore, if any legal issues with the EBI are
either resolved (or determined never to have existed in the first
place!) it can become a proper Workplace Nursery.

> There's a huge difference between can't and won't and I don't think you
> know which applies here.
>
> Regarding the building work, EBI/EMBL applied for funding & got it. Did
> WTSI apply for funding? Given they will soon be starting extensive
> remodelling within the Sulston building they can't be that hard up.

Well, there's rather a difference between remodelling and building a new
facility. I don't know if there is the general impression in the public
at large that the Wellcome Trust is rolling in money, but the Sanger
Institute clearly, from what I know (and my wife was previously a member
of the staff association) doesn't throw money around. EBI salaries
increased by between 4% and 7% this year. Salaries at the Sanger below
inflation over the last three years (or maybe the last two, I'm not sure
about the year before without asking my wife).

Michael

[RobertL]

On Sunday, June 16, 2013 10:43:40 AM UTC+1, Paul Gotch wrote:
> Michael Kilpatrick <ne...@mkilpatrick.cospam.uk> wrote:

>> Why is this allowed?

> To allow free movement of researchers around the EU without causing
> massive amounts of paperwork for HMRC to recover frankly small amounts
> of tax for people who are on fixed term and often shortish contracts.

But that would apply to all sorts of research people. yet it's only the EU institutions that get this special exemption. AFAIK it applies to places like ESA and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.

Robert