NEWS | Wednesday, 18 March 2009

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Raphael Vassallo
Nationalist MEP candidate Roberta Metsola Tedesco Triccas has further clarified her position regarding VAT refunds on car registration tax: contrary to claims by Labour leader Joseph Muscat, the government is not “obliged” to pay any refunds... but the 30-year-old Swieqi lawyer argues it would be better to do so anyway.
Triccas stirred a hornet’s nest at the PN headquarters over the weekend, when – as thousands queued to sign up to the Labour Party’s class action against government – she appeared to urge her own party to give in to the Opposition’s demands for a refund on VAT.
Government was evidently caught wrong-footed by the surprise announcement, and Finance Minister Tonio Fenech even suggested the PN candidate may have fallen victim to Muscat’s ‘spin’: “Frankly I won’t waste €50 million and explode the deficit to buy the European Parliament elections,” an irate Fenech told MaltaToday, in a clear allusion that Triccas may have been motivated by her own campaign interests.
But Triccas herself dismisses this interpretation. “I spoke out because I believe the government, while correct in its legal arguments, would stand to gain if it acknowledged the fairness of the people’s demands,” she said.
“And unlike candidates of other parties, I am allowed to speak my mind by a party which has always valued my fundamental rights, and the right to freedom of expression.”
More to the point, she insists the Labour Party has got the wrong end of the stick. “The fact that Joseph Muscat recently described (the PL’s petition) as a ‘moral’ and ‘political’ victory, gave the whole game away,” she explains.
“He has admitted that it is not a ‘legal’ victory. And in fact it is not. Labour is simply basing all its arguments only on what Commissioner Kovaks said. But the Commissioner’s word is not itself law. Until there is a ruling handed down by the Europan Court of Justice, there is nothing forcing the government to give in to the Commissioner’s position.”
Triccas, who is by profession a specialist in European law, explains that until all infringement procedures have been exhausted, there is no question of legal obligations.
“The government is right when it claims that it is under no obligation to refund the VAT,” she points out. “But my position is that it should consider refunding the money anyway, on the basis of fairness and justice. Not necessarily all at once, and definitely not in any way that places jobs in danger. I agree that the government’s priority should be to safeguard and create jobs. But there are ways to spread out any refund, for instance over a number of years...”
Triccas adds that a similar (though not identical) scenario has already unfolded in the case of satellite licences: “We all remember what happened. There was no court case involved. The Commission signalled it would start infringement procedures against Malta for making possession of a satellite dish subject to licence fee, arguing this was against EU law. The government could have ignored the Commission and carried on regardless; but it didn’t. Instead, it revoked the license fee to conform with European law, and refunded the payments that had been made”
Government, Triccas argues, would “win a lot” if it acknowledges that it would be fair to accede to the demands of the thousands who paid unnecessary VAT on cars bought after 2004.
“As you can I imagine I had mixed reactions to my statement,” she said. “But the most significant was of a person who decided to stop queuing up for Labour’s petition, after hearing about my position. A lot of people expect their party to speak out in their own language. The Prime Minister himself also agrees: after all he has stated that, if any rights are shown to exist, he would honour them to the last cent.”

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.