RE: Nuclear option?9 Aug 2024 12:21
Sek, you ask “Could it be argued that the EPL is so discriminatory and excessive that it infringes the [ECHR] convention?” Agreed, it seems unlikely, but let’s have a go.
As discussed, one general discrimination argument is that just a sub-sector of one industry sector is being penalised. And this penalisation is by using bias/skewed calculations to create the false premise of on-going higher than average prices resulting in claimed “extraordinary” profits. In reality, these “extraordinary” profits do not exist, yet the affected companies are being taxed/levied as if they do exist. Therefore, we have a tax/levy, itself based on false premises, and which has disproportionately discriminated against individual investors in O&G companies resulting in an excessive confiscation of their money.
Another more specific discrimination is on a further sub-set of the sub-set of the energy sector; the UK focused Independents. The strongest discriminatory factor is size. The justification claim made for the EPL has always been the O&G Giants have benefited from extraordinary “windfall” profits. To support the claim, Shell and BP’s profits on their worldwide operations were often quoted, and which is irrelevant in matters of UK taxation. The smaller Independents, due to their size to be able to access credit, are obliged to hedge. Hedging reduced the positive effect of the brief price spike. A tax/levy targeted at one thing, the extraordinary profits of the industry Giants, has instead impacted another group without extraordinary profits. Therefore, we have a tax/levy, itself based on false premises, and which has disproportionately discriminated against individual investors in “small” O&G companies resulting in an excessive confiscation of their money.
Sign In
Follow the stocks
