Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Taxation ? empowering communities in the COVID-19 times
| Autor | Ricardo García Antón |
| Cargo | Assistant Professor of Tax Economics at Tilburg University (Fiscal Institute Tilburg) and former Associate Researcher at the IBFD |
| Páginas | 123-144 |
Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Taxation – empowering communities in
the COVID-19 times
RICARDO GARCÍA ANTÓN
Assistant Professor of Tax Economics at Tilburg University (Fiscal Institute Tilburg) and
former Associate Researcher at the IBFD
R.GarciaAnton@tilburguniversity.edu
https://orcid.org/ 0000-0002-0823-3170
Abstract: This paper examines how Italy’s case law has dealt with work-related diseases (e.g. acoustic
neuroma and parotid gland tumour) caused by cell phone use. In order to award workers sickness
benefits, case law has ruled that some degree of probability might be sufficient to establish the cause-
and-effect relationship between exposure to some risks and the development of a disease. In the authors’
view, this aspect confirms that labour laws fail to keep up with the new risks linked to technological
innovation, especially in relation to new work environments, co-wor king a reas e r emote wo rk. In o rder
to deal with this issue, a starting point could be promoting interdisciplinary cooperation between
scientific research, administration bodies and legal sciences.
Keywords: COVID-19, cultural heritage, re-designing tax policy, community.
Summary: 1. INTRODUCTION. 2. SHORTCOMINGS FROM A TOP-DOWN APPROACH TO
PRESERVE CULTURAL HERITAGE. 2.1. Tax benefits on sponsorship. 2.2. Tax incentives on private
owner of cultural heritage sites. 2.2.A. Tax allowances. 2.2.B. Tax credits. 2.2.C. Exemptions in wealth,
capital gain, inheritance and property taxes. 2.3. Tourist taxes. 2.4. An unsatisfactory statist dimension
to protect our cultural heritage. 3. COVID-19 AS THE BASIS FOR A COMMUNITY-BASED
APPROACH: TAX MEASURES FOR CULTURAL HERITAGE COOPERATIVES. 4. A NEW
INTERPRETATION OF “INCENTIVE MEASURES” UNDER ART. 167 (5) TFEU. 5.
CONCLUSIONS. 6. BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Recepción: 16/11/2020
Aceptación: 23/11/2020
Cómo citar este trabajo: GARCÍA ANTÓN, R., “Cultural Her itage and Sustainable Taxation –empowering
communities in the COVID-19 times”, Revista de Estudios Jurídicos y Criminológicos, ISSN-e: 2660-7964, n.º
2, Universidad de Cádiz, 2020, pp. 123-144, DOI: https://doi.org/10.25267/REJUCRIM.2020.i2.06
Cultural Heritage and Sustainable Taxation – empowering communities in the COVID-19 times
124
1. INTRODUCTION
In the EU countries, protecting our cultural heritage
1
undergoes a looming challenge, namely
the financial constraints derived from the lack of public resources
2
. Due to the previous
financial crisis (2008-2010) and the upcoming economic crisis derived from the COVID-19
pandemic, it more obvious that private engagement in cultural heritage needs to be stimulated
by the States
3
. However, this art. poses the following research question: is the current tax regime
designed to foster private engagement sustainable in a long-term?
In this art., this author will argue that the current tax measures, which are divided in three main
clusters (private sponsorship, incentives to private owners of cultural sites and tourist taxes),
follow a State dimension, a sort of “top-down” approach. Putting bluntly, the State pinpoints
what needs to be preserved and only few stakeholders are the recipients from the tax measures.
To challenge this previous top-down vision, this author would plead for creating tax measures
that endorse a community-centred approach.
The role of the communities in preserving cultural heritage is not new in the literature on
economics of cultural heritage
4
. The recent involvement of private sector in the preservation of
cultural heritage raises awareness of the value of cultural heritage in our democratic societies,
which cannot be exclusively allocated to the public administration. Preserving cultural heritage
is a collective task of our democratic societies. Therefore, not only the decision-making but
also the allocation of economic resources must be shared by these three actors: public sector
authorities, non-market actors (consumers, neighbors, associations, NGOs, civil societies) and
market actors (private entrepreneurs). In this line, SEAMAN avoids facile designations of
heritage sites as pure public goods that require only public sector solutions
5
. An example
brought by this author is the preservation of the “Fabulous Fox Theatre” (Atlanta, US) in which
1
In this contribution, we refer to cultural heritage as tangible heritage (buildings, museums, works of art, cultural
and archeological sites, etc.), thereby carving out intangible heritage.
2
See BENHAMOU, F. , “Public Intervention for Cultural Her itage: normative issues and too ls”, in RIZZO, I. &
MIGNOSA, A. (eds), Handbook on the Economics of Cultural Heritage, Elgar, 2013, p. 14. As an example, in
Spain during the period 2008 – 2017, the State investment in protecting and preserving o ur cultural heritage has
plummeted 70%. See these data in El Pais, 11 April 2017,
http://cultura.elpais.com/cultura/2017/04/04/actualidad/1491291998_103518.html.
3
In this regard, see MASTELLONE, P., “International and EU Measures for the Prot ection of Cultural Heritage:
Towards Broader Use of Tax Breaks t o Stimulate Private Engagement’, European Taxation, IBFD, vo l. 59, n.º
2/3, pp. 81 - 88.
4
PHILLIPS, R.G. and STEIN, J.M., “An Indicator Framework for Linking Historic Preservation and Community
Economic Development”, Social Indicator Research, vol. 113, n.º 1, 2013, pp. 1–15; ATECA AMESTOY, V.
“Demand for cultural heritage”, in RIZZO, I. & MIGNOSA, A. (eds), Handbook on the Economics of Cultural
Heritage, supra note 2, pp. 89-110; SEAMAN, B.A., “The role of the private sector in cultural heritage”, in RIZZO,
I. & MIGNOSA, A. (eds), Handbook on the Economics of Cultural Heritage, supra note 2, pp. 111 – 128.
5
SEAMAN, B., supra note 4, p. 111.
Para continuar leyendo
Solicita tu prueba