Proposition 50K0273

Projet de loi modifiant les articles 145 1 et 145 5 du Code des impôts sur les revenus 1992.

General information ¶

Authors

Ecolo Jean-Pierre Viseur
Groen Jef Tavernier
MR Daniel Bacquelaine
Open Vld Aimé Desimpel
PS | SP Jean-Marc Delizée
Vooruit Jan Peeters, Peter Vanvelthoven

Submission date

Nov. 23, 1999

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax relief direct tax tax on income

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA MR FN VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

⚠️ Possible data error ⚠️

This proposition could possibly include unrelated discussions due to a heuristic extraction bug in propositions prior to 2007. As soon as I've got time to fix it, these will be removed when they're not supposed to be here.

Discussion ¶

April 6, 2000 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, this bill, like a similar bill by Mr. Vanpoucke, deals with the problem of granting tax advantages on mortgage loans in the event that no debt balance insurance can be concluded. Initially, it was the intention of the authors of the various bills to grant tax benefits to those persons who, for medical reasons, could not obtain debt balance insurance. The difference between the two bills was that Mr. Peeters’ proposal was somewhat more elaborate in the text itself. The other bill gave more powers to the government to settle the matter. In the course of the discussions, it soon turned out that a house-wide majority was willing to resolve this issue. However, the extent of that possibility was a problem. In addition, the Government had also addressed the problem that, due to objections of the European Commission against the entire arrangement as recorded in our Code, one had to fill in another provision. Finally, you will notice in the written report, which I will also refer to further, that the discussions have been conducted in two phases. A first phase in which the substance was further examined and a second phase in which, in response to the objection of the European Commission, it was decided to grant the tax advantage of mortgage loans to everyone, even if no debt balance insurance has been granted. The European Commission had expressed objections to the fact that we imposed the obligation to contract a debt balance insurance in Belgium, which also indirectly made the market of mortgage loans less open to neighbouring countries. The text of Mr. Peeters was chosen as the basis of the discussion. A number of amendments submitted by the Government were approved and the entire proposal was unanimously adopted.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we have already talked a lot in this Parliament about the active welfare state. We mean not only that the government must actively intervene to get as many people to work as possible, but also that we must conduct an active policy against social exclusion in this society. That social exclusion is a problem of social security and, as we have discovered in this anomaly, also of taxation. It is in our country that to thousands of chronic patients, people who suffer from MS, or young cancer patients who are medically affected by the disease, precisely because of these medical problems often are denied debt saldo insurance by the banks and insurance companies. As a result, they are also again punished by our government, by the tax authority, additional tax because they cannot deduct their loan payments from their taxable income. While, on the one hand, we do a lot of work within the social security system and free up a lot of budgets to provide these chronic patients with affordable health care – think of the four billion francs for chronic patients that we have approved in this government agreement and also see appear in budgets – and on the other hand, on the social security side, a lot of efforts are also being made to support those people financially, on the other hand, we take this double and thick back by not making their mortgage repayments tax-deductible. This bill remedies this and meets the desire of many patient groups who will be given a huge tax reduction of often tens of thousands of francs per year because they will now, like you and me, from now on, be able to deduct their housing payments. This is a correction that should have been done for a long time. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the colleagues who unanimously approved this bill in the committee, as well as the co-signers for their support. I thank colleague Vanpoucke for the fact that he withdrew his bill and joined the option to continue, on the basis of our text. I thank Minister Reynders for his constructive support for this proposal and for his addition of an additional advantage, in particular that in the future Belgians who have taken a mortgage loan in another European Member State will also be eligible for tax deduction. There is evidence again and again that this government is also introducing tax cuts, for those people who need it most, the chronically ill.