Proposition 50K1110

Projet de loi visant à modifier les conséquences sur l'impôt sur les revenus des donations à l'Etat et les modalités des dations d'oeuvres d'art en paiement de droits de succession.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

Sept. 24, 1999

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

inheritance law of succession indirect tax gift

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

FN VB

Abstained from voting

CD&V LE N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.
• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) abstained from voting.

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.

Discussion ¶

May 17, 2001 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, this appears at first glance to be a banal bill. It was not my intention to speak on this subject, but additional information compels me to say something.

The present bill comes from the Senate, but was amended in the committee by the government quite thoroughly. At the beginning of the discussion of this draft law in the committee, it was pointed out that there could be a potential jurisdiction problem between the State and the regions in matters of succession rights. The Minister of Finance has removed this. He stated that this is a purely federal authority.

I would like to point out, Mr. Minister, that the collection of succession rights belongs to the exclusive competence of the regions and from my language role more specifically to the Flemish Region. This is stated in so many words in article 3, paragraph 4, of the special law of January 1989 on the financing of the regions and communities. This law established the principle of limited payment of art objects to partial settlement of succession rights.

With the present draft law, a committee is set up to advise the Minister of Finance on two matters. First, is the artwork part of the country’s moving cultural heritage? Second, what is the monetary value of the artwork?

I would like to point out that the appreciation of a work of art and its belonging to a cultural heritage is a cultural assessment which falls exclusively within the competence of the communities and that the monetary value of such work of art follows therefrom. It therefore belongs to the first and undisputed competence of the Flemish Community to save its artistic heritage within the framework of its cultural independence. Therefore, we consider that Article 3 of the bill in question, which adds an article 84, 4 to the Code of Succession Rights, is contrary to Article 3 of the Finance Act of January 1989, which stipulates the regional powers concerning the payment of art objects to the arrangement of succession rights. We are therefore curious how next week — better late than never — the vote in the Flemish Parliament on this conflict of interest will take place and, if necessary, will give rise to the suspension of the procedure for consultation.

Therefore, the Flemish Blok group will not support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, we thank the rapporteur for his excellent report. We also initially intended not to return to the discussion as shown in the report, but I think it is still good to bring some points to the attention of the plenary session.

This bill, including 12 government amendments, cannot really convince us. Indeed, we have no problem in essence, but there are still a number of considerations to be formulated that make us doubt the correctness of the legal work in question. Rather, it seems that the minister is mostly reluctant to the original bill of a senator because it comes from a liberal colleague.

We would like to know the fundamental position of the Administration of Finance regarding this bill.

The proposed bill aims, among other things, to ease the supply of works of art for the payment of succession rights. However, if Lambermont-bis is approved, these succession rights will be transferred entirely to the regions. A change in the fallreep — ⁇ I would rather say possible fallreep — seems to us inappropriate. In addition, these works of art will usually end up in museums for which the communities are competent.

A joint committee will be established to decide not only on personal tax, but also on succession rights. Can the Joint Committee act on succession if the succession rights have become entirely a matter of interest? However, there is more. The regions will receive the succession rights eventually later and will face a questionable appreciation of the artwork. It seems necessary for us to gain the views of the regions on this issue. We have addressed this issue in the committee. The Minister refused to intervene.

Mr. Minister of the Interior, you are replacing your colleague of Finance. I would like to receive an explicit answer regarding a statement by Minister Reynders in the committee, which, however, is not unambiguously reflected in the report. Minister Reynders stated that "Minister of Finance" does not mean that this must be the federal Minister of Finance. He made this decision following the discussion of the appointment by the Minister of Finance of the members of the special committee. Does this mean that after regionalization the federal and regional finance ministers are jointly authorized to appoint the members of the special committee? If there is no clear answer to this question, I think that the bill cannot even be voted. What happens if these ministers do not agree on the appointments?

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I would like to go a little deeper into the 12 amendments of the Government which were handed over to the committee members by mouth. The government had already had the opportunity in the Senate to submit amendments. The question arises why the government does not submit amendments in the Senate and when it deals with the draft in the House suddenly throws 12 amendments on the table.

To our surprise, Government Amendment No. 3 states that the original article 5 of the draft law is not opportune because in a second reform of the personal tax, the withdrawal possibilities will be grouped into a number of baskets. The opinion of the High Council for Finance, requested on 10 July 2000, should give the Minister more clarity in this regard. The opinion should have been given before the end of 2000. Waiting for the second reform is, in our opinion, an optimistic attitude of the Minister of Finance. It can be a mistake not to have to fundamentally criticize the designed article. Colleagues, the first draft reform of the personal tax has yet to be submitted to Parliament. This design takes into account a timing until 2006. The second draft is likely to enter into force only after 2006. Can the argument on the reform of the personal tax already be invoked to postpone this article? The fact is that succession rights will be regionalized much faster than the re-grouping into flat-rate costs will come. The re-grouping of the baskets could already have begun.

The question arises whether you or the Minister of Finance - I mention very explicitly also the Minister of Finance - the amendment no. 5 of the Government. In the accountability of the amendment, black on white is stated that the corporate tax reform should take place in a budget-neutral framework. There is no mention of the abolition of the crisis contribution or the favourable arrangement for SMEs which, according to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, should be kept just outside this budgetary framework. It is also stated that here too the opinion of the High Council of Finance should be awaited, while this opinion is already there. This responsibility is no longer relevant. Why, Mr. Minister, should that provision in the original Article 7 still be removed? Their

Colleagues, you hear it, we have basically no comments to formulate and we agree with the original bill, but the current text raises so many questions that we will refrain. We hope, Mr. Minister, that you will give an explicit answer to the problem on which I have drawn your attention, in particular what interpretation the Minister of Finance will give to this text after this matter has been regionalized. Will the Federal Minister of Finance then still be competent, or will it rather be a collection of Ministers of Finance both of the federal government and of the communities and regions?

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out just recently, the Minister of Finance would have wanted to be among us to defend his project, but Mr. Speaker’s excellent report. Chabot contains all the replies of the Minister. He paid him a tribute. In addition, all the discussions, Mr. Pieters recalled it, took place in commission.

Therefore, I am referring to the brilliant report of Mr. Chabot, who underlines the opinion of the Minister, according to which the present draft falls within the exclusive competence of the federal legislature. Therefore, he does not wish to engage in new formal procedures in the matter as long as the law does not provide for them.

For the surplus, some provisions do not speak of the Federal Minister of Finance but of the Minister of Finance. Thus, a number of paths will be opened depending on future developments in the level of skill distribution.

General discussion is closed. The general discussion is closed.