Proposition 50K1558

Proposition de loi modifiant l'article 25 de la loi du 10 août 2001 portant réforme de l'impôt des personnes physiques et les articles 136, 140, 141 et 178, § 3, du Code des impôts sur les revenus 1992.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Pierrette Cahay-André, Olivier Maingain, Eric van Weddingen

Submission date

Dec. 11, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax relief direct tax tax on income

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

N-VA FN

Party dissidents ¶

• Alfons Borginon (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.

⚠️ 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 ¶

May 23, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

This bill was discussed at the meetings of the Finance Committee on 30 April and 7 May. It amends the law of 10 August 2001 on the reform of the tax of natural persons and articles 136, 140 and 141 of the Income Tax Code 1992.

What is it about? Certain tax benefits may be granted to the taxpayer depending on the family situation. The existence of dependent persons is one of those situations. In the current state of the CIR, a person whose annual income does not exceed 1,500, 1960 after indexation for the financial year 2002 is considered to be dependent. This amount has not changed since 1985 and no longer corresponds to the reality. Indeed, more and more students earn some money as job owners or participate in paid internships in companies. In order to avoid indirect encouragement of undeclared work, it is therefore necessary to increase the amount provided for in the CIR. The bill raises it to 1800 out of index.

In the CIR 1992, another ceiling also deserves an increase. This is the one concerning children considered as disabled in the care of an isolated person. This ceiling is no more than the previous one was raised during the recent corporate tax reform.

Its increase was incorporated into the bill by means of an amendment.

Finally, another amendment incorporated into the text of the proposal indexed the amount of maintenance pensions that should not be considered as a personal resource in the child’s head.

The budgetary impact of these three measures, whose social character is obvious, is, according to the Minister of Finance, very small.

The proposal was adopted by eight votes and one abstention.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, given the time, I promise you to be of an almost exemplary concision. by

First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur. Gobert who was very complete, which will allow me to be even more concise.

This proposal attempts to solve a problem that is well known to all fathers and mothers of large children.

To be able to have some pocket money or to be able to continue their studies without weighing too much on the parental budget, more and more young people try to ... Interruption of Mr. by Jacques Simonet

Mr the President,

Sometimes it’s not just you who “disturb.”

And it makes us waste time! I promised to be brief.

More and more young people, I said, are trying to make some money for themselves.

This approach is obviously praiseable. It is also educational for young people. This is sometimes necessary for parents.

This phenomenon, which is generalizing, therefore deserves to be encouraged.

In order for the child to continue to be taxed by his or her parents, the remuneration he or she pays may not exceed a certain limit, which is currently EUR 1,500.

( ...

I see the affection of your group for you, Mr. van Weddingen!

I already knew it, Mr. President.

This ceiling, although partially indexed, has not been revised since 1985. In fact, the normal remuneration of a student during the 2 months of long holidays often exceeds this ceiling, although it is often little.

This has no negligible tax consequences for parents with the effect, either to discourage the young person from having this activity, or to incite him – and this is what happens most often – to find a black job, which is a start in the professional life to not encourage.

Therefore, the proposal is submitted to you to adjust to the increase the ceiling for persons in charge. The proposed adaptation is reasonable. It should meet, according to the figures we know, the vast majority of concrete cases of exceeding the current ceiling. As the rapporteur recalled earlier, it would go from 1,500 to 1,800 euros, which gives, after indexation, 2,352 euros.

In the last tax reform, all the ceilings for dependents were increased except for two, namely the basic ceiling (which I just talked about) and the ceiling that concerns children considered as disabled under the care of an isolated taxpayer. The proposal also increases this ceiling from 3,000 to 3,300 euros.

Finally, on the occasion of the reform of the tax on natural persons, maintenance pensions were, rightly, excluded from the ceiling for dependents up to 1,800 euros. However, the law has omitted to provide for the indexation of this amount. This is a forgetting that the proposal remedies through an amendment that we have incorporated into it.

The proposed entry into force is retroactive with regard to indexation since it would be applicable from the financial year 2002, i.e. already on the 2001 income, and with regard to the ceilings of 1,800 and 3,300 euros, they will be applicable from the 2002 income.

I would like to thank the Minister of Finance, in the person of his representative today, for supporting my proposal as well as my colleagues in the Finance Committee who voted unanimously minus one abstention.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dampen the party joy of the MR group and I just want to say that the CD&V group will approve this bill. It is a good bill that corrects a number of shortcomings of the personal tax reform. It also goes towards proposals that were formulated from our group. We only regret — we will repeat this whenever personal tax reforms are discussed — that neither the general bill, the new law on the reform of personal tax, thus, nor this bill completely removes all discrimination between married and actually living together. Basically, with regard to these two elements, we find this a ⁇ good bill that, I repeat Mr. van Weddingen, can count on our support.

Mr. Speaker, the only observation that can be made is the obligation for everyone to go through CPAS. In certain circumstances, they might...

( ... ...