Proposition 50K1635

Projet de loi modifiant les articles 5, 9, 11, 21 et 42 du Code des taxes assimilées aux impôts sur les revenus en exécution de la directive 1999/62/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 17 juin 1999, relative à la taxation des poids lourds pour l'utilisation de certaines infrastructures.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Groen Open Vld Vooruit PS | SP Ecolo MR Verhofstadt Ⅰ

Submission date

Feb. 12, 2002

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive tax vehicle tax

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen Ecolo PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V FN VB

Abstained from voting

LE

Party dissidents ¶

• Karel Pinxten (Open Vld) voted to reject.
• Alfons Borginon (Open Vld) abstained from voting.
• Vincent Decroly (Ecolo) abstained from voting.
• Richard Fournaux (MR) abstained from voting.
• Tony Van Parys (CD&V) 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 ¶

March 21, 2002 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a small effort to report already on a discussion that concluded last week in the committee.

This report deals with the draft law amending Articles 5, 9, 11, 21 and 42 of the Code of taxes equated with income taxes in implementation of the Directive No. 1999/62/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 1999 on charging for the use of certain infrastructure facilities by heavy-duty vehicles. This bill was submitted not only for the implementation of that directive, but in fact also for the implementation of the Agreement of 14 September 2000 between the government and the transport sector. A number of points had to be adjusted, both within the framework of the Directive and within the framework of the Agreement. That is what is presented here today.

With the current draft, the scales of traffic tax for vehicles intended for the transport of goods by road will be extensively adapted to the European regulation, as well as with regard to the technical criteria set therein. This draft gave rise to a limited discussion, which mainly addressed two questions. The first was how far it stood with the approval of the Minister of Budget. In fact, the draft provides for less receipts worth 400 million old Belgian francs. In addition, there was a discussion about the competence of the federal level to adjust these rules. As for the approval of the Minister of Budget, the Minister of Finance reassured us. In the meantime, this permission exists. In addition, there is the question of competence: federal or regional? There was clearly some disagreement between Mr. Borginon and the minister, followed by the majority or the majority of the committee. The Minister and the majority stated that at this point the federal government and therefore the Parliament are still competent. This does not mean that from now on, so from 1 January 2002, the regions are free to make any changes. In addition, the Minister noted that in October and November 2001, the regions issued opinions and formally agreed to the submitted preliminary draft.

With these observations, after the rejection of the submitted amendments, the entire draft law was adopted with eight votes in favour, one vote against and one abstinence.

This bill constitutes the implementation not only of the European directive but also of the agreement concluded on 14 September 2000 between the government and the transport sector. It adjusts the traffic tax rates applicable to heavy-duty vehicles. by

It gave rise to a limited debate, primarily focused on two issues. First, what about the approval of the Minister of Budget, given the decline in revenue of about 400 million former Belgian francs generated by the project? Secondly, the adaptation of these national rules still to the federal power?

The Minister of Finance reassured us: the Minister of Budget signed his agreement. The question of competence remains unanswered. The debate was mainly opposed by Mr. Borginon and the Minister. The Minister and the majority consider that the competence in question is still federal but that, since January 1, 2002, the Regions are entitled to make changes. In addition, the Regions officially approved this bill in October 2001. by

Following the rejection of the amendments, the bill was adopted by 8 votes against 1 and 1 abstentions.

Mr. Peters, would you now want to defend your position together with your amendment?

Mr. Speaker, allow me to explain immediately what is our problem with this bill.

According to the administration, this bill will reduce the taxes in the heavy-duty vehicle sector globally by 10.8 million euros. We cannot oppose this, nor can we oppose the adjustments that need to be made to the European directives.

However, this tax reduction does not apply to all taxpayers, on the contrary. In fact, the exemptions are becoming stricter and it appears that these stricter rules are primarily

This project introduces a reduction in taxes in the heavy-duty vehicle sector. However, this does not apply to all taxpayers. It is especially small ⁇ and individuals using a trailer for their leisure activities that will suffer from stricter tax exemption rules. small self-standigen in de hobbyisten met aanhangwagen treffen.

Using the following two concrete examples, I will illustrate in which cases this bill implies a deterioration. First, the occasional transportation of horses to races often occurs with a jeep and a trailer in which the horses are located. Well, for such trailers there is no longer an exemption. Second, a similar stricter regulation also applies to a large number of market crammers who move their market car forward with a jeep or a minibus.

Both the ministers Maystadt and Viseur who were previously competent, as well as the current Minister of Finance, rightly apply the principle that retroactive effect is only possible if the provisions of draft laws improve the position of all taxpayers. In this case, however, the entry into force of all articles shall take place with retroactive effect from 1 January 2001. Some categories of taxable persons will therefore see their position deteriorate with retroactive effect. We cannot accept this and that is why we submitted an amendment. If this amendment is not adopted, we can only vote against this bill. We do not accept that the situation of the taxpayers will deteriorate with retroactive effect. This is an unprecedented decision, at least in the recent past, and immediately raises the question of what we can expect from the Committee on Accounting Standards. However, this is another debate.

Collega's, our amendment is simple, but also very principle in strekt ertoe de strengere regels voor het bekomen van een vrijstelling te laten geschieden zonder terugwerkende kracht. A retroactive effect is expected until 1 January 2001, which implies a deterioration in the situation of certain taxpayers with retroactive effect. This is a first.

We submitted an amendment to remove the retroactive effect of stricter rules. If this amendment is rejected, the CD&V group will not be able to vote in favour of the draft.

Have you heard that Mr. Did Dirk Pieters defend his amendment?

Mr. Speaker, in this discussion I intervened on a problem of competence at the federal level.

This is in fact a matter of the traffic tax, which from 1 January 2002 belongs to the competence of the regions. However, the present draft regulates matters relating to traffic taxes for 2001 and the argument was that the law could still be made, but I doubt that.

In any case, the amendment of Mr. Dirk Pieters absolutely leads to an excess of powers. If we approve that amendment, it will be guaranteed to be destroyed by the Arbitration Court.

Since 1 January 2002, traffic tax has been the competence of the Regions. The draft includes provisions relating to the traffic tax for the year 2001. I wonder if the federal authorities still have the authority to regulate this matter. The amendment of Mr. Peters is, in any case, a breach of competence. Its adoption would result in the annulment of the law by the Arbitration Court.

Mr. Borginon has already responded to Mr. Pieters’ amendment, citing the issue of the allocation of powers.

We must also take into account a comment from the European Commission and we have applied what was asked to us correctly. It is entirely permissible to have all articles in effect on the same date.

Secondly, I have already in the committee the question of Mr Borginon

We must comply with the request of the European Commission. All articles must enter into force on the same day. The federal authority may adopt the project with retroactive effect. You give me the answer that I have provided a commission and you return to the report. My answer here, in the plenary session, does not differ from this. The federal government is entitled to submit this draft with retroactive effect from 1 January 2001, before the regions have taken over the competence. Regions, for example, are also entitled to introduce new measures with retroactive effect from 1 January 2001. For the rest, I agree with my statements, made in committee, and it should be sufficient to refer to the report.