Proposition 51K0383

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 11 janvier 1993 relative à la prévention de l'utilisation du système financier aux fins du blanchiment de capitaux, la loi du 22 mars 1993 relative au statut et au contrôle des établissements de crédit et la loi du 6 avril 1995 relative au statut des entreprises d'investissement et à leur contrôle, aux intermédiaires financiers et conseillers en placements.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

Oct. 31, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive lawyer corruption financial institution fraud organised crime drug traffic credit institution criminal law terrorism money laundering

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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.

Discussion ¶

Dec. 11, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur is Mr. by Eric Massin. I do not see it for now. As noted by Mr. Leterme, this is not entirely in the rules. I have not been informed of the imminent arrival of Mr. by Massin.

I suspend the general discussion of the draft in point 1 of the agenda and we begin with the examination of point 2 of our agenda, the bill introducing a single release declaration of which the rapporteurs, MM. Stef Goris and Carl Devlies are present.

The general discussion is suspended. Of general speaking is shorst.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the bill that is presented to you today relates to the introduction of a one-off declaration of liberation. Given the importance of the draft, the number and scope of the committee’s work, the committee has decided to appoint two reporters. Mr. Goris will immediately report on the article-by-article discussion of the draft law. I will give you a summary of the preparatory work and the general discussion. Their

During a very first discussion in the committee, it was decided to maintain a strict working schedule, spread over several meetings during the month of November 2003. It was also decided to organise a hearing in which, in addition to the consultation of the broad banking sector, a number of academic experts would also be heard. The hearing was held on 10 November 2003. In the written report submitted to you, on pages 6 to 79 you will find a summary of the presentations of the various experts, as well as the discussions with the committee members. I can therefore limit myself in the oral report to the most essential points. Their

The committee first heard Mr Jean Rogge, general adviser of the Professional Association of Insurance Companies. This speaker believes that the bill discriminates against insurance companies. Their

He therefore advocates the extension of the draft to several levels, first, as regards the origin of the amounts to be reinvested; second, as regards the institutions designated for the processing of the declaration and third, as regards the reinvestment of the amounts that are the subject of a declaration.

A second presentation to the committee was given by Mr. Guido Ravoet, delegate director of the Belgian Federation of the Financial Sciences, who on behalf of his organization requests special attention to a two-fold aspect that is important for the banks and listed companies as intermediaries in the procedure. On the one hand, the financial sector is the requesting party for the greatest possible clarity and legal certainty, on the other hand, the time aspect is not negligible. It may not be the task of banks and listed companies to check the fiscal status of their clients. Banks and stock exchange companies have neither the power nor the capabilities to do so, as opposed to the tax system.

Given the importance of the Single Liberation Declaration (Single Liberation Declaration, DLU) dossier, two rapporteurs have been appointed.

During a hearing held on 10 November 2003, experts from the banking sector and academia were heard. Jean Rogge, general adviser to the Professional Union of Insurance Companies, was the first speaker.

In his view, the project involves discrimination against insurance companies and therefore pleaded for an expansion of the project in terms of the origin of the amounts to be reinvested, the institutions designated for the processing of the declaration and the reinvestment of the amounts to be declared.

by Mr. Ravoet, Chief Executive Officer of the Belgian Financial Federation, mainly drew attention to two important aspects for banks and stock exchange companies who, on the one hand, want to benefit from maximum legal certainty and clarity and, on the other hand, make reservations regarding timing. They also believe that it is not their responsibility to control the financial situation of their clients. Only the anti-laundering law can constitute an exception to this limited role. None of the stages of reporting and reinvestment should lead to confusion. The speaker also emphasized the need to ensure security on the criminal level and advocated overheden.

Only the application of the money laundering legislation can constitute an exception to this limited and formal role of the intermediaries. Banks advocate for clear rules of play at every stage of the procedure. There shall be no uncertainty about any of the different steps in the declaration and investment or reinvestment. The speaker also points out the need for security on the criminal level and calls for an immediate revision of Article 505 of the Criminal Code, in order to provide legal certainty with regard to the criminal risk for, among other things, financial intermediaries who must daily receive or manage money for third parties.

Knowing that some aspects still need to be elaborated by a royal decree, a later entry into force, two to three months after the anticipated date of 1 January 2004, is preferable.

A third presentation was given by Mr Paul Van Welden of the Professional Association of Independent Bank Investment and Insurance Intermediaries. This speaker stated that the one-off declaration is acceptable for his organization, provided that certain conditions are met. First, an independent body, such as the Committee on Banking and Finance, must issue the certificate on the basis of a form completed by the declarant and by the bank. Second, amnesty should also be possible for the small investor and his pieces of tower, provided that he sufficiently identifies the origin and can provide the information. Third, it is also incomprehensible that Tak-21 and Tak-23 products invested abroad do not meet the conditions for amnesty. This contradicts the financial and economic reality of consumer investment insurance, which stands next to banking investment.

The speaker in principle agreed with the draft law, but had strong objections to the implementing measures. The feeling is present that the bill was too strongly inspired by the top of the big banks.

A fourth presentation was given to the committee by Mr. Jean Spreutels, President of the Financial Information Processing Cell. The speaker recalled that the Financial Information Processing Cell, at the request of the Government, has formulated an opinion on the first version of the preliminary draft law. Generally speaking, the text approved by the Council of Ministers takes into account that opinion. The speaker described the current system that will be applied within the framework of the EBA. He considered it important that the draft law on money laundering be adopted together with that on the EBA.

In the interests of legal certainty, it seemed essential for the speaker to align the action of the Financial Information Processing Cell during the parliamentary preparation of the law, without this, in his opinion, involving a change in the text of the bill. In any case, it is important that the Financial Information Processing Unit would know exactly what it should or should not do with its EBA list sent by the banks.

According to Mr. Spreutels, nothing can prevent the Cell from using the data contained in that list when it leads to a person against whom the Cell has filed, whether or not that file was transmitted to the Prosecutor’s Office, and which was opened following a notification of a suspicion before or after the revision de l’article 505 du Code pénal pour assurer la sécurité juridique des intermédiaires. In view of the fact that certain aspects must still be regulated by the Royal Decree, FEBELFIN recommends a report on the entry into force of the DLU.

for Mr. Van Welden, of the Association of Independent Brokers in Banking and Insurance Products, the bill is acceptable under certain conditions. An independent body such as the Banking and Financial Commission must issue the certificate on the basis of a form completed by the declarant and the bank. Amnesty should also be able to be granted for securities to the holder of small investors. It is incomprehensible that products of branches 21 and 23 are not taken into account in the DLU. The speaker endorses the principle underlying the bill but makes reservations on implementing measures. He feels that the project has been too focused on the big banks.

by Mr. Spreutels, from the Financial Information Processing Cell (CTIF), was heard as the fourth speaker. The CTIF issued an opinion on the first mounting of the project. The approved text takes this opinion into account. It is important for CTIF that the draft law on money laundering and the draft law on the DLU be adopted jointly. The CTIF must know exactly what it can do with the DLU list that will be transmitted to it by banks. Nothing should prevent it from using list data for the persons about whom the Cell has opened a folder, whether or not the latter has been transmitted to the Prosecutor’s Office. The CTIF and CBF will need to be very vigilant during the period of application of the DLU, as in the transition to the euro.

The speech was then given to several academic experts. by Mr. Haelterman, professor at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, receipt van de lijst door de Cel en onder de voorwaarden bepaald in de wet van 11 januari 1993.

Furthermore, the Financial Information Processing Unit and, of course, the Committee on Banking and Finance will have to ensure that banks and listed companies are ⁇ vigilant during the EBA period, as was the case during the euro conversion.

The committee then proceeds to hear a number of university experts, with the first to be Mr. Axel Haelterman, professor of tax law at the KUL. Professor Haelterman’s presentation focuses mainly on four points.

First, the indication of the scope and therefore the nature of the measure. The effect is more limited than is often thought, but the scope is slightly wider than some politicians apparently estimate in their statements to the press. The draft law concerns mainly three situations: first, black professional income of the years 1999, 2000 and 2001; second, unreported income on tax-correct capital, but also here only with regard to the income for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001 and, third, unreported inheritance occurred between August 1993 and 31 December 2002.

Second, some of the observations to the draft law, as formulated by the Council of State with attention to the review of the principle of equality.

Third, some final elements regarding legal certainty. More specifically, he believes that banking institutions need clarification and thus legal certainty regarding their actions and their role whenever they face money from a person who may not have fulfilled all tax obligations. The speaker points out the very delicate situation that could arise if the case were brought before the Court of Arbitration. The legislature could promote legal certainty by more explicitly explaining the reasoning of the draft law and communicating very explicitly that the final texts do not violate the principle of equality in the opinion of the legislature.

Fourth, finally, the speaker gives a series of technical observations to the draft law.

Then an explanation is given by Mr. Thierry Copy, just professor of tax law of the ULB. Contrary to what is stated on the first page of the memorandum of explanation, the bill, according to this speaker, is indeed a fiscal and criminal amnesty measure. Examples in other European countries teach us that tax amnesty is only effective if it meets the following two conditions.

First, the amnesty should provide legal certainty for those who wish to use it. Secondly, the amount of the single contribution, which serves as a recovery measure in favour of the Treasury, must be adequately determined so as to make the measure attractive to the taxable person, while generating sufficient revenue for the public.

In his verdere uiteenzetting formulated of spreker drie types van opmerkingen. De eerste is geweid aan de draagwijdte van het wetsontwerp op fiscaalrechtelijk vlak, waar de spreker wijst op een expressed himself first. According to him, the effects of the DLU will be more limited than one thinks, but its scope will be wider than expected. The speaker then commented on the State Council observations, paying special attention to the control of compliance with the principle of equality, and made several comments on legal certainty. Banking institutions need clarification of their role in this context. by Mr. Haelterman also drew attention to the delicate situation that could occur if the Court of Arbitration was to be referred to an action. In addition, the government would promote legal certainty by specifying in the explanation of the draft law that, in the opinion of the legislator, the DLU will not violate the principle of equality.

by Mr. Afschrift, of the ULB, stated that the project contains a measure of tax and criminal amnesty. To be effective, such tax amnesty must provide legal certainty to those who wish to use it and the single contribution must be sufficiently attractive for the taxpayer as well as for the treasury.

The speaker also made comments on the scope of the project in terms of tax law, the possible problems of discrimination and the consequences in criminal matters.

by Mr. Autenne, UCL indicated in a note that the project complies with the principle of equality before tax. Exceptional measures may be justified, provided that they ensure that the same conditions apply to everyone in the context of the application of the text of the law. He has made a number of suggestions in this regard.

M is Wymeersh, de la Commission bancaire et financière, a souligné la neutralité de son organisme; c'est pourquoi il n'a pas abordé les aspects fiscales du projet. The Commission wishes to avoid the number of restrictions and exclusions. He also points out a possible confusion regarding the calculation basis where, in his opinion, a reasonable interpretation of the text – more specifically Article 4 – stipulates that capital refers to the amounts essentially derived from the inheritance and that the other amounts reflect the movable income or professional income. The second is about the possible discrimination problems that the draft law may bring. The third set of observations deals with the implications of the draft law in criminal matters, including a criticism of the Court of Cassation’s judgment of 22 October 2003.

The third academic, Jacques Autenne, professor of tax law at the Université Catholique de Louvain, could not attend the committee’s meeting, but let a note be handed over. The bill appears to be consistent with the principle of equality of all Belgians in taxation. In Belgian tax law, exceptional arrangements can be justified by the need to make certain settlements, for example in the context of tax harmonisation at European level, the fight against tax fraud, etc.

As regards the short-term exceptional measure, it is of great importance to pay close attention to ensuring that no arrangements are established which do not provide equal conditions for everyone in the application of the legislation.

In order to ensure the maximum respect for the principles of equality and good governance, the author shall issue opinions on concepts such as, among other things, mandatory declaration and specific investigative acts. He also advocates the preservation of the current regularisation scheme based on Article 444 of the Income Tax Code for those cases in which the EBA cannot be requested.

The final speaker was Mr Eddy Wymeersch, Chairman of the Committee on Banking and Finance. Mr Wymeersch argues that the draft law affects the way banks and listed companies carry out their activities and that the Committee for Banking and Finance therefore feels involved in the problem. Due to the neutrality of the institution he represents, the speaker does not address the fiscal aspects of the one-off declaration in his presentation.

All initiatives undertaken by the Committee on Banking and Finance are in line with the overall vision aimed at preventing money laundering and based on three principles.

First, each credit institution must have an appropriate structure for its activities, administrative and accounting organisation and internal control. Therefore, credit institutions have a general organizational obligation and should organize a full internal audit.

Second, the money laundering legislation must be applied integrally. The speaker refers to a circular letter from the Commission containing detailed rules on how that regulation should be implemented, in particular by identifying the perpetrators of potential money laundering transactions.

Ten derde, van meer recente datum is het beginsel van compliance op money laundering and, for this reason, it is attached to three principles: each credit institution has an organizational duty; money laundering legislation must be applied in full; banks must comply with all requirements that apply to them. Credit institutions participating in the DLU procedure will therefore have to draw up precise instructions to ensure that these three principles are not violated. According to the speaker, the project contains sufficient guarantees regarding the usual tax control.

The National Bank issued a note on the economic effects of the DLU operation. by Mr. Quaden emphasizes the great uncertainty that exists regarding the amount of the assets concerned, the capital to be regularized and their allocation. Based on the statistical data, it considers that it is not unreasonable to mention an amount of €82 billion in assets. The government expects a revenue of 850 million euros. Approximately 14% of the assets will need to be regulated. Is it realistic? The answer to this question depends on the European agreements on savings taxation, the preservation of certain legal certainty and anonymity, as well as the interest that individuals manifest in this operation. In this equation, the unknown are therefore too many to allow the volume of the operation to be estimated. Nevertheless, the National Bank estimates that economic activity can grow by 0.05% on a constant basis. grond waarvan een bank zich zo moet organiseren dat diverse op de bank toepasselijke voorschriften daadwerkelijk worden opgevolgd in nageleefd. Uit dit beginsel vloeit de verplichting voort om en en compliance officer op het niveau van de hoogste bestuursorganen aan te stellen.

Within the framework of the proposed EBA scheme, the above should not be substantially amended. Institutions participating in the EBA procedure will be required to issue precise instructions for the organization of the operations.

Since, according to the draft, funds from foreign institutions are also eligible for EBA transactions, the question arises whether the additional registration obligation imposed only on the Belgian credit institutions and the Belgian branches makes sense and does not constitute discrimination. Even without new obligations and procedures, credit institutions already have to identify attempted money laundering practices. Per ⁇ the same result could be achieved if the CBF sufficiently clarifies the obligations to the institutions and, to that extent, the operations may only be carried out by a few well-guided offices, which means that they have sufficient expertise and manpower. With regard to ordinary fiscal supervision, which is distinct from serious financial crime, the present draft provides sufficient safeguards. So far a summary synthesis of the interventions. Their

It is also important to note that, at its request, the committee received a note from the National Bank of Belgium regarding the possible economic consequences of the establishment of the EBA. A copy of this document was attached to the written report. Mr Guy Quaden, Governor of the National Bank of Belgium, emphasized the very high degree of uncertainty regarding the amount of the possible funds involved, the capital that will actually be regulated and the use that will be made of them. Their

The accuracy of the conclusions that can be formulated is, of course, severely limited by this uncertainty.

Based on statistical information on the funds held by financial institutions abroad, the National Bank of Belgium calculated that the law could cover a mass of EUR 82 billion. If you compare that amount with the revenue of EUR 850 million expected by the government, and if you leave the assumption that half of the amounts will be subject to a rate of 6% and the other half to 9%, this implies that 13.8% of the financial assets concerned should be regulated. Whether this is realistic depends, inter alia, on the impact of the European Agreement on savings taxation, the importance that individuals attach to the taxes to be paid later — in particular the succession rights on the regularised amounts —, the need for legal certainty for individuals, the anonymity of the regularization and the interest of individuals to be able to finance certain expenses in Belgium, which is now not possible due to the lack of sufficient official income or credit opportunities. Given the uncertainty regarding these various determinants, it is impossible for the National Bank of Belgium to estimate the size of the regularisation operation.

Regarding the impact on the Belgian economy, the National Bank of Belgium believes that, taking into account all direct and derivative effects, economic activity can increase permanently by 0.05%.

After the hearings, the committee proceeded to a general discussion of the draft law, which successively gave a synthesis of the positions of the majority and opposition parties.

The spokesman of the PS points to the difficult budgetary context. The PS group considers that a significant part of the resources should be spent on further reduction of public debt. It is always useful to be informed about what the absent people think. At the same time, according to the PS group, the tax on capital should be increased. The PS is not there.

The PS is represented. Mr. Massin is here. Mr Eric Massin represents the PS.

Mr. Speaker, the PS considers that for certain public services — for example, Finance, Justice and Social Security — the expenditure should be increased. The PSF was initially not won for the one-off tax because it is difficult to digest for those who pay their taxes correctly. Their

When the tax pressure in Belgium is high, it is due, among other things, to tax evasion and the poor collection of taxes. In anticipation of the European Savings Directive, the present draft law in its current form is acceptable for the PS group. However, the group calls for the rapid implementation of the Action Plan for the fight against tax fraud approved in the Council of Ministers.

For the VLD, the tax amnesty must meet four conditions. First, it must be one-time. Second, there must be a substantial incentive to go into it. Third, absolute legal certainty should be provided to the persons concerned and the intermediaries. Fourth, the operation must also be successful. Their

The VLD asks whether the incentive is strong enough when taking into account the existing increases and fines. Maximum legal certainty is required. For this purpose, the text of the present draft law should be further refined. Their

Certain criteria are not feasible in practice, including the distinction between bank products on the one hand and insurance products on the other. The exclusion of effects on toonder is also considered unreasonable.

For the sp.a, this law joins the plan for the reduction of public debt. This is immediately the ethical accountability, to be preferred over putting the stability pact on the slope or increasing the tax pressure or reducing the spending according to the Dutch model. The spokesman expresses his satisfaction with the balance achieved in the draft law under discussion and will ensure that this balance is not compromised.

The MR group fully supports the present bill. It fits into the international context that with the entry into force of the European directives on the taxation of savings on 1 January

During the general discussion, the PS considered that given the difficult budgetary context, the government should prioritize its resources to reduce debt and finance Justice and Social Security. The PS can only join the DLU if, simultaneously, taxes are collected more effectively and tax fraud is combated with more success. The party would also be in favor of an increase in the capital tax.

For the VLD, the DLU must meet four conditions: it must be unique, it must be strongly encouraged, so without too many dissuasive fines, absolute legal certainty must be guaranteed and the operation must be a success. The VLD also regretted the distinction between banking and insurance products and the exclusion of holding securities.

Also in the eyes of sp.a-spirit, this project is part of the resorption of public debt. The text is considered balanced.

The MR fully supports this operation in so far as it is consistent with the philosophy of the European Union Savings Directive.

The CD&V opposes this measure: a single release rate of 6 to 9 percent is not justified in a 2005 een feit zal zijn. From fraction treedt of door of VLD made bemerkingen bij.

CD&V opposes the proposed draft. The Belgian population is subject to an average tax burden of 46%. On the other hand, an EBA rate ranges from 6 to a maximum of 9%. The original purpose, in the present case, to give an impetus to the Belgian economy, remains, in the end, little supported. This is a purely budgetary operation. The control assignment given to banks is unrealistic. The accompanying measures are lacking. There is a risk of a reverse effect. This operation can affect people’s mentality. Consequently, tax amnesty is a one-off operation whose proceeds will be exhausted very quickly and which, due to a mental shift in the future, will lead to a financial loss for the State.

Tax amnesty is only acceptable under certain circumstances. Such a measure is, and remains, an attack on the principle of equality of the Belgians before the tax law and is therefore contrary to the principles of the rule of law. It also works discouragingly for the tax administration. Citizens who have paid their taxes correctly feel bought. The operation will need to be accompanied by positive and negative accompanying measures that can convince the public that it is more than a mere favourable measure for tax fraudsters.

The Flemish Blok points out that there is no consensus within the Flemish government on a draft decree that is necessary to apply the EBA also to the regional tax. There is an unequal treatment between, on the one hand, the people who have paid their taxes correctly and, on the other hand, the tax fraudsters.

For the N-VA who opposes the bill, the biggest objection is the violation of the principle of equality. How does the Government account for the disparity of treatment proposed by it of taxpayers who have correctly declared their income in personal tax, on the one hand, and other taxpayers who have not done so, on the other?

Ecolo also opposes the approval of the proposed bill. This amnesty benefits business managers who did not pay taxes on the salaries deposited on foreign accounts and who are also guilty of fraud in accounting records. Minimisation of tax evasion is a bad signal, which is further reinforced by Belgium’s reckless attitude at the Council of the European Union in September 2003, where Belgium refused to adopt measures necessary to improve access to bank data for tax purposes by 2005.

After the general discussion, the Minister defends, on behalf of the Government, the proposed draft law in broad lines, referring to the article-by-article discussion for the technical aspects of his answer.

Fractial members of CDH and CD&V confirm in a final replica the views already taken.

Vervolgens wordt overgegaan tot de artikelsgewijze bespreking die u wordt gebracht by Mr. Goris. The tax pressure is 46 per cent. Initially, this measure was supposed to give a boost to the economy. It is now a purely budgetary operation. No accompanying measures are taken. In addition, this operation risks leading to an unhealthy evolution of mentalities and generating financial losses for the State.

For the CDH too, tax amnesty is only possible under certain precise circumstances. This is a violation of the principle of equality of Belgians before the tax law. The measure is discouraging for the tax administration and the citizen who respects his duties feels hurt. Additionally, accompanying measures should have been provided to show that this is not merely a favourable measure for fraudsters.

The Vlaams Blok points out that the Flemish government does not agree unanimously to the draft decree allowing the DLU to be applied to regional taxes. Honest taxpayers and fraudsters are not treated equally.

The N-VA opposes the project for the same reasons.

Ecolo is also opposed. This tax amnesty benefits business executives who have evaded the tax on their payments paid on accounts abroad and have also made themselves guilty of false writing. By banalizing tax fraud, the government sends a negative signal. During the Council of the European Union in September, Belgium also refused to improve access to banking information for tax purposes.

The Minister has defended this bill in broad lines. With regard to the technical aspects, he referred to the discussion article by article, including Mr. Goris will report.

Mr Devlies, thank you for your report. Seven committee meetings with important hearings deserve a comprehensive report.

I have compared the text of the submitted draft law with the draft law approved in the committee. The Parliament has undergone a major amendment to ⁇ half of all articles. That can also be said.

For at least half of the articles, Parliament has accepted amendments that significantly modify the text.

You are right. That difference is only overcome by the difference between what is said to be the purpose of the law for the people and what is in it.

You are right. But an even greater difference separates the objectives that are said to be pursued from what is ultimately contained in the bill.

It is primarily about the activities of the Parliament. This will be partially correct. However, you should check who performs those activities. Secondly, it should be concluded that there is a structural problem with regard to the quality of the texts submitted to Parliament.

There is also a structural problem with regard to the quality of the texts submitted to Parliament.

I have overlooked the long list of contributions from our services, Mr. Tant. You understand what I mean.

I understand your comment. However, you must add that it is also thanks to the critical contribution of the hearers and of the Parliament, including the opposition.

Secondly, when you talk about the lines on which Parliament may be placed, you should nevertheless note that that text still grants powers to the government that actually passes to Parliament, in particular with regard to the determination of the tariffs, when one works at a rate of 6% or 9%. This is a shame for Parliament.

The draft text also gives the government powers that are actually reserved for Parliament, such as fixing rates. This is a camouflage inflicted on our assembly.

I say it very briefly because it works to hear me from time to time on my parliamentary hips say that Parliament does not contribute to certain texts. Maybe I shouldn’t have done it, but it had to be from my heart.

The attitude of all those who insinuate that Parliament does not contribute to the drafting of the texts exasperates me.

I would like to make a comment to you personally. It is wonderful that you notice that for a moment and you always do a little emotionally about it. However, it would adorn you even more if you would draw the conclusions from it and ensure that the Chamber is respected. That would make the Chamber much more credible than many humorous statements about the work in the Chamber.

It would be all to your honor if you could make sure that the Chamber is respected.

In these circumstances, I can tell you that the Chamber is respected. Mr. Goris, you can publish the second part of the report.

The room is respected.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, I suggest that the second part of the report be published first. After all, some of the difficulties cited by other colleagues will ⁇ be addressed again in the debate that will follow the reporting.

You submit the report of the examination of articles of 29 November 2003. All the commissioners were present. First of all, I would like to congratulate colleague Devlies on his part of the report. It was really useful to name two reporters in this regard. It was an important bill on which a lot was discussed.

I would like to mention a few points regarding the article-by-article discussion. This discussion took place on Saturday 29 November in accordance with the agreements made in the Committee on Finance and Budget. It was a sunny Saturday, but nevertheless all party committee members were to discuss this important draft articlely.

In an introductory presentation, the Minister briefly noted that after the hearings and the general discussion it turned out that the core of the debate should be the answers to five questions. First, should, as regards the scope, an extension be made to the movable values above those deposited on foreign accounts? Second, should the possibility of insurance institutions also acting as operators be examined? Third, we must also examine the proposals of the President of the Commission on Banking and Finance. Fourth, the introduction of certain deadlines for certain transactions, such as the deadline of payment or of investments, should be specified. Fifth, the introduction of some form of sanction accompanied by the incentives to use the one-off release declaration.

This led us to the discussion of the articles. Article 1 normally specifies under which constitutional article the law falls. In this case, this is Article 78. There was a discussion on this, more specifically with colleague Viseur. The State Council stated in its opinion that the draft law should only cover federal matters. Consequently, all elements falling within the jurisdiction of the Regions were omitted. The draft law, which was the decision of the discussion on this subject, can therefore be treated as an optional bicameral draft law, thus Article 78 of the Constitution, and not as an obligatory bicameral draft law. As a result, Mr Viseur withdrew his first amendment and Article 1 was also adopted.

Article 2 relates to the scope of the draft law, in particular the declaration of the amounts, capital or movable values which were placed on an account with a foreign credit institution or foreign stock company before 1 June 2003 or which arise from income which was not included in any accounting or declaration required by law in Belgium, or on which the tax due in Belgium was not paid. This is in fact the core of the scope of the draft law. Article 2 also mentions the entry into force, namely from 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2004. Who can enjoy it? All national residents subject to personal tax or to the tax of non-residents subject to personal tax. Their

The simultaneous transfer and declaration to the credit institution or public company, or the declaration to the designated department of the FOD Finance, if the amounts continue to be held abroad, shall also be indicated, namely the manner in which it should be done. There are also some exceptions in which the law is not applicable: in the case of money laundering operations or underlying crimes, ongoing investigative acts under the claimant, and so on, concerning the income of the taxable Le ministre souhaitait que le débat se concentre sur cinq questions. The field of application will be extended to mobiliary values. Les organismes d'assurances peuvent-ils faire office d'opérateur? What do you think of the proposals of the Banking and Financial Commission? What deadlines must they be respected? What sanctions will we apply to encourage the recourse to the DLU?

Article 1 indicates the article of the Constitution to which the law belongs, in this case Article 78. This is a purely federal matter. Therefore, this is an optional bicameral project. by Mr. Viser withdrew its amendment and the article was adopted.

Article 2 defines the scope of the draft law as well as the modalities for its entry into force: from 1st to 31st December 2004. It also specifies who can benefit from the DLU. Following the amendment, the scope has been extended to securities. The commission then debated the proof: the burden of proof lies with the applicant. In this regard, the Minister insisted on the fact that in order to guarantee legal certainty, a law is preferable to a cooperation agreement.

Article 3 defines the consequences of the DLU, with an emphasis on the legal certainty of the applicant. The article was adopted after the withdrawal of several amendments.

Article 4 sets out the amount of the contribution to be paid in order to benefit from the DLU: it is 9% or 6% when the capital is reinvested. This article was adopted after it was amended at the initiative of Mr. of Donna .

Article 5 provides that the statement may not be used as an indication for conducting investigations or checks of a tax nature, reporting possible violations of tax legislation or exchanging the tijdperken 2002, 2003 in 2004.

A number of amendments were submitted to this article: the amendments 33 to 35 by Mr. de Donnea and consorts, after the amendments 3 to 6 by Mr. Viseur, 19 by Mr. Devlies and 20 by Mr. Tommelein were repealed. This was an important discussion, since after this amendment, the original scope of the article was extended to include the movable securities — shares, bonds, and so on — as referred to in the Act of 2 August 2002 on the supervision of the financial sector.

As a result of this extension of the scope, the funds must be deposited, first, on an account in the name of the declarant, or, secondly, on an account with a Belgian credit institution or stock company, or, thirdly, on an account with a foreign credit institution or stock company. The deposit must be kept on the account for three years. The new text also provides the possibility of transferring the amounts, capital or movable values to a life insurance contract or a capitalization agreement concluded with an insurance undertaking.

This important Article 2 was further discussed, in particular on the means by which the applicant can prove something. It has been argued that the applicant is allowed to prove, by means of evidence permitted by common law, that he had these values in his possession before 1 June 2003. The burden of proof lies on the applicants. Witness evidence, confession and oath are not allowed. The taxable person must transfer the funds to Belgium — repatriate — and must simultaneously declare to the institution to which he transfers his funds. If one decides to leave the credit on an account abroad, then one must report to a department designated by the Minister of the FOD Finance.

Although some members of the Committee on Finance suggested that it would be better to postpone the entry into force of the law until after the elections of 13 June 2004, the Minister argues that it is politically important that 31 December 2004 be retained as the expiry date in order to encourage the federal and regional authorities to take the necessary measures in a timely manner. The Minister also acknowledges that, purely formally, it might have been better to have the legislative work followed by a cooperation agreement and its approval by the various public authorities concerned, but for the legal certainty of the taxpayers only the law, the decrees and the ordinances are important. Furthermore, the draft law can be applied in any case, as it concerns only matters falling within the competence of the federal state.

Article 3 provides for the effects of the single release declaration. It is in fact about the irrefutable and definitive exemption of all taxes, social security contributions, tax increases, contributions increases, negligence interests and fines, after the payment of the single contribution and focuses primarily on the legal certainty of the applicant. That article shall be adopted after the repeal of the amendments 5 and 11 by Mr Viseur and the amendments 21 and 23 by Mr Tommelein.

Article 4 handelt over het bedrag dat men dient te betalen om te kunnen information, except as regards the fixing of contributions due on the basis of the declaration. This article was adopted following the withdrawal of his amendment by Mr. Tommelin and the adoption of an amendment by Mr. Tommelin. The aim is to strengthen legal certainty.

Article 6 specifies where and when the declaration must be entered. The King sets the model of the summary report and the attestation. The article was adopted after being fundamentally amended by MM. by Donnea and Viseur.

Article 7 was adopted. The DLU is not a real tax amnesty insofar as it is accompanied by a fine. This is a criminal amnesty.

Under Article 8, the CTIF is required to confirm the authenticity of the certificate upon request.

Article 9 is a new article that stipulates that the penalties will be increased if it turns out that a person has not made use of the regularization procedure. This measure thus enhances the attractiveness of the procedure while retaining a medium of pressure. Fixed sanctions will come into effect from 2005.

Article 10 is also new. It also provides for penalties if the conditions with which the DLU is accompanied are not met by the taxpayer. The penalty can reach 12 to 15 percent.

The remaining amendments, which tended to insert new articles, were removed. The bill was passed by 11 votes against 4.

Finally, you would wish, at the personal level, to ask the Minister that he prepare a brochure that is readable, inspired by the technical text, in order that the persons concerned, and therefore also the small savers, can understand what it is about. Enjoy this one-time release declaration. This is the one-off contribution of 9% of the declared amounts of capital or movable assets. If, however, the amounts, reduced by the single contribution, are invested according to the modalities determined by the King for a minimum period of three years, then the contribution is fixed at 6%. That article was also adopted, after paragraph 2 was replaced by the more extensive text of Mr. de Donnea’s amendment number 36.

The declaration shall not be used as an indication or indication to carry out tax investigation or control operations, to report breaches of legislation or to exchange information, except in relation to the determination of amounts owed under the declaration. That article was also adopted following the withdrawal of Amendment No. 24 by Mr Tommelein and after the adoption of Amendment No. 37 by Mr de Donnea. That last amendment aims to clarify the scope of the article by stipulating that not only the amount of the declaration, but also the subsequent payment of the due contribution and the certificate cannot serve as an indication or indication in a tax investigation. Furthermore, there is a need to create more legal certainty.

Article 6 specifies where and how the declaration should be made. The declaration must be made at a credit institution or a listed company under Belgian law, at a branch office in Belgium of a credit institution under the law of another Member State of the European Union or at a branch office in Belgium of a listed company under the law of another Member State of the EU that has requested and received a special listing from the CBF. The King sets the model of the declaration. The declarations must be numbered and kept in that numbered order. The payment of the contribution due pursuant to the declaration shall be made at the time of submission of the declaration to the credit institution, the stock exchange company or the competent department of the FOD Finance. The model of the summary report to be drawn up by the credit institution or the public company and the method of transferring the received amounts to the State Treasury shall be determined by the King.

The registration of the data of the declaration takes place in an automated database in the case of a declaration to the competent department of the FOD Finance, referred to in the previous article.

The issuance by the institution of the declarant of a nominative and numbered certificate: this model is also determined by the King. The numbering of the certificates shall correspond to the numbering applied to the declarations and the numbering in the summary statement. The certificate may be used as a means of evidence for courts and courts, administrative courts, public services and parastatals within the limits of this Act. The obligation on the part of the institutions should consist in sending lists with the identity of the persons to whom a certificate was delivered, the number of that certificate and the amount of the amount transferred to the Financial Information Processing Unit, the CFI.

This article was also approved after the amendments nrs. 7, 8 and 18 of colleague Viseur and 25 and 32 of colleague Tommelein were withdrawn. The amendments of colleague de Donnea nrs. 41 to 46 and also the amendment of colleague Viseur no. 49 were approved. Article 6 was therefore substantially amended. The special registration with the CBF is canceled as foreign institutions are also offered the possibility to make investments that are eligible for the rate of 6%. Institutions under Belgian law, as well as the branches of such institutions, which fall under the law of a State that is not a member of the European Union, should inform CBFA of their intention to make the aforementioned investments and inform CBFA of the specific organization which it intends to develop for that purpose. In addition, at the time of payment of the contribution, the applicants must receive a nominative and numbered certificate, the model of which shall be determined by the King. The payment of that contribution shall be made within 15 days following the date of submission of the declaration. The King shall also determine the conditions for the transfer of the received contribution to the State Treasury.

Article 7 was also adopted. It stipulates that the EBA is not a genuine tax amnesty because it is subject to a sanction. A certain amount must be paid. However, it provides for amnesty on the criminal level, which does not exclude the possibility of sanctions after 2004.

Article 8 provides that the CFI is obliged to confirm the authenticity of the certificate when requested in writing by the authority to which the certificate is submitted. This article was also adopted.

Article 9 is a new article as a result of amendment no. 47 of the colleague de Donnea. This article stipulates that the regularization operation, on the one hand, must be attractive but, on the other hand, a stick is also held behind the door. For those who meet the conditions for regularisation, it should be clear that if they do not use them, the penalties will be increased. It is intended to fix the percentage of tax increase from 2005 to at least 100%.

Finally Article 10. This is also a new article as a result of the amendment no. 48 of colleagues de Donnea and consorts. This Article shall also provide for a sanction where the taxable person does not or no longer fulfils or has fulfilled the conditions for deposit or the investment or reinvestment requirements. An additional contribution of 6% is due. The King shall determine the modalities according to which that additional contribution shall be deposited. The total contribution may be up to 12% or 15%, respectively.

The Amendments Nrs. 12 to 17 of colleague Viseur to add additional articles were withdrawn. In the end, the whole was voted. The amended bill was eventually adopted by 11 against 4 votes.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen, as far as the report on the article-by-article discussion and the final vote in the committee.

Mr. Speaker, if you allow me, I would like to add something very briefly. I will be very short.

Is this on behalf of the group or as a rapporteur?

The first speaker is a member of the opposition.

Indeed indeed. If you, as a rapporteur, add something, that is your right. If you speak on behalf of your group, I give priority to Mr. Leterme.

On behalf of the group, colleagues Tommelein and Pinxten will speak. I just wanted, as I did in the committee, to call on the Minister to act communicatively to the users as soon as possible. This is a personal comment from myself. The success of a particular bank, which I will not name by name, indicates the interest in this operation. I urge to publish as soon as possible a coherent folder with understandable information in human language, so that everyone knows exactly how the fork is in the steel. It is a technical design and not easy for the small saver. Also for them, I ask for a very coherent, understandable means of communication. I would like to add this as a decision.

I will give the floor to Mr Leterme, puis à M. Visitor and then probably to colleague Pinxten.

by Mr. Arens requested to intervene briefly before noon but the time advances...

Mr. Speaker, before I get into the matter, I would like to very explicitly and hopefully not only for the Integral Report to emphasize the absence of a number of people who yesterday, from this speaker, held a comprehensive plea for the revaluation of this Parliament and for working with the majority and the opposition to revaluate the parliamentary debate. The draft law is not a detail. It is an important draft law, which should lead to a broad social and political debate. I would like to take note of this for the prominents, the promoters of the revaluation of the parliamentary debate, such as Ms. Vautmans and Mr. De Coene.

Mr. De Coene, if you hear me through the speakers, we will not read phone books here. We are going to talk about the sale of ethics in politics and the sale of the socialist souls. These are not details. Mr Chevalier, who held an extensive plea here yesterday, is also absent. I find this ⁇ regrettable. This is an important design. Instead of making big statements in front of the tribune about the revaluation of Parliament, it would be best to be at least physically and mentally, if possible, among us to conduct the debate where it should and can be conducted.

I would like to point out the absence of a number of people who made no later than yesterday a vibrant plea in favour of a revaluation of the parliamentary debate. The topics on our agenda are important. Mrs Vautmans and Mr. De Coene would therefore do a better service to Parliament by being there, physically and mentally. This bill perfectly illustrates the subordination of ethics to politics. There is no doubt that it deserves a discussion.

Mr. Speaker, for the information of Mr. Leterme, I would like to inform you that the sp.a-spirit group is currently in a meeting and that Mr. De Coene is there. In consultation with my group members, I have proposed that I, as a member of the committee, with our other member of the spirit group, also present here, and our third member of the committee, come to the hall to participate in this important debate.

Second, you know that it is the rule — you have been walking around here long enough, colleague Leterme — that within factions people specialize. I find it a waste of time, for example for colleague De Coene, if he were here at a time when he has another useful meeting such as a group meeting. We are with us three big enough to defend the position of sp.a-spirit in these.

Our group is meeting right now. Our experts, who have debated in the committee, are present. They are quite able to engage the debate now.

Mr. Leterme, if you had been here yesterday during the debate, because you were not there either.

La qualité d'un débat ne dépend pas discussion of the bill on article 44 — you probably had something else to do too — then you would have heard that our colleagues have said that the quality of the debate does not depend on the quantity that is here in the Chamber. We are here with the three members who in the Committee on Finance and Budget have fully followed the treatment of that bill and we feel our men enough to defend that against you while our colleagues are currently sitting at the group meeting. Name of the participants. Our Commissioners are also ready to intervene. The other persons assistant for the moment at a group meeting.

Mrs D'Hondt has the word and then let Mr Leterme do his job.

Mr. Speaker, I suggest that you suspend the meeting.

Mrs. D'Hondt is coming for you.

I am here for Piet Snoot.

Yes, because we know nothing about it.

I want to contradict that. Mrs D'Hondt, you are among the good members of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, it would be more correct if you put on your invitation which committee members are expected. Then we all do our duty. I thought we should be here.

I therefore propose that in the future the President address his calls only to specialized commissioners. The other people here seem to have nothing to do here.

You are a bit right. Why is a report divided? Because those in the committee have followed and heard everything, to the others, who are not members of the committee, could communicate what happened in the committee. That is the reporting.

The plenary debate and the report are intended to inform non-commissaries and give them the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that both colleague Van der Maelen and Mr. Tommelein have once again emphasized the fact that the colleagues I have mentioned are indeed absent. It is important that this is recognized.

As for the group meetings, they may not always look like that, but I think the group of my party looks very sleepy. Pieter De Crem has taken the good initiative to schedule the group meeting, Mr. Van der Maelen, with us today at 9:30 a.m. instead of the normal time to be able to do our duty here, to be present and to participate in the debate in the plenary session.

As regards the double work with the committee, I once, Mr. Speaker, as a young member of Parliament interrupted the current chairman of the House — I think in October 1997 — because he was speaking on a draft that had been thoroughly explained in the Justice Committee. I think it was about the revision of the law of 1991 on the state-owned companies with regard to the cooperation of Belgacom in the telephone call. The chairman then executed me. I knocked it right in my ears because I think he was right. He told me that it would belong to my pedagogy to know that the intention of a plenary debate is precisely in

We organized our group meeting at 9:30 in order to be able to fulfill our duty here. Indeed, the President explained to me one day, at a time when I was still a young parliamentary, that the plenary debate tends precisely to involve colleagues who have not taken part in committee discussions and to allow them to express their opinion.

I arrive at the bottom of the question. We will not adopt this bill of law. All legislative measures must be based on valid reasons and this is not just the case here. The real reason is a budget breach. La DLU s'inscrit dans un marchandage au sein de la majorité et elle ne poursuivait qu'un exists that those colleagues who do not have a seat in the committee — and therefore do not qualitate qua participate in those debates — can also express their position here on behalf of their voters. I have been active here for six or seven years. Mr. Van der Maelen, you said I’ve been “run around” here for six or seven years. I have taken note of this. Mr. De Croo was right when he said that. It is a fact that the vast majority of your group members are absent. If it is not for substituting shame with regard to the subject that prevails, then it will ⁇ not be to do their thing in the group, as you say.

Mr. Speaker, I am coming to the bottom of the matter. We will not approve the draft submitted here for discussion. I will later explain why and, among other things, colleague Bogaert will also raise a number of technical or political aspects in a second plea on behalf of our group.

When we look at that draft and when we look at each draft law, it is important to have clarity about the motives and intentions that one has with a legislative measure that is being submitted. I think it is important for the upcoming debate that we push forward the right motives for the design. A lot has been said about what the goals would be. It would be in the interest of the people, and so on.

The real motivation of the present bill is, in my opinion, the budgetary deflation. That is the real reason why the EBA scheme is presented to us. The EBA scheme fits into a kind of cow trade, a deal that was concluded at the table of government negotiators. On the one hand, there was the question of the Socialist Party, in the expansion of the socialist family — a question which we can support in addition — of sufficient financing of social security and of sufficient resources for a number of social measures. Note, for the survivors nothing was provided, but that is another debate. On the other hand, that socialist demand for adequate funding and a strong growth rate, including for the RIZIV, collided with the argument from the liberal family that this should not in any case openly lead to an increase in burden.

The pathetic situation between the demand for a strong social policy — a question that we support — and the crumbling and crumbling of the liberal family, was resolved as follows. Their

First, by carrying out burden increases in the genip, for example on the savings books or by raising the excise duties last summer. There were also a number of rigorous fiscal measures. In this context, for example, the tax discrimination of bridge retirees is mentioned, but I will come back to that later.

Second, by appealing to fiscal amnesty. Before the debate, it is important to know that the motive for this scheme is purely of a financial and budgetary nature, namely to ensure that sufficient money comes in to finance the policy. It indicates a lack of courage to take other measures — at least openly — because in the geny people are in the meantime more burdened. The figures that Hendrik Bogaert often pushes forward speak for themselves.

Intussen is er natuurlijk gezwaaid met allerlei andere motieven; voor de galerij, in de hoop dat het parliamentary debat erover — dat uiteindelijk de echte motieven blootlegt — niet echt tot bij de publieke opinie zou belanden. There will men wellicht in slagen. Intussen zijn er dus andere only a goal: to soothe the tensions between the socialists and the liberals, the latter rejecting absolutely that the claim of the first to sufficiently finance social security does not result in increases in charges. The two partners eventually reached a regrettable compromise: on the one hand, a series of insidious tax increases, and on the other, tax amnesty.

Meanwhile, other motives are being advanced in the media, in the hope that the true debate does not even reach the public opinion.

It would, they say, create jobs for the population. The chairman of a political party said that, placed before the choice between job creation through tax amnesty on the one hand and the absence of jobs for the population on the other, he would opt for tax amnesty. However, it must be noted that the single declaration of liberation is not accompanied by conditions in this area.

It is also said that there are social reasons. I refer in this regard to an editorial published recently in the journal Ons Recht (Our Right) of the National Employee Central, whose author notes, not without cynicism, that Mr. Van der Maelen, a member of the sp.a, finds the way to present tax amnesty as a form of social policy and that nothing seems to have yet been spared.

However, it is obvious that the sole reason for the measure is budgetary. In order to be sure to raise the sum of 850 million euros for the Treasury, all the principles are rejected. “Pecunia non olet,” as they say. It must be admitted that the expression is more than ever relevant.

The elaboration of this project of law is also made in a chaotic manner. And règle générale, le travail législatif fourni par la motives, in large statements through the media, pushed forward. As regards people’s jobs, tax amnesty and the EBA scheme would stimulate economic activity and promote employment. An illustrious party chairman once said that if he had to choose between more jobs, direct job creation through tax amnesty, or and no jobs for the people, he would opt for tax amnesty. Well — Hendrik Bogaert will point out later — that EBA scheme is no longer bound by conditions regarding the repatriation of the funds concerned and the investment in job creation.

These motives fall away and are undermined by the adjustment of the draft from the government and the majority. Colleagues, the 850 million euros that one wants to raise is more than a symbol. This is twice as much as the government has auctioned for the financial repercussions of measures within the framework of the Employment Conference. For 2004, there were only slightly more than 400 million auctions for employment. The EBA scheme is expected to raise €815 million. In figures, this has little to do with job creation. Their

Other motives were given, such as social motives. I can't help but quote from an article by Ferre Wyckmans in "Our Right", the journal of the National Servant Central. I quote: "At the federal level performed" — apologies for the cynicism of the author, Mr. Van der Maelen- "the sp.a-er Van der Maelen it to describe the fiscal amnesty as a form of social policy". Wyckmans continues, I quote again, “Nothing is being saved from now on. Continue to fight. We seem to have nothing else.” This quote is very clear. The only motive for this bill is a budgetary motive. It has nothing to do with employment or social motives! Save us all the arguments that you may later give in this regard! Their

By the way, colleagues, the fact that at some point the scope of fiscal amnesty has been dramatically expanded has only to do with those budgetary motives. Since, at one point, it was recognized that the draft was so fragile, there was no credibility, both in the facts and in the content, to collect those funds, it was opted for an extended measure with the sole aim of certainly collecting the 850 million euros. In order to recover this amount, all the principles were thrown overboard. The Parliament has never before experienced that the description of money as “the sickle of the earth” has been so well in place!

First conclusion: the motives are not the good motives.

Second, I would like to talk about the draft legislation in question. Without giving the secret of our tête-à-tête prize, Mr. Speaker, we should not make illusions anymore. The quality of the submitted texts decreases. The 62 provisions of the current Program Law are intended only to improve the provisions of the Program Law of 3 August 2003, i.e. of this summer. On extension, Mr. Minister of Finance, in the Committee for Finance, a note of the legislative services of the Chamber has been submitted with 71 corrections, largely legislative — I admit it — but also other corrections, among other things, concerning the uncertainty about the choice moment and corrections between the Dutch and French versions. The violet coalition is the poorest quality. The only reason of being of no less than the 62 provisions figuring in the present loiprogramme is the rectifier the tir de la loi-programme of the last year. Les services de la Chambre ont apporté 71 corrections au texte. La piètre qualité des textes se généralise véritablement.

The first reference to a DLU regulation was already included in the government agreement. The preliminary draft law-programme of August 2003 devoted a chapter to this subject. However, the procedure has been stopped. However, a draft law was finally submitted. On Saturday, November 29, at 13.53 a.m., the House suddenly received an eight-page fax presenting an entirely new draft DLU regulation.

The President of the Commission, Mr. Donnea, who wished more is that it was adopted around 14.30 pm! This is how important texts are currently being examined in the House. I am surprised to hear Mr. Coene vituperer in the media against parliamentary obstruction. This is not the main problem that this Parliament is facing. Rather than invading the media scene by making whispering statements, let the government first ensure that important texts receive the attention they require to avoid filing a program law containing 62 provisions aimed solely at making corrections to the previous program law.

The CD&V votes against the project. On the one hand, it relies on the wrong motives. D'autre part, this document ne prévoit aucune mesure et faveur du contribuable honnête. Does this assembly deliberately want him to laugh at his nose? The argument of the directive «épargne» of the European Union ne nous convainc pas non plus. De fait, comment le ministre peut-il garantir que celle-ci entrera There were even corrections between the different language versions. I want to say that we should not make too many illusions about the quality of the work. We cannot be other than a little of the old stamp and with our faction strive to perform proper work. When we keep the draft against the light from that perspective, I must tell you that the lack of quality and good procedure in such important legislative work is boundary.

Start with the Government Agreement. In fact, it included the mention of the choice to push forward an EBA scheme. In the first Programme Act, which eventually became the Act of 3 August 2003, EBA schemes were already included in the preliminary draft. That was in chapter 12, if I am not mistaken. Thus, in the preliminary draft program law of this summer, there was already a chapter concerning the one-off release declaration. Whether or not, Mr. Minister? I have the copy in my file. The procedure was not then continued because the government had apparently realized that the text was not worth it. It shows that with this text a lot is improvised. Eventually, the bill was submitted. After a few days, a crucial element of completeness, of legal credibility, appeared to be lacking. Colleague Bogerts will come back to this. After a few days, it became apparent that in such a large-scale operation, even the political precaution had not been taken to regulate the succession rights, a vital element in the context of that objective. Speaking of improvisation.

The highlight was that on Saturday afternoon, 29 November 2003, at 13:53 a.m. — I can still see it on the fax — a completely new draft EBA scheme with objectives, legal formulations, resources was put on the table in an 8-page bundle. I cannot call the Chairman of the Committee on Finance, Mr. de Donnea, as a witness, because he is not even there. I greet him through the Acts. Mr. de Donnea wanted the people to close this through at 14:30 in five minutes, a quarter of an hour. He was supported by this majority. How do you want this text to be legal?

This is apparently the way important texts are currently being discussed in Parliament. Give me the feeling of astonishment when I hear in the newspapers and on television my good friend and colleague Philippe De Coene ticking. He wanted an urgent consultation, including with the opposition, to ensure that filibustering, the reading of phone books, among others by De Croo, is paralyzed. Mr. De Coene, through the Acts I speak to you. This is not the first problem of this Parliament.

I repeat it. On November 29 at 13.53 a completely new regulation of fiscal amnesty was submitted and at 14.30 a.m. it was to be put to the vote. That is the problem. The sixty-two articles of the program law that prevails are merely corrections to the program law of this summer. This must be made coming. Make sure that the quality of our work improves, but do not engage in matters that happen sympathetically, which well basin in the media. Let your sense of honor as a member of the Chamber play and make sure that the quality of our work in that area improves. Their

I now come to our basic attitude. The excellent report by colleague Devlies has already shown that our group will vote against this draft. The motives are wrong. There are no employment effects and no social motives. I refer in that effectivement and vigueur au 1 er January 2005? What is the position of Switzerland and Liechtenstein in this regard? If these countries show recalcitrants, the directive will be all but subsequently sent by the fund.

Furthermore, the possibilities of whitening activities are not completely excluded and there is no distinction between black silver and gray silver. The small fraudster who will touch his coupons in Luxembourg or Sluis is put on the same foot as the professional fraudster. The fines are in no way modulated according to the origin of capital.

There is a lot of legal uncertainty. We therefore ask the Minister to bring all the clarifications to the Chamber. Thus, the question of whether the money repatriated can be invested in real estate to benefit from the reduced rate of 6% remains blurred.

The Government must communicate unambiguously to us the date of entry into force of the DLU. Under common law, laws take effect ten days after their publication in the Moniteur belge. I’ve heard of March or April. I thought the entry into force was fixed on 1 January. Following the DLU regulation, it is also important to clarify the situation in the field of asset management. Will the removal of holding securities result in an increase in property tax, or even a property tax? I see the Liberal family responding negatively from the head, but I would still like to know the exact position of the government on this issue.

The last reason why we cannot adopt this bill is the lack, in return, of guarantees that the fight against tax fraud will be intensified. The honest taxpayer is entitled to these guarantees but, in verband naar de heel terechte omschrijving van de heer Wyckmans in het blad van de LBC. by

One important objection to us regarding the motives and the arrangement itself is that nothing is provided for the fair and correct taxpayer in such an operation. This is contrary to what happened in other countries. Nothing is foreseen. Those who do not obey the law will be rewarded. Those who have always paid their taxes correctly receive nothing. Is that the goal of this majority? Is it the goal of laughing at the people who pay their taxes fairly? This may not be the purpose of this room.

The second reason is of a technical nature. You could not convince us of the argument of the European Union Savings Directive. As I already asked you in the committee — I wanted to ask this question again on Monday to Mr. Jamar who replaces you — what guarantees are there in connection with the Savings Directive? We support this savings policy. We share the objectives of the Directive. I would even like to admit that the government, through you; through its representatives, came to the cart to give the savings directive content. Their

Can you offer a guarantee? Can you make a ruling on the entry into force of the Savings Directive as you have always provided it on 1 January 2005? What about the attitude of Switzerland, Liechtenstein and other countries with which, in the absence of an agreement, the implementation of the Savings Directive simply does not continue? This is a very important element of the dossier. You use it as an argument for the EBA scheme. From 1 January 2005 the Savings Directive comes into force. Well, can you, with regard to the House of Representatives, guarantee that the Savings Directive will come into effect effectively? Furthermore, if that were the case, an important argument in favour of this EBA scheme would disappear.

As a result of the implementation of the Savings Directive, a number of backdoors and fraud opportunities will be closed. The objective that the government says to pursue — to ensure that the capital of the savers also contributes to the financing of the collective expenditure — will also be achieved in this way.

A third element — other colleagues will return to it — why we will not approve the bill, is the fact that in some areas — I will not become too technical — the possibilities of discharge and laundering activities are not fully blocked. There are still possibilities, although unblocking them is an absolute prerequisite for implementing a credible and ethically responsible scheme for a one-off declaration.

A fourth reason why we will not approve the draft — I admit that in this regard we should be debating the technical possibility when it exists — is that in the revenue targeted by the government, the distinction between black money and grey money is not made. The brave, small saver, who has committed a daily sin — we do not target him and also want to help him — by keeping track of his carbon net in Luxembourg or at the Rabobank in Sluis, is shaved on the same ham with the professional, large-scale fraudsters. He is also shaved over the same ham with those who have not paid social contributions and taxes on the source of their savings at the relevant banks. The fact that the penalty — in so far as there are rates of 6% and 9% of penalty speake ce domaine, la coalition violette a plutôt tendance à reculer.

by Mr. Van der Maelen is now the champion in the fight against tax fraud. The Socialists chose Mr. Van der Maelen as spokesman for the repression of tax evasion is edifying, ⁇ in light of the successes he has won in his struggle to end the old political culture and in the arms trade dossier. can be — niet gemoduleerd is naar de oorsprong van de betrokken gelden, is een vierde reden waarom wij het ontwerp niet zullen goedkeuren.

The fifth reason is the whole of legal uncertainties that still exist anyway.

First, Mr. Minister, I would like you to provide absolute clarity on a question that is normal during a debate in the House on such a draft. Furthermore, in this regard, I would like to reinforce the argument of colleague Bourgeois on the jurisdiction, the ius fisci. If there is already a power under Parliament, it is the ius fisci. We will do a number of delegations, which I also think can hardly pass the test of the constitutional division of powers. Can you decide, for example, whether or not investment in real estate is admissible — in order to benefit from the reduced rate? Can you clarify this today? Can you tell the Chamber whether investing in holiday homes or other homes in our country or elsewhere will already be a sufficient reason to enjoy the preferential rate?

My second question you will be able to answer quickly. Can you clearly inform the Chamber when the draft will actually come into effect? I will not talk about what we now hear, in particular that that arrangement will happen to occur on the same day in Brussels and in Wallonia. It is not about this, but about the date of entry into force of the draft. The date of entry into force is common law, which is 10 days after publication in the Belgian Staatsblad. The executive power, of course, has the option to choose the date of publication in the Belgian Staatsblad. I heard a few days ago the date of March or April fall. I always thought it would come into effect on January 1, but now I hear March or April as a possible date of entry into force. So I ask you now, at the moment we are conducting the debate and will later vote on your draft, can you tell us what the exact date of entry into force will be?

My third question relates to the extension of the EBA scheme. Our curiosity was aroused by a number of statements at the margin of the debate on the EBA scheme. I think that you should, on behalf of the government, give people clarity on property taxation. Is there, whether or not by means of the abolition of securities to bear — for which there is much to say — or otherwise, a rise in taxation on assets or even the introduction of a property tax as a result of the draft? I take note of the fact that the liberal family, faithful to its own nature, immediately cries no. I want a very clear answer from the government.

The fifth reason why we will not approve the draft is due to legal uncertainty. Some of them will ⁇ be discussed and I suspect that colleague Bogaert will develop some of these elements.

The sixth, and for the time being the last reason why we will not approve the draft, is the fact that the counterweight of tax amnesty is not guaranteed. There is no certainty that the facts for which we now enjoy amnesty will be properly prosecuted in the future. There is no guarantee that the applicable regulations will be properly followed. In other words, there are no measures for combating tax fraud. However, it would be a small element of credibility if, at the same time, government guarantees could be provided for an increased fight against tax fraud. The honest and correct taxpayer is hit in the face without the guarantee that the fight against tax fraud will be strengthened. There are no elements for this, on the contrary. After ⁇ five years of purple, only steps have been taken backwards in the fight against tax fraud.

Mr. Van der Maelen, I will be a bit cynical. I’ve noticed in the press that you are now standing up as a leader in the fight against tax fraud. I greet you. In the previous legislature, Jef Tavernier made some statements on this in the Finance Committee. Mr Vandermaelen, only the fact that you are appointed on behalf of the socialist family to speak about tax fraud speaks booklets. I have known you for the last five, six years as the stormmaker of all possible fortifications for the salvation of the new political culture. We have seen what came from it. You were the great speech tube of the fight against the arms trade. We have seen what has come from it, one is drawing at the Flemish level at the meat, in the presence of socialists, spiritists and greens. The fact that the socialist family chooses you as a spokesman for the fight against tax fraud speaks book parts.

Mr Van der Maelen would like to take the floor.

Mr. Van der Maelen will also speak later, I suppose.

Mr. Leterme, I just want to say that I will surprise you.

I still reserve surprises for you!

Mr. Van der Maelen, I am really convinced of this too. I am truly convinced that you will surprise me. You have that capacity. You have the ability to surprise me. Just as you surprised me with regard to the new political culture as well as with regard to the arms trade, I am truly convinced that you will surprise us with regard to the fight against tax fraud.

Colleagues, I conclude with six basic reasons why we will not approve those drafts.

There is no global vision. There is no fair treatment of the right taxpayer. It is not for the right motive. From a legal point of view, the whole regulation is not correct. There is no counterweight to the fight against tax fraud. For these reasons, we will not approve this draft.

These are not only technical arguments, but also arguments of political ethics. So I can tell you that with the approval of that draft, the political and administrative ethics in our country under purple will truly know a low point.

I am sure you will surprise us again, as in the records of the new political culture or the arms trade!

In conclusion, we will not approve this project, for technical reasons, but also on the basis of considerations of political ethics. In this area, the violet coalition hit the bottom.

Mr. Viseur, you give you the word. I may allow Mr. Pinxten to speak again during this morning meeting. I will keep the meeting until approximately 13:00.

Mr. Leterme, I thank you for respecting the speaking time.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I would like to say, first of all, that the public session still has an interest in our parliamentary system. One can obviously conceive that one day the parliament will be purely and simply abolished. But we are not yet there. And so, I will try to clarify my thought quickly in seven points.

No, but I will be content with the hearing that the Socialist Group will bring to my remarks! There is one thing: in my party there is absolute confidence in what I say in tax matters.

I would like to start with the first point. I think all this has gone wrong. Because there were certain statements that were made from the beginning of the summer tending to justify tax evasion and to say that, in the essence, it was a Belgian phenomenon. I didn’t really appreciate that the Minister of Finance said at some point that ultimately it was because we paid too many taxes. He added: “There are two national sports in Belgium. Tennis – when played by Kim Clijsters and Justine Henin – and then there is tax evasion.”

I think these are mistakes, because, first of all, fraud is not a national sport. Or, if it is one, it is in sport what doping is in cycling. That is, it is deeply damaging to society. I think this is one of the cancers of our society. Because it disturbs and equity, and equality, and this redistributive role of tax that is so important.

On the other hand, I would say that talking about Belgium as a fiscal goulag is, as far as moving income is concerned, the negation of reality.

I have here before my eyes a study that was done by a bank – not the one that has become confessional for a few days. This is the ING, which makes an interesting comparison of mobile taxation in Europe. Of the fifteen European countries, I can tell you that the one that is the most lax in terms of mobile taxation is Belgium. And I give examples. by

What is the situation of mobile savings in Germany? The furniture pre-count is 30%, and it is non-liberative. Sometimes it is reduced to 25%, but it can also be increased to 35%. In Austria: furniture pre-count of 25%, release. In Denmark: globalization of income, therefore no liberation. In Spain: 15% non-liberatory. In Finland: 29% and release only on bank deposits and bonds; for the rest, globalization. Globalization in France. And these are countries known to be ruled by “leftist” governments. In Greece: 10%, release on public bonds; 15%, release on bank deposits, but no exemption. Ireland: 20%, release on bank deposits. Italy: 12.5%, not liberating, and 12.5%, liberating only on state bonds; for the rest, 27%. In Luxembourg, let us always be presented as a welcoming country with regard to foreign capital: with regard to Luxembourg residents, there is globalization, except on a limited category of investments, where the pre-count is 20%. In the Netherlands: Globalization. In Portugal: 20 percent, liberatory. In the United Kingdom: 20%, released, without exemption. In Sweden: 30%, non-liberative and globalization for other income.

This is a false start. Since this summer, statements have been made here and there to speak well about fraud, which is considered a national sport for us. It is, however, a cancer for our society, and whoever depicts Belgium as a tax penalty camp, does the truth violence. A study by ING on moving taxation in Europe shows that our country actually carries out the most loose policy in this regard.

Amnesty is immoral and unfair, and can only be implemented if it is preceded by extensive consultation with a view to a more equitable tax system. Now we have missed the opportunity to conduct a debate on taxation, together with the regions and all social actors of the country, in order to conclude a true fiscal pact.

Everything comes in an unfortunate moment. If this draft had flanked the Savings Directive, the text could have led to a clear debate on moving taxation. We could have waited until 2005.

We can also make a cross over the positive impact of this measure on the Belgian economy. The money on foreign accounts has already found its way back into our economy. There are already liquid resources.

The employed working method is not correct. Particular individuals must know themselves whether they have fraudulated. Het Duitse model is better because het de verplichting inhoudt de herkomst van de fondsen aan te geven in het niet de indruk wekt The study author concludes by saying: "The Belgian investor may begin to realize that it is not so disadvantaged to keep his savings in his own country. With its 15% release rate, Belgium is a tax haven for its residents. The Belgian now has an interest in receiving income from his savings on the national territory rather than in another EU country. There is, in addition, less taxed than the French, German or Dutch savers faced at home with a far more gourmet tax."

Collective logic tends to say that we are crushed by all forms of taxes, that we live in a situation where initiative, savings have no place. This review of the 15 European countries shows that we live in the biggest tax haven. It is important to keep it in mind, because if we take the principle that in the field of real estate savings, exodus is justified by the excess of taxes, a response can be given to it. Contrary to what is often said, it is not too much tax that kills tax, but, in this case, it would be too little tax that kills tax.

Moreover, I really think that tax amnesty is immoral, that it is unfair and that the only case where it can intervene is when it is the subject of a broad reflection, a broad consultation on how to make taxation more equitable.

Specifically addressing the socialist groups, I will remind you that in France, it is a matter of proceeding with a tax amnesty. The left finds the idea of tax amnesty shocking and adds that this can only take place within the framework of a debate on a comprehensive reform. I agree with their opinion on this point. by Mr. Charsac, a prominent socialist parliamentary, said: “This is a shock and to realize this shock and this electro-shock, we need a favorable climate and a respected government that inspires confidence,” which is not the case. He adds: "that in a overall plan, a national pact for employment and the search for competitiveness, each actor accepts advances and concessions, this can be conceived. We have never said ‘no’ to a debate on taxation of tax tools. We have always said that it can be discussed on condition that we reach a solution that is fair and that results in greater tax transparency.”

I have often said that this was a missed opportunity because we had a unique opportunity to discuss all taxation, excess taxation on labor income, but also real estate taxation. It was also an opportunity to discuss the tax on savings and the tax on inheritance. This, of course, deserved the involvement of all political actors, especially the Regions, but also the social and political forces of the country. In this way we could have reached this tax pact, which is an important part of society’s life.

I come to my third point. The moment is really badly chosen. The choice that was made was to prioritize support over the 2004 budget as the events gave us an ideal time to discuss this issue. I want to talk about the implementation of the Savings Directive. In this regard, it is clear that if the project concerned accompanying the actual implementation of the Savings Directive, it would not only have produced more, but it would also have enabled a clear and interesting debate on the future of real estate taxation within the framework of Europe. We missed an opportunity here. Or, then, we must decide to "re-pass the dat er een onderscheid gemaakt wordt tussen aan de ene kant of bedrogen modelspaarders in aan de andere kant of fraudsters."

That measure, by the way, affects the small taxpayers: for the large it is, after all, more advantageous to pay 6 percent rather than the 60 or 70 percent that they have eliminated. How can we speak of a fair measure?

There is also a lack of legal certainty. The data can only remain anonymous if all regions are willing to cooperate. However, one of the provinces still hesitates.

Europe also shows little enthusiasm.

The "13:55 amendments" have created new inequalities that could be challenged by the Court of Arbitration. This applies in particular to Article 2, which concerns the amounts, capital or movable values that were not mentioned in an accounting or legally mandatory declaration, on the one hand, and the securities to bear, on the other. It would have been better to use the terms "materialized or dematerialized securities" because the term "effects on tower" gives the impression that 9% will have to be paid in addition to the 15% mobile fee that would already have been paid.

A retired confided me that the operation-Reynders in his eyes is worse than the Gutt Operation. As you know, Minister Gutt in Belgium, by the way, wrongly stands in front of the inhaled State.

Ten slotte had men for clear begeleidingsmaatregelen moeten zorgen. Er wordt echter alleen bepaald dat de effecten aan toonder tegen 2008 geleidelijk zullen worden afgeschaft; dat is na de volgende verkiezingen in, politiek gezien, in een ander tijdperk. De emittenten van effecten aan toonder hebben in afwachting dus nog mooie dagen in het verschiet. Every year, and like Italy, we come back, almost every year, with a dossier on tax amnesty. The exceptional nature of such a measure is indeed imperative in a rule of law. So we could have waited until 2005, if that year the Savings Directive was actually implemented. Indeed, as the study of the ING suggests, one would come to say quite naturally that the Belgian system is probably the best or the most balanced. This would have allowed a real return of capital.

I come to my fourth point on which I will not extend myself. Indeed, the National Bank has already been eloquent in this regard. The impact on the economy, let’s forget! It is obvious that all the money that is out there has already been widely injected into the Belgian economy. We are not currently suffering from a cash deficit made available to companies, nor an abnormally high rate compared to the rest of Europe. There is plenty of liquidity. Therefore, if you want to support the Belgian economy, you should not use this technique. Therefore, it is a completely neutral instrument in terms of economy.

My fifth point relates to the way used which, in fact, is neither more nor less than a gift offered to individuals in charge of examining themselves whether or not they have cheated. This is not a good model. It is dangerous because there will be a number of Indus payments. Every day, we find that people are completely confused and think about declaring in a DLU what shouldn’t be. By removing the repetitions of the Indus, by removing the tax character of the DLU, we clearly enter into a logic that is not fair, including for holders of movable capital. We had the German model, which is a good model. Indeed, it is very correct since it enters into the amnesty of different rates according to the origin of the funds, that it obliges to declare the origin of the funds and that it does not give the feeling that the savings models are crushed for the benefit of those who have largely fraudulent.

Furthermore, legal certainty also depends on the exact measure of what must be declared in a single release declaration (DLU) or not. I persist in saying that, by not making it a tax receipt, one deviates from basic principles that require the administration to help indicate what is due and not to settle with ignorance or misinterpretation of taxpayers. All this affects only small taxpayers; people who have scammed widely find in this system a real tax paradise! This may be less true of the users of line 162 but it is not them that is targeted — it is a minority if there is an infringement — what is aimed at is nevertheless to favor a certain type of fraud. And, on this point, 6% compared to the 60 or 70% eluded, this is really interesting. But where is fairness?

The question that comes up to all politicians is to know that answering someone who comes to explain to you that he has a small pension, just of what to live and that he – like the donkey in the fairy tale – broke up a little bit. With regard to the furniture pre-count of 15% on an interest reaching painfully 3 or 3.5%, he may have cheated for a year and for him it is haro on the baudet, while when it is 60 or 70%, it is obviously easier.

I come to my sixth point. I think this project also shows a lack of legal certainty. We have had very long debates but there are still whole parts that are not clear. What will the Regions do and what will be the attitude, especially of one of the Regions that may not join this system? This obviously only concerns federal taxes but we wanted the amounts to be made anonymous; or; they cannot be so with respect to those responsible for ware eenvoudiger geweest indien we de programmawet had aangegrepen om aan onze internationale verplichtingen te voldoen.

Why not immediately take a simple, effective measure, which is consistent with our international obligations and promotes equality among the Belgians? Why not put other accompanying measures on the table during an intergovernmental or roundtable conference?

According to ING’s study, three countries are in a grey zone on the part of the tax on movable assets: Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg. All other countries have opted for the notification obligation. Is this not a dreamed opportunity to finally resolve the problem of bank secrecy, which makes us an outer bone within the OECD, of the hand gift and of the traceability of the savings?

Shouldn’t we ask ourselves whether succession rights, the only property tax we know, are still acceptable today? Let us consider how we can adjust the application of this property tax so that movable goods become more easily traceable.

The only solution is that the federal government, the regions, the social partners and the political parties would sit around the table to hold a real debate. After all, everyone agrees that tax fraud leads to a near-catastrophic situation.

It is in the general importance of a pact to come into which to more transparency is acted. I regret that men of chance have gemist om ervoor te zorgen dat belastingen als dusdanig maatschappelijk would be accepted. De gekozen oplossing is immoral in has geenszins tot doel het vertrouwen van de belastingplichtigen te herstellen. We concern dat in dat is also of the collection of regional taxes. Therefore, without the agreement of one of the Regions, the problem of insecurity persists. This is true at the European level. Indeed, it cannot be said that, on the European side, the enthusiasm for the measure taken is extraordinary and there could be surprises at this level. This also applies to inequalities. The new amendments create new inequalities, so an intervention of the Arbitration Court is not impossible.

Finally, this is also true of a particular element: the amendments of 13h55, that is, the last amendments concerning what is called the titles to the carrier. On this level there, a slightly more careful analysis of the texts and their clarity — because not all interpretations prevail over clear texts — shows that, quite surprisingly, the situation is completely different. In fact, in Article 2, things are divided into a point 1°, referring to the amounts described in the first paragraph, and a point 2°, in which the titles to the bearer appear. On the one hand, there are amounts, capital or securities derived from income or which have not been included in an accounting or a compulsory declaration in Belgium, under the law — the use of the words "these amounts", which is found in 1° of Article 2, shows well the link between the amounts referred to and the first paragraph, that is, the description of the non-declare.

On the other hand, whether timely or not, the latter concerns a completely different situation, namely the holding securities held before 1 June 2003. If the first of Article 2 had the words "the amounts", there would have been an autonomy of that subparagraph from the first subparagraph of paragraph 1. By writing it thus, the very clear separation between what is referred to in the first and second paragraphs and what is found in the second paragraph is marked; the second being completely independent, this creates problems, in particular since the combination of Articles 2 and 4 concerns, on the one hand, amounts, capital or securities and, on the other hand, securities to the holder.

I’m going to make a confession to this tribune but I’m probably like every Belgian who has a savings. I acknowledge to be the owner of securities to the holder and I can say which: these are state bonds, this shows that I trust the Belgian State, wrongly or rightly, but I trust it. They are not only “Philippe” but also “Didier”, that is, my magnanimity! Therefore, I am the holder of titles to the carrier. Of course, when I am going to receive the coupons of these securities to the holder, I do not perceive them directly: it is my bank that perceives them since they are placed on a securities account. But on this title account, I have titles to the carrier. It is not because they are on a securities account that they are not real securities to the holder.

The difference should have targeted, on the one hand, what is dematerialized but which is still a title to the holder such as state obligations, corporate obligations or shares of which some are “dematerialized” and, on the other hand, what is materialized when the “mantel” was delivered to the holder, which is not yet an offence. I know a lot of people in possession of materialized securities, who will touch their coupons in a Belgian bank and who pay the 15%. However, as the text is written, there would therefore be a special system for capital related to holding securities, which would be the payment of 9%.

Mr. Minister, we live in an extraordinary state where people go to a member of parliament to confess and ask him what to do with their money. Not later than this week, a retired person came to me to ask for an explanation: he has reden why we against the wetsontwerp will stemmen. The holder of the bonds in his safe in Belgium and when he touched the coupons, he had to pay 15%. Now he should pay 9%. And he said to me, "But I'm not a fraudster!"I told him that it wasn't that, but he didn't quite believe me. I don’t know if you’re going to take this as a tribute even though it’s a reference to a liberal finance minister, but that person said, “If that’s what I believe, Mr. Trump. Reynders is worse than Mr. “I have a lot of admiration for mr. Gutt and I don’t know if the minister will take it as a compliment or as a criticism.

That said, in the Belgian imaginary, Mr. Gutt is both the minister who has carried out an extraordinarily interesting operation for the whole of Belgian society, and the man like the state who wants to know everything and take everything. by

This legal uncertainty, in particular with regard to holding securities, is incompatible with the commitment taken by a rule of law. The question is not to want to trap people, but that someone can act first by not giving too many gifts to the state if he has not committed fraud, and then be well aware of the situation. In the current state, too many ambiguities, or even formal contradictions, remain in the texts, among other things in this general but non-legal definition of holding titles, in which, unfortunately, the terms "materialization" and "dematerialization" have not been used. This increases the lack of legal certainty.

Seventh point: I really think that such an operation called for a series of precise accompanying measures. by

Certainly, I have had a great pleasure, Mr. Van der Maelen, to read the statement of the Minister, and yours also, which recalled what would be done in the future of titles to the bearer and your finding that this was an old claim of the ACW, which I have expressed several times. by

I also read that it is found that Belgium had already been criticized internationally because of the existence of holding securities. It is true that this situation is abnormal compared to all OECD countries, especially compared to Anglo-Saxon countries. I saw that he entered into the government’s intentions to remove these titles. I didn’t like the phrase “to-term”: the term is defined or undefined, but ⁇ inaccurate.

To be honest, I will read the entire paragraph: "A provision will first be inserted into the program law aimed at increasing the retention operated during the issuance or acquisition of such securities." It is accepted, but it remains ridiculous. Then: "At the time of drawing up the budget for 2005, we will decide — you know how much these decisions are subject to other obstacles — the definitive date from which the issuance of securities to the holder will be prohibited. This system will disappear "probably" during the years 2007-2008."The word "probably" is superb and adds to the discomfort of the word "at the end". In fact, if everything goes well or if everything goes wrong, we know that 2007 is an electoral year: targeting 2007-2008 is to postpone the decision.

It added: “Through this operation, our country will comply with the OECD recommendations.”

Honestly, in order to ⁇ such a result, it was easier, from now on, to simply add an additional article to the 500 articles of the program law. Belgium is a country that wants to always remain in line with what international bodies want, be it the European Commission or the OECD or the IMF. It was so interesting to say, in our logic, that we wanted to comply with the provisions that the OECD wants – which it recalls very frequently – that we gave this promise immediately. The 2007-2008 deadline leaves good days for the issuer of securities to the holder.

In the name of legal confidence, we will not burn them instead of strike because they will be issued before 2007-2008.

On the Liberal side, I think it’s really 2008, Mr. Massin. Politically, 2008 is another world.

Why not satisfy our international obligations, satisfy some fairness? When we decide on a devaluation, we accompany it with interesting measures, so why not immediately decide on a simple, effective measure, consistent with our international obligations, consistent with the vision we have of equality among the Belgians and which, let us acknowledge, is an important element of progress in the logic of equity?

Transforming gold into lead is an obvious political capacity and it could be achieved, while you have at your disposal this possibility which has nothing abnormal and which does not place us in the ban of civilized nations or in the ban of international economy and finance. I would point out to you that a number of great countries dominated by liberal logic have fully adhered to the market.

Why not take other accompanying measures or put them on the table? They could be the subject of an intergovernmental conference or a round table – as is the case for employment or for the middle class – which would be to say that there is not just that. by

I hope that under this legislature, Mr. Van der Maelen, a "Spanish" type law text will pass. But for that, it would be good that we could act where we have real control, which unfortunately is not the case for the text of the law. In the ING study, there are, nonetheless, three European Union countries in grey in terms of asset tax: Austria, Belgium and Luxembourg. All other countries said they would immediately move to the exchange of information on non-resident taxation.

Isn’t it time to make an effort to join, before the tolerated date, the situation of the other twelve countries of the European Union? Isn’t it time to finally empty this question of bank secrecy that once again puts us at the ban of the OECD in relation to the practice of its member countries? Isn’t it time to have a real reflection on manual donation, on the traceability of mobile savings, as there is a traceability of real estate savings? If you and I are owners of a building, there is no problem: upon our death this building will be taxed. Isn’t it time, in a positive way, by associating the Regions, to ask whether the inheritance tax is still modern and acceptable in our time?

My position is simple: it is the only wealth tax we know and it is unfair. It does not take into account the evolution of life situations and heirs who are not in direct line are over-taxed. And even, when one reaches a certain level and children have to pay at once 30 or 35% taxes on the wealth they inherit, I think that doesn’t make sense.

Isn’t it time to say that we need a real debate in which the Regions must of course be involved because they are the ones who receive the money and who are thus directly concerned? It is not just to say that the system of succession rights needs to be changed. We must see how this type of wealth tax must find its application in a different way, with ⁇ the same profitability, but more just, more equitable and that facilitates the traceability of movable assets. For this, I see only one solution, it is to gather around a table, for a dossier that is not federal, the Regions and the social partners. by

We are all surprised by the fact that more and more companies come to us telling us that if there is no clear fight against tax fraud, we will find ourselves in a situation of imbalance. This joins my comparison with doping: good cyclists are disadvantaged because next to them there are doped runners. Good companies hate doping. by

After what happened with "Enron", after what happened with a number of audits, all companies say that their future, their competitiveness, the quality of their operation is linked to transparency. And this transparency is exempt from any tax fraud. The right solution was to bring together ⁇ , trade unions and all political parties to reach a pact, and I regret that this opportunity has been missed. by

I regret that we have not used what is a measure that must remain exceptional because it is deeply immoral. And it is because it is deeply immoral that it can only exist through a series of accompanying measures, which make the good citizen confident in tax fairness. This is not the case with DLU. by

I know that I am taxed with Angelism when I say that one has missed the opportunity to have the capacity to get the tax to be accepted socially, for what it is, to meet a number of needs that only public authorities can satisfy. This is the first task of taxation. His second mission, equally important, is that he must be the true element of redistribution and social equity in a country, provided that he does everything so that the tax is not discussed in the DEXIA confessional, but that it is made clear so that everyone is aware of its importance and the major role he plays within the social pact. This is all that is not found in this project, and I regret it.

We will vote against this text.

Mr Pinxten, I would like to give you the word before I close the meeting, but I would like to know approximately how much of your speech time you would like to use.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me more sensible to keep my presentation after the beginning of the afternoon meeting.

As you wish, Mr Pinxten. I have no problem with that.

It's 12.52 pm, and maybe a lot of colleagues are hungry and I don't want to do that to them.