Proposition 51K0540

Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 28 décembre 1983 sur le débit de boissons spiritueuses et sur la taxe de patente.

General information ¶

Authors

Vooruit Anne-Marie Baeke, Annemie Roppe, Dirk Van der Maelen

Submission date

Dec. 3, 2003

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

excise duty alcoholic beverage indirect tax tax on consumption

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR FN

Abstained from voting

CD&V N-VA 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 ¶

April 1, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

As regards the report, I can refer to the written report. I am mandated here on behalf of our group to communicate our position. Their

This bill can in principle take away the approval of our group. By the way, last year, on the occasion of the discussion of the program law, we submitted amendments that had the same aim. We believe that the abolition of this tax linked to the issuance of a license is positive for the hospitality sector, which still faces ⁇ many problems and which in our country employs more than 95,000 workers. It is an outdated tax whose income is rather limited and whose collection involves a lot of administrative work. The abolition is also in the continuation of the decrease in the amount of the licence duty that occurred in recent years. I refer to the decline that occurred in 1997, when the rate was reduced from 40% to 10%. Their

However, this abolition should not mean that a threshold for alcohol abuse would be removed or that the threshold for young people would be removed. In this regard, the bill is a missed opportunity. Here was the opportunity to create greater legal certainty through an adaptation of the Act of 1983. Likewise, the alcohol pops would undoubtedly be counted among the strong drinks. We have submitted an amendment in this regard. I would like to point out, by the way, that a bill in the same sense was accepted by the Senate in the previous legislature, but this proposal has not been submitted to the House.

Another suggestion we make is that the beverage distributed through automatic distribution channels would have a system to check the majority, as is the case in the Netherlands. Their

We have agreed that the provision of beverages to minors without circumference should be linked to a ban on the sale of beverages for a maximum of two years. We have submitted three amendments in this regard. Our position on the final vote will, of course, be determined by the success of these amendments. If, colleagues, you approve these amendments, we will approve this bill. Otherwise, we will unfortunately not be able to approve this.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the bill amending the law of 28 December 1983 on the flow of spirits and on the patent tax is, in fact, part of a set of measures proposed by the government, but also by the parliament to remedy a series of structural problems facing the horeca sector in our country.

The Finance Committee intends to conduct, as it has already done, hearings in order to become more familiar with the strictly tax issues faced by the horeca sector, but with certain barriers under social legislation that may also pose problems with regard to the profitability and efficiency of this sector. These hearings will take place in April and, I hope, will give rise to further changes to the regulatory framework that, by certain provisions, hinder the proper functioning of this sector.

I look forward to the adoption of the bill amending Article 53 of the Income Tax Code 1992 regarding restaurant expenses, which increases the amount deductible on professional expenses of restaurant expenses. This first measure is obviously capable of meeting some of the grievances of a sector that is experiencing many difficulties. Thus, while the horeca sector represents only 9% of Belgian companies, it records 16% of bankruptcies. I come to the bill under discussion and, in particular, to the abolition of the patent tax.

We must welcome this measure while emphasizing that the abolition of the patent tax does not result in the abolition of the patent itself. The conditions of operation, provided for the flow of spirits, will therefore be ⁇ ined and the patent will remain required to be able to exploit a flow of spirits. It shall, of course, be issued only to debtors who meet the conditions laid down by law, in particular as regards the provisions prohibiting that spirits be served to minors or that spirits be installed in hospitals, schools, youth homes and on the field of highways.

It was with pertinence that it was emphasized, within the Finance Committee, that this was an unfair and administratively very heavy tax. This tax was unfair because it was, in principle, calculated on the basis of the indexed cadastral income of the building or its part allocated to the flow of spirits. It therefore did not take into account the volume of spirits sold, which constituted a clear tax adequacy.

There was also an administrative burden. The abolition of the patent tax will result in a significant administrative simplification, both for debtors and for the management of the cadastral, which will, from now on, be able to dedicate itself to larger tasks. Cadastre officials will no longer have to spend their time dividing the cadastral income into a quota related to the places allocated to the flow of spirits and those allocated to another function.

There will no longer be a dispute regarding the calculation of the amount of the tax, which will considerably ease the horeca and administration sector. This removal of the tax will therefore result in a decrease in the tax pressure and the administrative burdens and/or strains facing the horeca sector.

So, dear colleagues, both the patent tax that we are voting now and the one that increases the fraction of the restaurant rating that can be added to the general costs of the company, these two bills will ⁇ help relieve a sector that is experiencing many problems, which is all the more regrettable because this sector, if it develops harmoniously, can be a great provider of jobs, especially low-skilled, which we also seek to create on the current labour market.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ministers, Colleagues, the hospitality sector is at the heart of the sp.a-spirit group because it is an economically important sector. I give a few figures. The turnover is 7 billion euros. 5% of all household budgets are spent in this sector. It concerns 52,000 companies with 120,000 jobs. For comparison, the automotive sector, a yet large sector in Belgium, has only 10,000 more employees. You know what turmoil has been in this sector. Therefore, sp.a-spirit believes that the necessary attention to the hospitality sector is ⁇ justified. The catering sector is a special sector because it has a number of specific and own characteristics. It is a sector that is very labour-intensive and gives large fluctuations in work volume due to peak moments. The sector is seasonal and closely related to weather conditions. In addition, this sector has a lot of part-time employment and an overrepresentation of young workers. The hospitality sector deserves our attention because it is a sector that is currently—unfortunately—struggling with great problems. 40% of all catering companies are currently losing. It is a sector that has a lot of bankruptcies. The sector, which represents 9% of all Belgian companies, has 15 to 16% of bankruptcies.

For all these reasons, the sp.a-spirit group considers that a number of measures should be taken for this sector. These are primarily social measures. I am pleased to note that this majority in this area, with some social ministers belonging to my group, has already taken a number of measures.

It is good to summarize these measures. There has been the reform of the opportunity work. There have been the various general measures — thus also applicable to the catering sector — such as the reduction of the social burden. We have implemented a few specifically targeted burden reductions for the catering sector and the low wages. There is the regulation for student work. There is the introduction of the so-called super extra. There is also the general struggle for improving the social status of the self-employed. I think I can rightly say that this majority has done a good job in this area.

In fiscal matters, this majority also does a good job. I refer to a measure taken at the Flemish policy level, in the present case the abolition of the opening taxes. This measure, in my opinion, ⁇ benefits the hospitality sector and is appreciated by it. We have just discussed the bill concerning the increase of the deduction of restaurant costs from 50% to 62,5% in 2004 and — hopefully — to 75% in 2005. Finally, there is the bill of which I am the lucky applicant regarding the tax on the permit to give strong drinks.

In fiscal terms, we have taken a number of measures to strengthen the base of the hospitality industry.

I do not want to say much about the present bill because the rapporteur, Carl Devlies, has well outlined why we have come to this point. However, I would like to contradict him on one point. Mr. Devlies, you were also present in the committee. You may remember what decision the committee made. Your group wanted to address the problem of alcohol pops, which is also close to our heart, through a few amendments. We have said that the problem of alcohol and minors was too important to deal with a specific problem in accordance with this bill and through one amendment or amendment. In the committee was made an agreement to dedicate a debate in the coming weeks to the problem of alcohol and youth and that we want to adjust this bill more broadly than through an amendment. We think it would be good if we could meet with our colleagues in the Committee on Public Health so that both committees can discuss the issues that are of the greatest importance for my group as well.

It has not yet been done. A number of measures that could be taken in the future to support the hospitality sector are still being discussed, including the reduction of the VAT rate. We have been talking about this in the committee for a long time.

Mr. President, I asked for the floor because Mr. Van der Maelen just extended one of our amendments. He proposes to set up a working group that will investigate the problem of youth and alcohol. Here, however, the possibility is provided to realize immediately a very essential point that has already been discussed extensively in the Senate and that there was unanimously accepted in the plenary session. I don’t understand why one doesn’t take that opportunity and push this matter on the long track. You also know, Mr. Van der Maelen, what problems currently exist in relation to the abuse of the alcohol pops.

Mr. Devlies, I have already said that I acknowledge that the problem of alcohol pops is not insignificant, but you were still present in the committee. We have decided to discuss this issue in the coming weeks and months. You are a member of the committee and I too. Well, I propose to discuss this issue together with the other committee members of whom I know that this issue is also at their heart. I do not like to deal with punctual problems separately. That may be a method you prefer, but I prefer a well-organized approach. We may also be able to organize hearings with people who know the issue better than you and I, so that we can get enough information to take a number of measures in a global approach. The alcohol pops will probably be addressed, but there are other aspects related to the problem of youth and alcohol, which we think we all want to address.

Speaking fairly, I consider it a little like opposition tactics — which is permitted to hear — and as opposition excuses to try to discredit proposals from colleagues of the majority. I repeat again: that problem, alcohol and youth, is for us at least as important as for you. I would even say, we consider it even more important because we do not want to take punctual measures, we want to address the problem as a whole in so far as it falls within the competence of the Committee on Finance.

For the problem you acknowledge, a solution has been proposed. What you accuse us is completely wrong. What we accuse you is rather correct, namely a lack of decision-making. Here there is the possibility to make an immediate decision with immediate effect. You put that down next to you to drown that aspect into a more general problem, which indeed can be addressed, but here there is an opportunity that you simply ignore. We cannot accept this. This will also make it difficult for us to approve the proposal, which we, for the rest, support.

I would like to say something on the same topic. I am also part of the committee. It has already been extensively discussed in the committee, Mr. Devlies, that it is a proposal that has fiscal consequences and that makes the hospitality industry more space, as Mr. Van der Maelen says. What this has to do with the use of alcohol by young people and the widespread problem, I do not know. You would like to attach a broad problem to that bill, which has completely different intentions, to take measures to support the hospitality industry. You confuse, in my opinion, two things.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you have the last word. But first Mr. Devlies wants to say something.

Mr. Speaker, it is very brief. It is a very good proposal. We are behind it. However, there is also a negative aspect associated with this, namely that the distribution of strong drinks thus makes it easier and that a threshold is removed. Therefore, we found it necessary to take a measure concerning youth at the same time.

Can I now let Mr. Van der Maelen answer? You were speaking, Mr Van der Maelen.

Mr. Speaker, I said that this was a trick from the opposition to put a majority proposal in a bad light. What you just said, Mr. Devlies, is the proof of that.

On the bill itself, we have said in the committee that there is nothing changing in this area. The prohibition on donating alcohol to minors remains. The means of control existing for this will remain. You take a side-side problem and try to attach it to it. I would understand this if there were no fundamental commitment from the whole committee — the chairman, the minister and all members — to address this problem. But that commitment is there, colleague. I hope that, when we approach this problem, you will be present in the committee and that you, together with the members of the majority, will ensure that we conduct a debate there at the level and that we come to a decision making that allows us to find a solution together for the problems that the majority and the opposition together recognize. Please do not try to solve that problem with a measure here and a measure there. Let us approach this problem in its entirety. This is what the majority – if I can afford to speak on behalf of the majority – offers, and we hope that the opposition will cooperate with us in this constructive way.

In addition to the measures we have already taken and which I think in the catering sector everyone recognizes that we are on the right path, there are a number of other measures in the pipeline. Among them is the VAT reduction. We discussed this in the committee. It will depend on the decision of the European Commission. My group hopes that this will happen quickly. We are in favour of a VAT reduction in this area.

Second, if this is not possible for any reason, then our group and our party have a proposal. It is a proposal to grant a tax reduction on restaurant costs to all citizens. I think this is even a better measure. When we look at the measure on restaurant costs, I fear that it will benefit a certain category of catering companies, namely the catering companies with the business as a regular customer. We believe that a system in which each family is given the opportunity to deduct restaurant accounts up to a certain amount of tax would be a larger and stronger boost for the hospitality sector. If the VAT reduction is not possible, our proposal is, in our opinion, a more socially fair measure, which would also be an incentive to address a problem in the hospitality sector, namely tax fraud. Anyone who would go to a restaurant would therefore be interested in asking for the fiscal ticket so that it can be included in the taxes.

Finally, my group is willing to move forward through a number of measures — the transition from 62,5 to 75 % for the deduction of restaurant costs or the reduction of VAT. We expect, however, that we can then conclude an agreement with the sector in which the sector accepts a number of charges in addition to the lusts, which the government puts on the table. These burdens mean that conclusive agreements are made on a long-standing disease, namely social and tax fraud. We are ready to make a deal with the industry. If he wants to give us guarantees in that regard, we are prepared to negotiate more financial relief for the sector.

I will be very brief. It is clear that the VLD group will support the proposal. Colleague Van der Maelen, the catering sector is also very close to the heart of my group. Many of us remember from our student years our accomplishments in the hospitality industry. That was at least the case for me. We are a little familiar with the sector and we know that it deserves our support and already enjoys it. Under the previous government, this has already been initiated. Then the problem of the catering sector was formally put back on the agenda for the first time and now we are working on it.

I say this for all clarity. Colleague Devlies, I also address you. This is about the excise tax itself. This is not about permission. In other words, if we want to tighten certain standards and conditions for youth, if that is the option — and it is in any case for us — then this must be done through tightening or adjusting the standards to issue a license.

The proposal presented today aims to abolish the excise duty. It fits into the global policy of this government, of this majority to implement a tax reduction and to ease taxes. This is one of its many elements. It is sometimes overlooked, but of course this is also formally a tax reduction.

The legislation as it exists is an outdated legislation. It is no longer appropriate for today’s hospitality industry to distinguish between the companies that apply for this license and those who do not. They can calculate for themselves or that is still worth the effort. Those things have gone so close to each other in the past that it is appropriate to abolish that tax. This is, in part, an update of the law.

You made comments about the alcohol pops. It seems obvious to me, I repeat it again and colleague Tommelein has, by the way, repeated it: this comes from the Committee on Finance; it is a fiscal measure, but the health aspect is, of course, a completely different story. It goes far beyond this measure. Ultimately, it has nothing to do with this. We will discuss a second measure later, the tax-shelter scheme. It is also a tax advantage. This will be discussed later. It fits purely within that framework.

We will also later determine whether the CD&V group is for or against this tax reduction. That is what it is about. What is connected by anyone is a story in itself. The question here is whether we are for or against the abolition of these excise duties on licences. The message will be well understood by the industry. One will be able to see who in this hemisphere is for or against the abolition of this excise tax on the license. The VLD group will in any case approve this proposal with conviction.

Mr. Speaker, colleague Van der Maelen, I would like to say something more in connection with your argument to work on the disease of black labour, tax and social fraud after closing agreements with the sector. We are also a requesting party. However, I would like to warn you. We must ⁇ not reverse things and must first ensure that in the coming years — it will not be a short-stay work, but a long-stay work — we can first regain the necessary yield and the necessary margins in that sector. One of the key agreements there is about the social burden on the staff, which is still too high in that sector.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you will find in us an ally if you want to enter that battle. However, we do not want to work in the opposite direction. One should not first place cameras of the social inspection in catering business and then afterwards say that one will do something for the sector. One must first do something for the sector and then address the black work. That is the right way of working.