Projet de loi modifiant la loi du 31 décembre 2003 instaurant une déclaration libératoire unique.
General information ¶
- Submitted by
- PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ
- Submission date
- Oct. 28, 2004
- Official page
- Visit
- Status
- Adopted
- Requirement
- Simple
- Subjects
- tax evasion direct tax tax on income
Voting ¶
- Voted to adopt
- Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR
- Voted to reject
- CD&V Ecolo LE N-VA FN VB
Party dissidents ¶
- Dirk Claes (CD&V) abstained from voting.
- Greta D'hondt (CD&V) abstained from voting.
- Roel Deseyn (CD&V) abstained from voting.
- Brigitte Wiaux (LE) abstained from voting.
Contact form ¶
Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.
Discussion ¶
Nov. 25, 2004 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
Rapporteur Marie-Christine Marghem ⚙
I refer to the written report.
Hagen Goyvaerts VB ⚙
Mr. Speaker, you let the bell go as a sign of the voting, but I would still like to say a few things concerning the present draft.
Mr. Minister, colleagues, the least that can be said about this draft — I am not telling anything new — is that the entire arrangement surrounding the fiscal amnesty, which is also called the EBA Act, does not convince or testify to a high legal sustainability. Today there is a repair law with retroactive effect. In fact, this repair should have been done before the beginning of the new parliamentary year, but that should not have been the case.
On the subject of tax amnesty, I have questioned you several times in the committee, Mr. Minister. At the same time, the emphasis was placed on financial revenues. These are, of course, inseparably linked to the legal uncertainty of this entire legislation. As for that financial return, we know the numbers, colleagues: until the end of September and thus the payment of 15 October 2004 to the thesaury, the counter stands at a lean 47 million euros. In any case, that is far away from the original €850 million, but also far away from the adjusted figures of €200 to €300 million that you, as Minister of Finance, sent to the world on 10 September last year. That was the Liberal Parade!
Moreover, on 10 September 2004, it was the first time, Mr. Minister, that you openly admitted that this entire operation with an euphemism would be "less successful" than expected, this probably to avoid using the term "financial flop". Today, we are receiving some reports from the press that the number of files has increased sharply in recent weeks, with a rather ambitious estimate for revenue between 100 and 200 million euros. This, of course, is far from your target of 850 million euros. That all a little, and even a little much, to the dissatisfaction of one of your coalition partners, the sp.a not to name them by name. By the mourning of her group leader, Mr Van der Maelen, she expressed herself in The Morning. He was a little upset and I will quote him. Van der Maelen, group leader of the sp.a, claimed: “If we had known in advance that the yield would be so low, then we would have better not participated: the soup is not worth the cabbage.”
Colleagues socialists, I understand that dissatisfaction somewhat. From the very beginning, you have had to submit to this system of tax amnesty. It is and remains a blow to the citizens who pay their taxes correctly. You have been able to sell this law of the one-off release declaration, of the tax amnesty, to your backbone and in your people's houses - or what remains of it because the expected income of 850 million euros was so important for the Treasury. It was also important for reducing government debt and a major boost to the economy. Mrs De Meyer, it was also important to ensure the balance of the budget, but that probably to compensate for some potentially painful measures. Of those 850 million euros, nothing comes out. You have, therefore, let yourself roll, as it is called in popular terms.
As if that wasn’t enough, the State Council suspended another part of the royal decree related to this EBA law this summer. As a result, the additional guarantee of 6% on the regular rate of 6% for repatriation for the foreign account credits or of 9% for the effectives coming to tounder could no longer be collected. In the deleted article, the concrete inning mechanism for this guarantee was specified. The banks had thus been given the role of auditors and had to block those guarantees for three years. It was precisely this that made the State Council quite difficult and found, in my opinion, correctly, that Parliament should be involved in this and that the safeguard mechanism should be regulated not by royal decree but by law. The Minister must therefore return to the Chamber to settle this in a legal way. In an initial response to this judgment, the Minister has attempted to reach an agreement with the banks and to establish a structure that would allow the guarantee of 6% to be collected without a legal basis on the basis of a contract between the bank and the customer. Apparently, the banking sector was unable to find that. Therefore, Mr. Minister, there was nothing but to do your homework again and come here with a recovery law.
Professor Pacolet of the University of Leuven formulated it in September last year as follows: "The fiscal amnesty is an unnecessary measure. She is ineffective in the revenue, she is perverse in the field of the bourgeois sense and she damages the model state of Belgium.” As for the latter, I do not have such a problem with it. Mr. Minister, however you turn it, we have always opposed this law and this for various reasons. We will therefore remain consistent here too and the Flemish Belang group will also vote against this new repair law.