Proposition 51K2566

Projet de loi portant confirmation des arrêtés royaux des 26 novembre 2004, 28 juin 2005, 12 juillet 2005, 15 décembre 2005 et 2 février 2006 modifiant, en matière de précompte professionnel, l'AR/CIR 92.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP MR Open Vld Vooruit Purple Ⅰ

Submission date

June 16, 2006

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

direct tax tax on income

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Vooruit PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

CD&V N-VA FN VB

Abstained from voting

Ecolo LE

Party dissidents ¶

• Roel Deseyn (CD&V) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 13, 2006 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the Income Tax Code stipulates in Article 275, § 3, that Parliament must approve the royal decrees governing the corporate advance tax. The royal decrees that are ratified are mainly about the indexation of the fiscal bars.

In the committee, Mr. Carl Devlies and Hagen Goyvaerts expressed some criticism. In fact, they believed that the reduction of the corporate premium would not be sufficient. According to Mr. Devlies, in this way the government would ask the citizens for a interest-free loan of 2.4 billion euros.

The Minister of Finance said that the situation has improved. Before 1999, according to the minister, it was not a interest-free loan, but a definitive donation to the government. He noted that due to the tax reform of 2001 there is a reduction of 1 billion euros in the corporate advance.

The Minister also warned that the non-ratifying of the royal decrees would result in the administration having to correct the situation and thus have to recover the allowed reduction of the corporate premium.

At Mr. Devlies’ request, a split vote was held, so that each royal decree was voted separately instead of approving the entire article 2. For one royal decision, the approval was unanimous. For the remaining four royal decrees there were 8 votes for each. In two of the four above-mentioned decisions there were five abstentions, while in the other two decisions there were four votes against and one abstinence.

Mr De Crem, as speaker is registered Mr Devlies.

Mr. Devlies is coming.

He is coming. I will be patient for a moment. Mr. Devlies is a very dedicated chamber member. I don’t want him not to have a chance to speak.

Are other members included in the general discussion?

Did any other members participate in the general discussion? I was able to observe that the paragraphs of articles were adopted by different majorities.

Mr. De Crem, I will therefore wait a moment, also from respect for the opposition, until Mr. Devlies joins us.

( ... )

There is always a background. Do you say “backdoors”? You are not writing that to me, right?

I wait a moment. He is also registered for the subsequent debate, which, of course, will take more time. I will be patient. I have always been patient with the opposition.

I have been in opposition longer than you. The times when Jean Defraigne and I were members of the opposition were murderous for Mr. Nothomb.

Should I submit my report again?

BIS REPETITA NOT PLACEN.

We have a lot of work to do today. Do not forget that.

Mr. Devlies, the Room was in joyful expectation and you are there. You have the word in the general discussion of the bill regulating a number of KBs. Mr Tommelein has just issued his report. You have the word, au pied lévé.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, dear colleagues, I have heard that the reporter has presented an excellent report, which sufficiently outlines the views of the members of the committee. I will therefore limit myself to asking a question to the Secretary of State, concerning the domain of the corporate premium.

Mr. Secretary of State, the corporate advance tax was not adjusted to the fiscal reform, which for the year 2006 resulted in the transfer of an amount of plus-minus 2.4 billion euros from the income year to the year following the accounting year 2006. It is about a sum of 2.4 billion euros, which is made available to the government without interest by the taxpayer. You know this, Minister Reynders too.

Minister Reynders has on several occasions announced that he wishes to change this situation and that he plans for the 2007 budget that an amount of 1 billion euros would be transferred, in the sense that the company advance tax would be reduced and that the taxpayers would therefore receive a higher net amount. Minister Reydners has made several statements on this subject. Particularly during the period around Easter, he has given several interviews related to this problem and related to other fiscal reforms he wanted to implement.

Following the discussion in the committee, this point has again been raised, and I now wish to hear clearly from the Government what the final vision is in relation to the evolution of the corporate advance tax for the year 2007. Will there be an adjustment or not? If an adjustment is made, what amount do you provide for the 2007 budget?

The discussion has already taken place in the committee, as Mr. The report was complete, and the report was complete.

For these sums, it is always a question of interpretation. The cumulative effect of the various elements of the tax reform has very positive consequences on pre-accounts. Everything is a matter of interpretation and there have been discussions to take place within the framework of the 2007 budget, about which I will not make any a priori or estimate at this stage. Let us wait for the discussions that will need to incorporate this data.

Mr. Devlies, the comparison between the situation in 1999 and the current situation allows to observe that there was no indexation of tax rates at that time and that, overall, the taxpayer ⁇ does not have to suffer from the situation we know today.

Progressively, all this will be adapted and, in 2007, the various issues raised will be integrated into the budget discussion.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, I have heard your response, but I have asked the question because I did not receive the answer in the committee and because I thought you would have had the opportunity to consult so that you could give me the appropriate answer today. Their

Mr. Secretary of State, you know that you are in an illegal situation with the non-recognition of this corporate premium. You are in breach of the decisions of the Arbitration Court and of the Council of State. You act against the opinions of the Court of Auditors. This is an illegal situation. I can only urge you to end this as soon as possible. Their

Of course, we all know that your budget is facing the biggest difficulties and that you would like to finance yourself in an easy way at the expense of the citizens, at the expense of the taxpayers. Their

As regards your observation on the fiscal pressure, I must refer to the National Bank’s report, which clearly shows that the overall fiscal pressure has increased in 2005 compared to 2004. If we look at the fiscal pressure across the entire legislature, we find that it has remained roughly constant, with a slight increase. Their

There is indeed a certain relaxation in terms of taxation on labor, although that relaxation occurs only after two years, while one prefinances itself with that reduction. Their

We note that all kinds of other taxes and charges are imposed. The House will later hold a further debate on the packaging tax, which is being extended by this government. This is one of many examples of new charges and new charges that weigh on citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to return to the subject of the law, which is the confirmation of royal decrees which are primarily aimed at indexing tax rates. I do not dare to imagine for a moment that this project will not be voted.

I still have doubts about the interpretation. The concept of “tax pressure”. It always applies the very simple ratio between the volume of tax revenues relative to the number of taxpayers. But it is not that at all! We systematically say, we will recall it as much as necessary, that it is not because tax revenues in terms of overall volume increase that tax pressure in terms of quality of life follows the same evolution.

For example, as we see increases in VAT revenue, tax collection in the fight against fraud, or better tax collection as such, it is not that the tax pressure increases. It is exactly the opposite. We will obviously never agree on this concept. However, I would like to recall the government’s position on this issue.

The ratio that follows is very simple: the total of tax receipts on the total gross domestic product. I think that is also the method used by Mr. Verhofstadt in the past. You are now looking for new methods of calculation in order to prove your hopeless statement. For all security, I think we are best based on the reports and calculations of the National Bank. When I see the calculations for the year 2005 in the report published at the beginning of 2006, I note that there is an increase in the fiscal pressure in 2005 compared to 2004.

Since you refer to the National Bank report, I suppose you have read the nuances of the Governor and the President of the National Bank on the notion of "tax pressure". They say the opposite of what you say.

The [...]

Read it well.

In fact, there are two tables in the report: the first table refers to the tax pressure on labor and the second one describes the global tax pressure. There is indeed a slight decrease in the fiscal pressure on labor, but on the other hand there is an increase in the global fiscal pressure and that is the result of all sorts of measures being taken. I think, for example, of the measures related to fuel excise duties, the increases of charges on the various energy products and the example I have just given, in particular the tax on packaging.

( ... )