Proposition 52K0034

Proposition visant à instituer une commission d'enquête parlementaire chargée d'examiner les grands dossiers de fraude fiscale.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Carl Devlies
Ecolo Jean-Marc Nollet
Groen Stefaan Van Hecke
LE Christian Brotcorne
MR François-Xavier de Donnea
Open Vld Luk Van Biesen
PS | SP Valérie Déom, Thierry Giet

Submission date

July 12, 2007

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax evasion committee of inquiry

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld N-VA LDD 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 ¶

April 10, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, if you allow me, I will first present the report and then briefly communicate the position of our party in relation to this parliamentary investigation committee.

The assembly has indeed unanimously decided to support the proposal that was submitted by the gentlemen Nollet, Van Hecke, Giet and madame Déom and subsequently signed by the gentlemen Devlies, the Donnea, Brotcorne and myself. The committee unanimously decided to set up this investigative committee. In the discussion, we assumed that it is indeed necessary to appoint 17 members of parliament into an investigative committee to examine why many heavy tax cases could not be tried in this country over the last fifteen years. It is necessary to check where the procedure has gone wrong. This was unanimously decided by the committee.

I think the report does not require much intervention, because the decision was unanimous and everyone supported this point.

I would like to explain why Open Vld, as a party, would like to support this important decision to establish an investigative committee.

A few weeks ago I questioned Finance Minister Didier Reynders about the fiscal downturn in this country. That amount was estimated at 32.7 billion euros. The Minister’s response revealed that of those 32.7 billion euros, almost the majority is not directly or difficult to obtain, but above all that the majority goes through a lot of legal disputes, which make it impossible to collect the advanced amounts.

On the other hand, the purple government has made fiscal fraud a major topic in recent years. Mr Jamar, who was competent as Secretary of State for this purpose, was able to deliver in this Parliament a not bad record, namely that in 2005 these efforts could be fined in the amount of 513 million euros and in 2006 in the amount of 817 million euros, or, in other words, could be combated as tax fraud.

Today we read again that the Brussels Prosecutor’s Office has a lag of as many as 296 files that are on the threshold of obsolescence and that nine chances out of ten will not lead to the trial of those who set up the structures, but also – and that is not insignificant – they will not lead to the collection, by the Belgian State, of the rightful direct or indirect taxes, of VAT or taxes.

In this regard, I said at the end of my speech to Minister Reynders that if every citizen, if every company, if every legal entity, at the right time, would pay the right tax or the right VAT or the appropriate duties, there would be damn much room for fundamental burden reduction. There is a fiscal deficit of $32 billion. You should know that we will soon approve a budget with revenue for one year of just over 90 billion euros. Then we are talking about as much as a third of the country’s resources for a year that are somehow not collected kunnne.

Therefore, as Open Vld, we clearly say that we must examine why this fails, and why we – despite the work of many officials who try to find out why who set up something, and also come to results – fail to legally walk the way to punish those people. That is the essence of the case.

Therefore, we want to say clearly: we stand hundred percent behind. We will be in the underzoekscommission eleven volunteer responsibility take in eleven volunteer cooperation verlen. We hopen, samen met of 17 colleagues die in die onderzoekscommission zullen zetelen, dat wij oplossingen zullen kunnen aanreiken, zowel aan staatssecretaris Devlies, die belast is met de strijd tegen de fiscale fraud, als aan de minister van Justitie, om te komen tot een sluitend system waarbij gerechtigheid in die dossiers geschiede. (The Applause)

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, our House will, it seems, adopt, by a very large majority, the creation of a parliamentary commission of inquiry on major cases of tax fraud. This is obviously a very strong signal that we can give in these times when the financial world can give the impression of “going crazy” and where scandals succeed at a sustained pace.

For the PS, the objective of this commission of inquiry is very clear; it must first allow to detect the weaknesses of a system that allowed major fraud (KBC, flat-rate quotas, etc.) and above all allow Parliament to adopt measures to strengthen the fight against large-scale fraud and to prevent such scandals from happening again.

For my group, we must both strengthen the fight against tax fraud and defend a fair tax, one does not go without the other. Learning from the past should help us strengthen the means to fight fraud effectively and effectively.

I especially welcome the joining of some groups to this proposal, which had been submitted at the beginning of the legislature by the Greens and the Socialists and which had been denied the urgency at its time. This rally took place 15 days ago, in a certain urgency and by a strange procedure that, in the end, allows us to move forward.

I would like to draw the House’s attention to the special nature of an investigation committee. It’s not about playing witch learners or white knights. There must be prudence, rigour and intellectual honesty. An investigation committee such as this, with an ambitious goal as tracking and combating tax fraud, must assign itself a result obligation. Because fighting fraud effectively means recovering huge amounts, which we will be able to re-inject in the general interest.

We will therefore have to take advantage of this commission of inquiry to clarify what happened in the handling of certain cases but also to expand our reflection into a more comprehensive and more constructive approach. This committee should be an opportunity to see how other countries organize the fight against fraud and to compare the ways of action in terms of power and resources of the tax administrations. It should enable us to objectivize as much as possible the extent of tax evasion in Belgium and, in this regard, we will undoubtedly need to call on experts and academic researchers. It should also allow us to see how the Department of Finance fights against tax havens.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, my group, which was co-signatory of the proposal since July, will obviously support its adoption and above all will ensure that this committee can ⁇ the ambitious objective it assigns itself: to strengthen the fight against the large tax fraud that strikes the public budget and which, consequently, is detrimental to the general interest.

We are pleased that this bill is being voted today. We are very satisfied with the great support that the proposal received in the Committee on Finance, where it was unanimously approved. In fact, that is also logical. The investigation committee is really very needed – the facts prove it – and it will ⁇ not be a moment too late.

About a year ago, a number of detectives and fraud experts drew the alarm bell. They were supported by a number of politicians from various parties. I think I can refer to Mr. de Donnea, who also signed the text and who, as chairman of the Committee on Finance, was very attentive to the dossier. Thanks to his support, the proposal was approved. I would like to thank him and all the colleagues who have supported him and the committee.

The accusation of the investigators was that in the last 15 years a lot of large tax files have not been brought to a good end. Eliminate important files. Important files threaten to be outdated in the coming years. Often it is cases where the investigation has already produced very clear results, but which have not reached the final stage, namely before the court.

Politicians know the files. The press knows the files. The people know them. Everyone knows the fraud files well. They received and receive a lot of attention. The situation is truly revengeful, unacceptable and unfair. It is also a major attack on the state treasury.

This morning we could indeed read in De Tijd what the situation is in Brussels, the district where the problem is probably the biggest. There are 296 major tax investigation files. The question then is how many small tax files there are. There are more than 1,474 cardboard boxes. The backwardness is enormous. There are 10 man staff to turn those files into final claims and bring them before the court. That is really impossible. We cannot tolerate it, ⁇ not as Parliament, and that is why the investigation committee really comes on time.

What shall we do? We need to examine why these large files of tax fraud end up with a sisser. What is going wrong? Where do the delays come from? Why can hard-working detectives – a lot of detectives work daily motivated and hard to prepare those files for Justice – not see their work rewarded by a trial in court? It also works demotivating for many. This must also be taken into account.

The fight against large-scale tax fraud has failed in recent years. Parliament now has a unique opportunity to subject this failure to a very serious and in-depth investigation. We must seize this opportunity. We must take our responsibility. People expect that from Parliament. Rightly, people don’t think they pay a lot of taxes on a daily basis, while big fraudsters end up getting rid of them with a limitation.

I think the most important thing is that the committee can deliver a solid report after twelve months. That solid report should contain a set of recommendations to re-enter the fight against tax fraud in the future, this time efficiently and effectively, so that fraud hunters are also truly rewarded for their hard work and fraudsters can also be punished for their antisocial behavior. That is the most important thing for us.

It will then be up to Parliament and Government to turn the recommendations into action. It will not only be the task of the Secretary of State responsible for the fight against tax fraud, but also of the Minister of Justice who must intervene at the judicial level, as well as of the Minister of Finance. Also for the latter will probably come a pack of recommendations. In fact, it is the great responsibility and an important task for the entire government.

I emphasize it today: it is not the intention of the committee to organize a witch hunt or to make statements on whether or not there is a tax fraud. That is not the task. What we need to do is expose the dysfunctions and make recommendations so that they cannot happen again in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell you that the past crisis has seriously undermined the public’s confidence in our democracy. I am therefore pleased that across the boundaries of majority and opposition our bill is supported. Calling for an end to the misstatements in the fight against fraud can be the beginning of restoring the citizen’s trust in the government. We hope that the proposal will be unanimously approved here in the plenary session.

I thank you immediately.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you that the debate of this day began, a few weeks ago, on the occasion of the discussion concerning notional interests, during which the famous question "Fraud or not?" was raised.

The MR is ⁇ proud to support and approve the initiative which, indeed, was not ours at the beginning, but which we considered to be extremely positive. Indeed, the creation of the Commission of Inquiry on the large cases of tax fraud will allow to continue to creditize the fact that the tax is essentially civic. This is very important and I would like to thank Mr. Van Hecke, who has just highlighted the intervention, to the hussard of course, of the Chairman of the Finance Committee, Mr. François-Xavier de Donnea, which led to the establishment of the Commission today.

I also recall that the Minister of Finance himself, Didier Reynders, during the debate on notional interests, had called for the establishment of this commission of inquiry. Therefore, it will be extremely interesting that each of the political groups comprises this committee of people who will fully invest in the realization and results of this committee.

I would like to remind you that we are evolving in a context of concern. We recently talked about the “casino” economy. We will remember the great Lernout & Hauspie affair, the problem of Lichtenstein, for which I had asked a question concerning whether Belgian names were already known on this subject. I hope that we will soon receive information on this subject. We unfortunately pass by a whole series of tax havens that exist in the Cayman Islands and other magical places.

Paying taxes is an important, civic act. Because if the MR wants - this is a priority - to lower the tax rate, at the same time, the one subject to tax must pay it. There is a parallel between the two. And we absolutely want citizens to pay their taxes, even if they have to pay less and start paying them less quickly. As the Minister of Finance recalled, taxation in Belgium begins from an annual income of 6,400 euros. That is, people who are entitled to oil aid already pay taxes, which is totally paradoxical. This is what we absolutely want to change.

I insisted that the committee must be composed of people who will do their work until the end. As has been said by some, I hope that the means of the Commission will enable it to carry out its action. I also hope that the resources that will be entrusted to mr. Devlies, the Secretary of State responsible for the Fight against Tax Fraud, will allow him to act effectively in synergy with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance. Hervé Jamar had already achieved interesting results in the last legislature.

In short, the tax is civic, the MR will fully support the creation of this commission of inquiry and we will ensure that it produces results.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, tax fraud is disruptive to society. It has negative budgetary consequences for our country and is also competitive distortion for the many taxpayers and entrepreneurs who make their tax returns correctly. Many are absolutely convinced that the small garnals are caught and the large fish escape the net. This undermines our rule of law and confidence in the judiciary. Large, speech-making files that have not reached a successful end demonstrate this. The unfair application of tax laws in our country also confirms this. Let’s be honest, even the complexity of our tax legislation, which changes too often and too quickly, creates legal uncertainty.

I think the Parliamentary Investigative Committee is in its place. At the same time, it has a limited mandate in the light of some other parliamentary investigation committees established here, but also a broad mandate. It must identify causes and formulate recommendations. Should our legislation be adjusted? How can we prevent tax evasion? How can we further responsibility the actors, not only the taxpayers but also the large accounting firms that assist them, the administration and the judiciary? How can we identify faster? How can we prosecute more efficiently? Especially, how can we recover more of what has been unleashed?

In fact, this proposal fits perfectly in the spirit of our government agreement which states that the taxation and collection of taxes in our country must be done correctly and equally. Therefore, I think that, apart from this parliamentary initiative, this government should continue with what has been agreed. The college of directors of social tax police and judicial services under the leadership of a ministerial committee should be established and all resources should be used to have adequate controls over the country.

Ladies and gentlemen, I have one comment. A parliamentary investigation committee is not a court. A parliamentary investigation committee is not a jurisdictional body. That is neither her job nor her responsibility.

Parliamentary investigation is a powerful tool and we must handle it well and very carefully. In this regard, I point out interference in the face of ongoing judicial files. This should be avoided at all costs. There is the secret of the investigation, there is the right of defence, there is the right to privacy.

I urge the future committee to act cautiously and carefully. I would not want Parliament to be held accountable in the future, in the context of some investigations, for the fact that those who commit tax fraud escape their responsibility, while it is precisely intended to counter this. Therefore, reticence in ongoing files.

I wish the committee much success.

I would like to summarize the position of my group in three points.

First, what is the commitment to us? We start from the finding that in Belgium according to many studies – the latest was made at the request of the European Commission by Professor Schneider – the underground economy amounts to 21.5%, while in the Netherlands it amounts to 12.8%, in France 14.8% and in Germany 16.8%. Therefore, there is a gap of at least 5% between Belgium and the other countries.

Our ambition is to go to the average, to use the proceeds of that enhanced anti-fraud to the benefit of all those who have paid their taxes correctly for many years.

That is the commitment for us. There is a huge tax injustice in this country. The rich, the powerful, those who have the means to be assisted by all kinds of tax advisors, succeed in escaping their tax obligation through all kinds of legal and illegal constructions. For us, the commitment is to close those kinds of backdoors and with the revenue we want to reward the people who have always paid their taxes correctly.

Second, there is the scope of application. What will we investigate with this committee? It is of course that we are going to investigate those files that have been waiting for so long. The names have fallen here. But, my colleagues, the ambition of my group continues. Because, those files are files from 10 or 20 years ago. They rely on forms of fraud mechanisms that existed at the time. But we note that in addition to the taxation, new constructions, new mechanisms have emerged. We wish that the outcome of the work of the committee enables us not only to exclude a repetition of what has come up in those old files, but also that we give the resources and the tools to those who want to tackle the big fraud at the administration of Finance and at the court.

Therefore, we believe that the committee has four major research assignments. The first task is to inventory the various forms of financial-economic fraud. The second task is to identify problems relating to detection and prosecution. The third task is to inform the competent public authorities at Finance and at the court. And finally, the fourth task is to map fraud-sensitive business sectors.

Third, I would like to say that the problem – which will not surprise you – has been followed by us for a long time. We have already made a number of suggestions to improve the fight against large-scale tax fraud.

It is the intention of my group to use the work of our committee to see if we find in it the confirmation of the results of our work in that area.

I would like to point out three points that we will guide.

The first point is that we find that the long duration of the processes and the processing in Belgium are related to the fact that in Belgium, unlike the countries around us, there is a rule that first a phase of administrative investigation must be undergone, which sometimes takes three to four years. At the end of the above-mentioned investigation phase, it is decided whether or not to forward the case to the court.

Our first diagnosis is, therefore, that, like in the Netherlands, France and Germany, much earlier, no more than three months after the competent services have struck a fraud mechanism, there must be a college, composed of representatives of the Justice and of the Administration of Finance, which at that time decides whether a case should be handled exclusively administratively or whether it should be stopped in the judicial branch after three months. At that time, the tracks are still warm and the court for the large dossiers has the opportunity to find out the truth and the background, using the tools it has at its disposal.

That will be our first proposal and our first recommendation.

A second difference when we compare Belgium with Germany, the Netherlands and France is as follows. When in the aforementioned countries – take in the Netherlands the FIOD – after three months of investigation fraud is established and it is decided to stop the file in the judicial branch, officials-specialists of the FIOD – to compare with our BBI – provide assistance to deal with the file quickly and thoroughly, although under the direction and responsibility of the investigation judge or the prosecutor.

After all, everyone knows that there is a lack of manpower, which, by the way, appeared today in the newspapers, but also a lack of knowledge of the problem that should be investigated in the fraud mechanisms with our parquet employees. One must get that knowledge where it is, and it is with the Ministry of Finance, more specifically with the best investigators, the BBI.

Finally, we ask that this committee also pay attention to the use of tax havens. After all, we note that they have come up in all the constructions of the last years. Look at all the major files that have been struck. There are tax havens everywhere. This House worked on it for months in the previous legislature in the Commission on Globalization and made recommendations on it. These recommendations are again based on experiences in other countries. The first and easiest decision to be made is, following the example of Germany, France and the Netherlands, to issue a study assignment to examine how Belgian taxpayers are using the phenomenon of tax havens. These studies exist in these three countries. They even exist in the United States. Based on this, a policy is drawn, which usually in the first order – which will be our second proposal on the subject – is translated into the creation of a special task force within the Ministry of Finance to bring together all the know-how related to tax havens and formulate a kind of anti-policy.

I know this is an ambitious agenda. I refer to what Mr. Verherstraeten has just said. For the credibility of the Belgian State, the fact that large tax fraud files are not handled in Belgium is fatal. If we want a credible State and good governance, then it is our duty to make progress in this area as quickly as possible and as far as possible.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. I also signed the proposal that we are discussing today.

One could have imagined the reluctance of some to the mission that will be entrusted to this commission, starting from the principle that, ⁇ , it would merely examine past situations and point the finger on political responsibilities, administrative responsibilities, judicial responsibilities. It would have been a shame to remain at this stage and to see in this commission only a pugilate or a way to settle accounts with the past.

The fact that all the parties support the proposal under consideration leads me to think that, if it is actually a matter of examining or even decorting these backgrounds, the aim will be above all to implement, tomorrow, genuine procedural rules that will enable us to fight effectively against this large tax fraud.

It will also be an opportunity to identify the needs of men and materials necessary to the SPF Finance to be able to work properly, but also to see if sufficient material and human resources are given to the justice to effectively follow up the cases eventually brought up. The time has come, politically, to assume the responsibilities that are ours and thus demonstrate, within reasonable timeframes, without rush, in the interest of respecting the rights of defence, a real effectiveness in the fight against large tax fraud.

The commission will thus enable one of the objectives of the government to be achieved, namely the fight against this large tax fraud that is ultimately detrimental to all the policies we want to implement in this country. So we will have to work concrete and parallel with the government to help it in its task. It is under these conditions and in this perspective that the CDH will associate itself with the work of this commission.