Proposition 52K1181

Projet de loi modifiant le Code des impôts sur les revenus 1992 en ce qui concerne l'imputation de la déduction fiscale de l'emprunt hypothécaire de l'habitation unique.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Hendrik Bogaert
LE Christian Brotcorne
MR François-Xavier de Donnea
Open Vld Hendrik Daems, Willem-Frederik Schiltz, Bart Tommelein, Luk Van Biesen, Ludo Van Campenhout

Submission date

May 21, 2008

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax relief direct tax housing tax on income loan

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 ¶

Dec. 11, 2008 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the colleagues who hoped that I would refer to my written report that I cannot do so because I have to deliver a verbal report.

Colleagues, your Committee on Finance has drawn up two bills at the meetings of 1 July and 8 December. The first bill of our colleague Devlies, adopted by colleague De Potter, aims to ease the withdrawal possibilities provided by the law commonly known as the law on the housing bonus. The deduction can no longer be ⁇ in the current state of legislation if on 31 December of the year following the year in which the loan contract was concluded, the other property has not actually been sold. The deduction may also not be ⁇ if, on 31 December of the second year following the year in which the loan agreement was concluded, the taxable person does not own the property for which he took the loan.

Following the discussion of the bill, the Minister of Finance announced that he would prepare a number of amendments. These amendments were submitted at the meeting of 8 December. The Amendment No. The taxpayer shall again be entitled to deduction for the only own home from the taxable period in which the property for which the loan was borrowed is effectively owned by the taxpayer on 31 December. The second amendment regulates the date of entry into force. The new scheme would apply from the financial year 2009. The amendments No. 3 and 4, submitted by the Minister, replaced Articles 4 and 5 of the bill.

After a brief discussion, the committee went to the vote. The article, all amendments and the entire, thus amended bill were unanimously approved by the committee.

In its two meetings on 1 July and 8 September, the committee also addressed a bill proposed by colleague Van Biesen. The bill proposed by colleague Van Biesen aims to modify the current regulation. If in the current arrangement one of the partners cannot enjoy the home bonus, the home bonus for the other partner – who can enjoy it – is limited to 85 percent.

Again, after a first discussion, the Minister had announced to submit amendments. The Minister of Finance submitted two amendments. The first amendment replaces Article 2 and makes it possible for taxable persons subject to a joint tax and both of whom have incurred expenses entitling to deduction for the sole property of their own, to freely distribute that deduction among themselves, without having to take into account an obligatory accounting of 15 percent of the deductible amounts with one of the taxable persons.

The second amendment, submitted by the Minister, replaces Article 3 and stipulates that the new regime applies from the financial year 2009.

Once again, after a brief debate, the committee voted and all amendments, all articles and the thus amended bill were unanimously adopted.

This was an example of rapid and efficient cooperation between the majority and opposition parliamentarians and the government. I think we have done a good job with this.

I would like to thank Mr. Van der Maelen for his excellent oral report.

We are indeed discussing an adjustment of the tax deduction that builders or growers of their own home can enjoy for the loan they have taken. With these bills, we are actually removing a problem that existed in the head of a number of families, namely a problem of a tax loss.

The problem was the following. The current tax deduction legislation contained a very severe penalty, namely the loss of the tax deduction if at the end of the second year after the loan was taken, the home for which the loan was taken was not inhabited. In addition, the tax deduction was lost for the entire duration of the loan, which sometimes runs up to thirty years, which, however, resulted in significant financial disadvantages for those families. If force majeure is at stake or when there are delays in the construction work due to all kinds of difficulties that may arise, it leads to significant financial losses for those families.

Therefore, Carl Devlies had submitted a proposal to remedy that, a proposal that I accepted with great pleasure.

The proposal went a little further than what was accepted by the Minister, but we can fully agree with the adjustments as they are proposed by the Minister. It is provided that only for those years when the property is not inhabited as a result of a delay in the construction works, the tax deduction is lost. If the home is inhabited from a certain moment, then the right to deduction is regained.

In my opinion, this is a very good measure that will solve the practical problems of many families. They no longer need to be extra concerned about the consequences of the delays in the construction works, in terms of their taxes.

The second amendment in the proposal is also a real plus. In my opinion, the rule 85/15 is rightly abandoned, so that, for example, married persons of whom there is only one taxable person can deduct the full 100%. Therefore, they do not see a 15% loss, as was still the case because of the fact that obligatory 15% had to be attributed to one of the taxpayers.

Mr. Speaker, I will decide. This easing of conditions and modalities solves a number of practical problems for taxpayers. These are practical problems that, however, cause financial problems for those families. Today this is rightly put to an end.