Proposition 52K2170

Projet de loi portant des dispositions fiscales et diverses.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V the Van Rompuy government

Submission date

Sept. 23, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

VAT tax tax on investment income tax relief professional sport central bank direct tax financial instrument donation lease mortgage indirect tax tax on income tax collection joint authority small and medium-sized enterprises registration tax sport corporation tax unemployment

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Abstained from voting

Vooruit N-VA LDD FN VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (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 ¶

Oct. 22, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

It is about the draft law that we had returned to the committee, and why we have been distributed the text in the banks. There was a discussion in the committee, for which Mr Van Biesen is the rapporteur. I am talking about the draft tax provisions.

Mr Van Biesen, you are given the word for your report. I think you would like to speak on behalf of your group. Mr. Goyvaerts is also registered.

Mr. President, I think Mr. Gustin is the rapporteur of the full work report. I think he has already ⁇ that he would refer to the written report. I will be speaking specifically about the part we addressed today.

We have met today on an amendment that was necessary to amend the present draft law. The reason is the following. A few years ago we took a joint initiative, majority and opposition, in the Committee on Finance. We asked ourselves how we could create a tax incentive in sport so that our youth players and our youth education could be fundamentally improved. We have reached a chamber-wide agreement that this could best be done by not allowing 80 percent of the corporate advance fee to pass through, provided that the clubs would invest a large portion of that money in youth work, training of trainers, official payment of trainers and — which was added to the latter — in the salaries of players under 23 years of age.

However, the present draft law provided for an adaptation of that law so that from 1 January 2009 the part relating to the compensation of wages to players would not be taken into account for the refund of the company advance fee. Many colleagues did not find it fair that these rules should be adjusted during a sporting season. Therefore, we have submitted an amendment with the five majority parties. This was discussed in the committee. There was an intervention of the gentlemen Hagen Goyvaerts and Van der Maelen. This amendment was approved by 13 votes for and 4 against.

So far, Mr. Speaker, the report of the meeting of the Finance Committee that took place this afternoon, during the plenary session.

Thank you, Mr the rapporteur. You can now continue in your other qualities.

Mr. Speaker, Dear Members of the Committee, Dear Members of the Chamber, the present Bill contains a whole series of technical corrections and also a number of adjustments following judgments of the Constitutional Court and ratifications of various decisions.

In the Senate, a senator for that bill has taken the word “waste-box law” into his mouth. I think this is a very painful and incorrect comment.

Although the draft contains various provisions, I must honestly admit that the provisions contained therein are not merely repairs or merely adjustments to legislation or comments from the administration. There are also some fundamental changes that have been implemented. For those who want to hear it, I have to lose it for a moment, there are in that law containing various provisions also a number of tax reductions that were implemented. I would like to put them up.

Thanks to this bill, there is a cancellation of the increase by 40 percent of the cadastral income for materials and tools. This is stated in Article 2 of the draft.

There will be an extension of the increased investment withdrawal for the safety of the rolling material. Everybody may remember that when our House Chairman was still Minister of Home Affairs, he proposed a fundamental expansion, and was approved by the House, which stipulates that investment in security equipment would be taxally stimulated. Well, now it is also about the safety of the rolling material. This is true, as you know, especially for the transport sector, which is a very important sector in our economy. Ultimately, their trucks are rolling offices, they are offices on wheels. For the investments to be made in the safety of the rolling stock, the transport sector will now also receive an increased investment deduction.

The possibility to make deductible donations to the Royal Muntschouwburg, as well as the possibility to make deductible donations to equivalent associations or institutions established in other Member States of the European Economic Area.

We are working on the introduction of a new tax reduction for the acquisition of vehicles in a new state, powered exclusively by an electric motor.

This bill also introduces a full decumule in the calculation of the tax reduction for unemployment benefits, following — everyone remembers that — the ruling of the Constitutional Court, which has received a lot of press attention.

Finally, we amend the system of tax preferences for sports clubs that invest in their youth activities. As a reporter, I have already mentioned this.

I would like to comment on two of these measures.

By implementing an amendment to Article 104 of the Income Tax Code of 1992, we create a significant expansion of the possibility of making gifts to cultural institutions tax deductible. With the approval of the bill, not only donations to institutions established in Belgium are tax deductible. Those who donate to cultural institutions located in another Member State of the European Economic Area also enjoy this tax advantage. As a result, from now on, one can enjoy a tax benefit if one gives a gift – I give a few examples so that everyone understands exactly what it is about – to the National Museum of Great Britain for International Modern Art, to the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, the Royal Concertgebouworkest in Amsterdam or even the Wiener Philharmoniker. So one has gone very far in the patronage that one can do for the benefit of institutions engaged in culture.

In addition, the article has been modified in a different way. Since the law of 19 April 1963 stipulated that the Royal Muntschouwburg was active both in the home country and abroad, donations to this important institution were previously not tax deductible. Therefore, this bill has decided to include the Royal Muntschouwburg in Article 104, 3°, f. Thanks to this change, donors to this institution also enjoy a financial advantage.

This was approved in the Committee on Finance. It will not surprise you that we, as liberals, fully support the design. It shows the much-needed attention to culture. In addition, it means expanding and encouraging private financing in the cultural sector. My party continues to emphasize that developing an attractive financing environment is essential for this.

I would like to return to the favourable tax regime for sports clubs, if you invest in youth work. In this bill, the government had reduced the current fiscal favorable measure for sports clubs. I just referred in the report to the fact that it is important that we can encourage our youth to remain active here. In addition, we also had to make the former rather gray zone in which youth coaches and youth activities were to operate – let’s be honest about that – logically and fiscally transparent. The proposal, which was then approved in the Committee on Finance and which was not proposed by the government, but was proposed in the committee itself by almost all political parties, has benefited from the fact that a large number of people have invested in youth work.

The Profliga of football has already made it clear that the bill has been very important. For the football enthusiasts among us – you know it’s not just about football, but all sports – it means that, if the law had not been passed, Lukaku would not have been able to score his four European goals, or that a certain Rits would no longer be working with Germinal Beerschot, but would have been transferred abroad for a long time.

So we have not only been able to raise the level of Belgian football but also the level of basketball, volleyball and other sports clubs. I think it is therefore important that we implement the amendment today.

In the spring of 2010, we will review the entire law together with the Finance Committee and examine to what extent we can better address the youth work and the black zone that also exists in football, so that everything becomes more transparent and clear, with better results for Belgian football, Belgian basketball and Belgian volleyball.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to briefly comment on a few points of the bill. I’m not going to call it a rubbish bowl law, but it is still not easily readable by an amalgam of measures and a number of technical corrections included in it.

There have been good measures included in the draft law, which I would like to briefly explain, although Mr. Van Biesen has already proposed a number of them.

A first major measure, the government wants to extend with the draft an increased investment deduction for the security of occupational premises to rolling equipment. Of course, this will benefit the transport sector, which is sometimes plagued by theft of trucks and robbers. Companies are expected to make additional efforts to better protect their rolling stock against theft.

In addition, this bill also includes an important incentive for the purchase of electric vehicles. The increasing air pollution in our cities and in the industrialized countries is a cause of health problems and global warming. The imposition of stricter automotive standards has already led to greater efforts on conventional diesel engines and gasoline engines and more work on technical developments on electric engines.

Therefore, it is the duty of the government to encourage the purchase of electric vehicles. I am pleased that the government has taken an initiative in this regard. With a 15% tax reduction on the purchase price, she assumes her responsibility.

I would also like to point out the decumulation of the tax reduction for family unemployment benefits and the alignment of the SME tax definition with the definitions used for the presentation of the annual accounts. It is a very small step in simplifying tax legislation, it must of course go much further, but every small step is a step forward.

We also agree to the simplification of the tax system for seafarers in the Belgian merchant shipping. We are pleased that in his reply the Secretary of State has informed that negotiations are ongoing to reach a friendly settlement for the disputes of the past.

Finally, I would like to comment on the amendment that we approved in the committee. Since 1 January 2008, clubs of professional sports practitioners have been granted an exemption of 80 percent for the transfer of the corporate advance fee for the salaries awarded to their sports practitioners. This is a very good measure, aimed at promoting the training of young sports practitioners and allowing young talents, which are in great need of our clubs, to stay longer in our country and shine in the sport. These young talents now too often go abroad too early, attracted by large contracts. The figures prove that the measure has a positive effect.

It was therefore regrettable that in a somewhat dumb way a measure has fallen into the draft law that put the system somewhat on the slope, ⁇ because that measure was introduced with retroactive effect. This means that a number of clubs had to deposit back part of their already withheld corporate advance fee, plus the negligence interest on it. Clubs have already drawn up a budget for the upcoming season. This was a financial adultery. It cited amounts between 180 000 euros and 500 000 euros for the 10 professional football clubs of our country. I think that measure would not be a good thing, on the contrary.

Mr. Potter, allow me to interrupt you for a moment, not to launch an attack, but to say that I largely agree with your comments.

However, it does not testify to good governance to have to discuss and submit an amendment after the vote has taken place. I absolutely agree that the amendment is necessary given the situation. Again, it testifies to a lack of confidence-creating action of the majority when they have difficult moments before a text must be voted, with such an amendment to come to the committee.

But well, it is necessary, so we will also approve it. It makes no sense to blackmail the sports clubs by not approving the amendment now. You will agree with me that it is not the best way to deal with a bill with such a lot of provisions, which are also very technical in nature.

We had two weeks to look at them. I must honestly say that the consequences arising from Article 70 were really unclear to anyone at the time of the discussion. However, it means thinking that we need to solve things in such a way. I hope that the majority is committed to preventing such situations.

I share your opinion that it is not the best way to arrange something. But when drafting the bill, the administration was not 100% aware of the short-term consequences for football, basketball and volleyball clubs, among others.

Today we have the courage to postpone the provisions on this subject to a later date. After all, it is important to have better consultation with the sector before making a decision. I fully agree with this. We should use the time that is now being created to look at how we can improve the system in consultation with the industry. The review of the law that we have planned for next year is an ideal moment for that. We must continue to invest in youth players, youth training and re-framing. All these things must go hand in hand. Consultation is of the utmost importance. We can fully agree with the amendment, the amendment and all other proposed measures. Our group will support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Secretary of State, the Government has once again submitted a nice turf regarding fiscal and various provisions in the House at the end of September. It is a comprehensive document with forty measures. In itself, that is the problem, only is the importance of each measure to discuss or it varies greatly. It was also hunted on a draft by the commission.

Sometimes it involves some unnecessary measures. The government feels compelled to create a new framework for the whole system of meal checks. I don’t understand what is fundamentally changing now, but well, it should be so. Another element is given that this government must make some adjustments to legislative texts on the basis of a number of legal decisions and legal confirmations and administrative positions. Take the concept of SMEs: it is now finally chosen to use the uniform definition of SMEs as in the Corporate Code. The question is whether this will be sufficient and the definition will be implemented consistently. I don’t think this will be enough, but it might be a first step.

Also for the unemployed, the draft law provides for a law adjustment which originates in a judgment of a court, the Constitutional Court, I think. That was of the opinion that for unemployed people the cumul can no longer be accepted and that in the personal tax a decumulation should be carried out. This means that each of both spouses or lawfully cohabiting partners must be taxed separately on their own income, which until now did not apply to unemployment benefits. So it was high time to arrange this.

There are also a number of taxpayers who may sometimes have the eyebrows at the entry into force of a number of provisions in this bill, such as there are the banks, the insurers and the stock exchange companies. I would then refer to the way in which it is now avoided that dividends are taxed twice: the first time at the head of the paying company and the second time at the company receiving them. Until now, an exception applied to bankers, insurance companies and stock exchange companies. With this bill, this preferential treatment is removed.

Then there is the whole story of the sports practitioners and their sports clubs. It will be postponed after the amendment. Our criticism was the conditions created for the increased deduction or exemption of 80 percent of the corporate premium. One of those conditions was the entry into force on 1 January 2009. This is now being discussed after the vote in the committee has taken place. A number of lobby groups have started negotiating with the majority politicians to get a postponement, under the motto that this was not provided in the budgets or under the motto that the play season had already begun. It shows that these articles relating to sports practitioners and their tax elements have been insufficiently or not consulted with the sector.

Now the government must return to its measures with a few hand-and-spent-stakes. It should anticipate its entry into force by July 2010, which does not really show a proper preparation of the elements mentioned in the draft law on the fiscal and various provisions.

Another element is the following. It is almost the end of the year and therefore some tax sweets should be included in the bill. One of the tax sweets is the new tax reduction on the purchase of electric vehicles.

The problem that arises in this regard is that the parties concerned had thought that a discount on the invoice would be implemented, which is the least administratively burdensome and the simplest way of execution. However, such a procedure cannot be used by the federal government, since in that case it operates in the territory of the Regions and thus faces a conflict of competence.

Consequently, the federal government has chosen to implement the reduction by means of a tax deduction via the tax bill, which in itself is administratively more complex and again does not represent an example of administrative simplification. The federal government, however, wanted to settle the matter and not leave anything to the regions.

A number of changes have also been imposed by higher governments, namely Europe. For example, the tax deduction of the gifts in cases where the deduction was previously limited to gifts to institutions established in Belgium, is now extended to gifts to institutions established in the European Union. The above rule thus includes all Member States of the European Union plus a number of other additional Member States, such as Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein.

Mr. Speaker, in globo the bill contains a number of good elements but also a number of elements in which we have a number of questions, for example the tax regime of the tax reduction on electric vehicles as well as the entire scheme developed for the sports practitioners. That is also the reason why the Flemish Belang group will abstain from the entire draft.