Proposition 53K1737

Projet de loi portant des dispositions fiscales et diverses.

General information ¶

Submitted by

CD&V Leterme Ⅱ

Submission date

Sept. 16, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

excise duty tax capital gains tax indirect tax tax on income postal service tobacco

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA LDD VB

Abstained from voting

Vooruit

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.

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. 13, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur is Mr. by Steven Vandeput. He returns to the written report.

Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the draft law that presents must already supplement the newly introduced regulation on breaking the fiscal banking secret. This is not so surprising because the current regulation is the result of a number of amendments to the bill containing various provisions, during the committee meeting of 2 March 2011.

In this way, the government parties could avoid the advice of the State Council. Subsequently, however, the hearings in the Senate on the amicable settlement showed that the State Council opinion would have been ⁇ useful. The same applies to the advice in this bill.

Let me outline the current regulation. Since 1 July 2011, it has been much easier for the tax authority to obtain information about the financial situation of a taxable person through the bank. The so-called bank secrecy no longer constitutes an obstacle for the tax authorities, and that in two cases. First, when the tax authority has one or more evidence of tax evasion. Second, when the fiscal officer wants to establish an attack based on signs and clues.

There are quite a few rand conditions. For example, the tax authority must first ask the information from the taxpayer itself. If this information is insufficient, or if the taxpayer does not respond, the tax authority should seek permission from the head of the service. Subsequently, the taxable person must be notified at the time that his bank is addressed.

It is just about that last frame condition that a problem arises. The law states that if the tax office informs the taxpayer of the banking investigation, it also “communicates the indication or the indications of tax evasion that must justify a request for information from a financial institution”.

So the question is the following. Should the tax officer, when he requests information from a bank because he intends to establish an indication on the basis of signs and indications, inform the taxpayer of the indication or indications of tax evasion which the administration has at its disposal?

If the current law is interpreted literally, the intention of an index assessment can break the bank secrecy only if there is evidence of tax evasion. If this is not the case, it will not go.

This text is, by the way, the same as that concerning the request of data at a central point of contact. The administration will only be able to request information from the central contact point if its investigation has provided evidence of tax evasion and therefore not if one has only the intention to carry out an indicative assessment without evidence of tax evasion.

This provision is not amended by this draft law, which only strengthens us in the belief that the legislation we adopted in March is coherent and correct on this point. That text is also closely related to the interventions of the majority on banking research. According to the majority, banking investigation should be possible when there was an indication or evidence of tax evasion, i.e. fraud.

I refer again explicitly to a statement by colleague Rutten, which I do not see here now, but which was addressed to Mr. Van der Maelen, who is present here. She said it was fraud, only fraud. "Fraud is fraud in all cases and we are not too upset and not selective."

With the current draft law, I think the majority will come back to that. From now on, the notification to the taxable person will have to include the indications of fraud or the information on the basis of which it considers that the investigation conducted leads to a possible application of Article 341.

Mr. Speaker, in respect for the work of Mrs. Wouters and, as I suspect, the staff and others who have viewed the document, the following.

Mrs. Wouters, you asked a very precise question. Due to a file problem, Mr. Clerfayt has just entered. I have noted the question, but I ask you to make it clear again for Mr Clerfayt’s sake. The government’s response is in fiscalibus, of course, guiding the way the law will be applied. I apologize for the fact that Mr Clerfayt has just arrived and ask you to formulate again very precisely your question concerning the communication to the taxpayers on the information request concerning the indices. In this way, our officials will be able to find the response of the government in the preparatory work later.

Thank you, Mr Prime Minister.

Mr. Secretary of State, the problem I am addressing here is actually the reason why the bill has been amended right now. It is about the fact that the taxable person must be notified at the time the bank is addressed. In the current regulation it is very specific that when informing the taxable person, the indications of tax evasion for which a bank investigation is opened must be communicated to him. Until now, the question was whether, in the case where the taxable person was to be informed because he intended to establish an offence on the basis of signs and indications, therefore indications should be given in the context of tax evasion. If the law is interpreted literally today, it should be interpreted. However, I believe that this question is no longer relevant due to the current amendment of the draft law.

Through the present draft law, this regulation has actually been amended. In fact, if I have understood it correctly, the notification to the taxable person will now have to indicate the indications of fraud or the data on the basis of which it is believed that the investigation carried out leads to a possible application of Article 341 or to an attack based on signs and indications. With that last addition to this bill, contrary to what colleague Van der Maelen predicted in the committee, any discussion is now closed, at least as regards banking research.

However, I reiterate that, according to the case-law, an attack on the basis of signs and clues does not constitute any evidence of tax evasion. This draft law thus goes on, which in our opinion could lead to abuse. While no evidence of tax evasion is yet available, the administration could simply break bank secrecy by possibly expressing the intention to initiate an attack based on the external signs of prosperity that the taxpayer shows. I imagine that when buying a second home, an expensive car or maybe a sailing yacht, the taxpayer with the threat of a bank investigation that could sometimes force the taxpayer to “voluntarily” put his bank extracts on the table.

In the current situation, it is apparent that the establishment of tax on the basis of the external signs of prosperity, in the case-law very regularly gives rise to the destruction of that act by arbitrariness. This is not only because the administration has too little information about the taxable person’s lifestyle, but also because it often fails to take into account the income not to be declared. In this context, I think of income from another taxable period, income that does not need to be declared or income of a person living together with the taxable person, and so on.

Where the evidence of signs and indications already gives rise to arbitration in the determination of the taxable basis, it is, in my opinion, justified to fear that the intention to use that evidence for the purpose of obtaining an additional investigative authority could also lead to abuse.

Since the abolition of bank secrecy is possible for some without evidence of fraud and for others not, I think we are going to create a new problem, more specifically regarding the violation of the principle of equality.

In addition to that article, Article 319a of the 1992 WIB was also amended. The recipient is not bound by bank secrecy. This is not new, but in order to safeguard that principle in practice, it is clarified that the recipient is not obliged to fulfill all the formalities I have just discussed, if he wants information from a bank or the central register.

If, in that context, I compare the legal status of a private creditor with that of the tax authority, then I do not think that we can still talk about equality of creditors. This adjustment gives the recipient a huge information advantage over another creditor.

Therefore, it may not be a bad idea to generalize access to such a register. I refer specifically to the European Commission Green Paper of 6 March 2008. The Green Paper aims to improve the transparency of the debtor’s assets by registering and issuing a debtor’s asset statement.

In many different Member States, access to these registers is not limited to privileged categories such as the tax authorities. I would like to conclude my explanation.

That is why our group will vote against the present bill.

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.

The first two refer to transposition of directives or respond to orders from the European Commission. We expect creativity and volunteerism. It is possible, at the same time, to enter into a European logic and to preserve positive specificities of our law. Too often, European signals lead to less regulation, which is problematic for both the Public Treasury, citizens and ⁇ .

As regards, first of all, the scattered taxation of surplus values, current legislation provides that the surplus values concerned must be reinvested in immovables used in Belgium for the exercise of a professional activity. From now on, this latitude will be extended to investments throughout the European Economic Area, which will cause obvious control difficulties as the tax Europe advances much less quickly than the Europe of markets and deregulation. This provision is a problem for us.

Another aspect poses problems. This is the removal of the registration as an entrepreneur. This registration is a useful arrangement in the perspective of quality control and defense of entrepreneurs who comply with the rules of the game. My colleague, Murielle Gerkens, and I have submitted an amendment to maintain that registration optional since Europe disputes the mandatory nature of that registration. If we had been followed, we could have responded to the European Commission’s order by transforming the obligation into a faculty, but our amendment was not supported by the majority. This could have been an elegant way to solve the issue. I therefore regret that we were not supported, especially since this responded to an expectation of the entrepreneurs themselves, but also of citizens who want to know if the entrepreneur with whom they want to work is actually registered.

We will reintroduce this amendment, understood that we have recorded the government’s willingness not to implement this deletion provision until we have reached an agreement on this subject; but it seemed to us that already we could maintain this registration as an optional one.

Thus I come to the third point that poses problem in this bill containing tax and various provisions. It does not relate to European directives or orders. It is about the abolition of bank secrecy.

It will be remembered in this Parliament that this principle has been acquired with high struggle. It was voted and should lead to greater efficiency of the tax services in the fight against fraud. This is especially important given the current budget circumstances.

We unfortunately feel little enthusiasm from the ministers and secretaries of state responsible for the matter to implement these principles. I have already asked the Minister of Finance about the establishment of the central contact point, which is a cornerstone of this bank secret lifting arrangement. I must have noticed before the holidays that the issue had not advanced much. If I ask him again in the coming weeks, maybe he will give me better news.

In the present case, within the framework of this bill, both the amendments introduced by the majority and the explanations given in a committee session by the Minister of Finance constitute retreats from the spirit of the initial texts and, therefore, in terms of the capacity of the tax services to effectively combat tax fraud.

To make things clear, our reading of the current law is that access to data, which will be centralized in the contact point to be set up at the level of the National Bank, is either allowed in case of indication of fraud, or simply in case of intent of taxation on the basis of Article 341, that is, according to external signs of wealth, to put things simply.

by Mr. Reynders and Ms. Rutten questioned this principle in the committee. You are trying to dismantle what has been done after very long months of work and in application of the findings of the commission of inquiry on the large tax fraud. Mr. Secretary of State, I find this very serious! This is unacceptable! That is why we will not vote on this law containing various provisions on tax matters.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Ministers, Mr. Secretary of State, I would like to talk about the law on the repair of the recent provisions on bank secrecy adopted in March 2011. In the old article it was stated that there must be evidence of fraud before one can proceed to an abolition of bank secrecy. According to the majority parties that voted on the new article, the major renewal was article 341, the index taxation, the opening of a path to come to an abolition of bank secrecy.

During the discussion in March, I already said it would be a dead mouse. After what we have experienced in the committee and after what we have heard today from colleague Wouters of N-VA, I am afraid that one will close the door. What was the problem with the old law? One can talk about it for a long time, but one figure reveals everything: in 2009 the bank secret was lifted ten times in Belgium. You hear it well. That is less than in Switzerland. It gives you an idea of how much Belgian legislation has blocked the path to the abolition of bank secrecy. According to the colleagues of the majority, the new track of index-based taxation would open a new path.

Today we heard colleague Wouters. In the committee, colleague Rutten in an agreed tweet with the Minister of Finance made a first attempt to make that second track a dead mouse. The text of the law is clear. For the first track, the old track, one must have evidence of tax evasion.

For the second pillar, see Article 333.1 as regards the notification to the taxable person, the taxable person must be communicated the information on the basis of which it considers that the investigation conducted leads to a possible application of Article 341.

Colleagues, data is not evidence of fraud. These data refers here to the data used in the already decades-long existing index-based assessment procedure. Whatever Mrs. Rutten, whatever Minister Reynders or what later also the Secretary of State may answer to that question, the text of the law is clear. An interpretation given by a Chamber Member, by a Secretary of State or by a Minister cannot contradict this.

There are now two possibilities: either the March 2011 renovation will become a dead mouse or we will keep that track open. I would like to repeat again, as the Prime Minister has said, that what is said here regarding the interpretation of those articles is of the utmost importance. The text of the law is clear and clear: data is not evidence of fraud.

Mr. Van der Maelen, we have had this discussion in the committee. You then made an attempt to confuse the text of the law with interpretations. The only thing that both the Minister of Finance and I have done is to clarify the text of the law.

If someone wants to give an interpretation and cause confusion, then you are, and then you are responsible for the misunderstandings that exist about it. That is your responsibility, because the text of the law is what it is and it is ⁇ clear.

Honestly, for someone who fights tax fraud and for someone who fights tax confusion it would decorate you to stick to the text of the law, that’s what my faction is doing and that’s what the government is doing. However, if you want to throw a stick into the chicken cage, that is your responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, now you are putting things completely on their heads. I read the text of Article 331 because you asked for it.

"In the cases referred to in Article 322, § 2 and 327, § 3, paragraph 2, the Administration shall notify the taxable person of the indication or indications of tax evasion or of the information on the basis of which it considers that the conducted investigation leads to the possible application of Article 341."

That is the text of the law.

In the committee, you asked the minister whether, in the case of Article 341, the fraud should be or not. This was a clear tweet that you agreed with the Minister of Finance.

I then reacted as I reacted now and I tell you that the text of the law is clear: data is not equal to fraud.

Mr Van der Maelen, I will give the floor to Mrs Rutten.

Mr. Speaker, I am not the only member present here today who would like to note that Mr. Van der Maelen’s words are pertinently incorrect.

Mr. Van der Maelen, the point is that we have agreed on a cascade system in which, in any case, in the first instance, the taxpayer is addressed. Do you agree with this? You agree with it.

The point where confusion has arisen in you is that it is not necessary to make clear to the taxpayer concerned at any time what it is about.

What I have clarified is the text of the law. I strictly adhered to the text of the legal provision. After all, Mr. Van der Maelen, when an investigation is initiated, the taxable person has the right – this seems to me elementary in a rule of law – to know what is being charged to him or her.

This is the subject of the current discussion.

At no time have I taken into my mouth the words you are talking about. However, if you want to create confusion, by which you want to initiate a whole jurisprudence, which actually aims at the opposite outcome of what you express yourself, then that is your responsibility. Mr. Van der Maelen, that is your responsibility.

I am really tired of the debate on the subject. The point is that we do not organize witch hunting against our citizens and that, on the other hand, we obtain a correct application of the regulations. This implies that when citizens are notified, the government will also let them know what is being charged with them. This is not merely a reference to the relevant legal article, but also an explanation of the point concerned. That is the discussion.

I will not override the entire discussion here. You continue to create confusion. You also keep throwing everything on a lot. Such an attitude is unheard of.

I really hope that the discussions of the committees here do not begin again. Otherwise, we will never get out of it.

I have to speak to Mrs. Rutten on this matter. She has not spoken about tax evasion or tax evasion. It also did not contend that in the above cases the data should be transmitted to the taxable person. She literally read the text.

For us, something is a problem.

For the N-VA group, the text in the preamble was, in fact, coherent, ⁇ when referring to the text concerning the request of the data at the central point of contact. This text has not been amended. When the two texts are placed side by side, in particular the request at the central contact point or the fact that the person concerned can contact the intelligence service at the bank itself, there is indeed a noticeable difference.

However, as the law is now being amended, I think there is no discussion anymore. There is, on the one hand, the way through which, at the moment there is a clue or clues, a bank investigation can be initiated or the bank secret can be broken.

On the other hand, one can adjust an attack based on signs and clues. But this does not mean tax evasion, because I have made it very clear that an attack based on signs and clues does not in itself indicate tax evasion. This link cannot be made. They are both separated. It is an or-of story. We had a whole and-of-discussion in March. I think Mrs. Rutten’s interpretation is correct.

I will make the confusion even greater. I fully agree with the interpretation that colleague Wouters gives to the text.

There is a first track, the old track, based on clues. What does the new March law say? If one follows that track, one must first inform the taxpayer in advance – with which I fully agree, I have it, by the way, also so inscribed in the bills I have submitted – that one intends to abolish the bank secret and one must also give the taxpayer the instructions.

In the second track, in the index-based assessment, no evidence of fraud is needed to start. We agree on this. If one starts that and one wants to go to the procedure of the abolition of the bank secret, then one must give the taxable person in advance – I fully agree with it – the data that led the service to come to that indicative assessment.

What is the discussion between you, Mrs. Wouters, and Mrs. Rutten? You see the danger, Mrs. Wouters, that the bank secrecy will be more easily lifted. That is something that Mrs. Rutten is bored with, but her problem is that her party in the government has agreed to it. So she, through a tweet with the Minister of Finance, tried to give a restrictive interpretation to the text.

I repeat once again that the text of the law is clear. In the second track, if one wants to move to the assessment on the basis of indications, one does not need any evidence of fraud. This is the only point of renewal of the new law of March 2011. This track has wanted to narrow Open Vld, in consultation with the Minister of Finance. It is clear that Mrs. Wouters and I stand on the side of the bill. Mr. Rutten tried in the commission to narrow the entrance gate. Unfortunately for her, it has failed, thanks to the vigilance of Mrs. Wouters and myself.

I am convinced that the Minister cannot say anything else. The text of the law is clear.

Mr. Van der Maelen, the truth here has its rights.

The discussion in the committee was about what should be ⁇ in notification. Your version was that there was merely to be ⁇ that a procedure would be initiated based on signs.

What I mentioned in the committee is that this is not enough. I read the text of the law literally. The rightful person has the right to know which signs and indications are placed on him or her.

That seems to me elementary in a rule of law and not just a reference to a vague article on the basis of which you would too much like to let the administration go to the citizens.

We do not pick that. The taxpayers in our country have the right to know what they are looking for and also have the right to correct and clarify things in the context of the cascade procedure, which we have approved.

You sow confusion and you think you can play Mrs. Wouters and me out of connection, quod non.

A legal person in our country has the right to know what is being charged with him or her and that is the only and correct reading of the law article.

I would like to assist Ms. Rutten in part when she says that the data to be ⁇ are the data on the basis of which it is believed that they lead to an investigation.

There is no word on the indication of fraud. Mrs Rutten, I think you can solve the problem for Mr Van der Maelen. You agree with the track that there must be no fraud if an attack occurs on the sign of clues.

In that case, the banking secret can be lifted through the second piste without revealing any specific tax fraud or tax evasion. After all, one can perfectly start an attack based on clues, such as when the tax officer finds that what is stated in your tax note does not really match your lifestyle.

In principle, I think that is a sufficient given. If the tax authority finds that my lifestyle is too high compared to what I declare to the taxes, there is therefore no tax evasion or fraud.

From that moment on, you will be informed of the data. You will be asked to answer why you are driving a too thick car and why you have been on holiday too much. Therefore, it is not yet certain that you have committed tax fraud. You can perfectly argue afterwards that this is due to income that you did not have to declare that year because you happen to cohabit with someone who needs to fill out other declarations.

I agree that you did not say that it was about whether or not the data should contain tax evasion or so. However, I would like to point out this and to assist Mr Van der Maelen by saying that there must be tax evasion when initiating an investigation.

I find it hard to understand all the subtlety of the debate you are conducting here!

The abolition of bank secrecy is an infringement on the private life of taxpayers.

This is a violation of the privacy of the taxpayer. The removal of bank secrecy is justified only in circumstances limited by law to allow the Administration of Finance to calculate the fair tax.

The law explicitly provides for two cases in which banking and financial institutions can be questioned for information that allows calculating the fair tax. This is primarily a fraud case. An indication of fraud is not fraud. However, sufficient material evidence is required to indicate that there are signs of fraud.

It may not be fraud. We do not know yet. There is a whole list of examples of these material elements that are found in the committee report that dates from a few months ago, when we addressed this issue before discussing the project in the session.

With regard to the second case, it is Article 341, where the administration plans to make a re-evaluation on an indicative basis of the taxpayer’s situation.

The word “index” can be found in both cases. Fraud index in one case and index reassessment in the other. In both cases, there must be sufficient evidence to justify the lifting of bank secrecy.

We discuss here the conditions under which the bank secret can be lifted and the formalities that must be accomplished before having access to the privacy data of that taxpayer, which is located on his bank account. Before the administration can have access to the bank account, it must correctly and fully inform the taxpayer either on the indications of fraud or on the indicative elements, which are a form of indicators of fraud, which will lead the administration to lift the bank secret.

It seems to me that the text is sufficiently clear and that the debate we have here is rather a debate about the gender of angels, which has led to many councils. I believe that we can continue with the vote on this text, since the discussions in committees have already clarified this issue.

I think so too, but Mrs. Rutten wants to speak again.

Mr. Speaker, however, because I regret that again the confusion is created by Mr. Van der Maelen. The Secretary of State has been very clear.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you know this very well. Both when it comes to clues as well as when it comes to signs and clues, which, by the way, is already an existing article in the legislation, the discussion was about which procedure to follow.

Since it is not about proven fraud but about clues or about signs and clues, it seems essential for our group to inform the right-wing person about the facts concerned and to give him or her the opportunity to put things in order and eliminate any uncertainties. That is essential.

You are throwing two things on a bunch. You throw the difference between the two inputs on a bunch with the procedure to be followed. This is only for your account in the fight against tax fraud.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for continuing this discussion, but it is really crucial.

I repeat it. With the old legislation, bank secrecy was abolished in Belgium 10 times in 2009. That is less than in Switzerland.

If we want the new legislation to bring us to the level of tax-civilized countries such as the Netherlands, Germany, France, Great Britain, then this discussion is crucial.

Either the addition of a new gateway in order to get to the abolition through index-based assessment makes sense and then this means that for that procedure one cannot demand what one requires in the old legislation, namely indications of fraud. This is the discussion that determines whether the new legislation will be able to be used in Belgium.

What is the problem now? Why did Ms. Rutten ask the question? In Fiscologist, fiscalists point out that by opening a new gate, one will now more than ever be able to lift the bank secret.

Despite the fact that Minister Van Quickenborne said this week in the newspaper that “we liberals also want the fight against fraud to be improved”, we note that a prominent member of the Committee on Finance is trying to limit the scope of the new law by saying that when notifying the taxpayer...

Mrs. Rutten, stop saying that we don’t want that. It was in my own bill.

It was stated in my bill that the abolition of bank secrecy is only possible after the taxpayer has been given the opportunity to make the information available himself. Stop with that! What you have wanted to do is to limit the use of the new article – which allows to bring Belgium to the normal level in terms of the abolition of bank secrecy – to limit the use of the new article. You have tried that. Please admit that. be honest . Don’t start saying I want a blind hunt to take place here. It is the point of view of the Sp.a. that a lifting of bank secrecy can only be achieved after the taxpayer has been given the opportunity to provide the information that is sought.

Mr. Van der Maelen, you are incredibly intellectually unfair. That’s probably nothing new, but I’m just sitting here for a year and I’m upset by it. Other colleagues probably have been doing this for years, but I am still trapped on my soul. Signs and clues, namely external characteristics, do not mean yet that people have committed fraud. This is not the case, Mr. Van der Maelen. That is essential.

with evidence of fraud. You have tried that.

Dear colleagues, let them speak one after another and try to stay calm by respecting each other.

Mr Van der Maelen, the essence of this adjustment is as follows. Where, in the past, there should have been identified fraud, we now move to a mechanism that consists of clues on one side or signs and clues. However, this must be done in a way that gives the taxable person the opportunity to demonstrate that there is no fraud at all. What you do, Mr. Van der Maelen, is everyone, but really everyone who could come into the vizier with this procedure would point the finger and say that he or she is a fraud. That is at your expense!

We want to deal with the real fraudsters. We want to address those who avoid the law. However, we do not think, Mr. Van der Maelen, that anyone who pays taxes in this country would by definition be a fraudster. That’s your interpretation, not ours.

I am going around, Mr. President. This is really essential!

With this law article we open two possibilities, on the basis of which the procedure is identical. The taxpayer is given the opportunity to answer and, where there is a misunderstanding, to explain that it cannot.

In your bill, Mr. Van der Maelen, it concerned all incomes that were not declared, including the incomes that should not be declared. The fundamental difference between your party and our party is that we are behind the true fraudsters and that for you everyone in the country is per definition guilty. It does not need for us.

Mr. Van der Maelen, can I ask you to continue? Another possibility is that there are differences between the parties. Otherwise, what would we do?

Colleague, you are trying to pretend that our discussion is about whether or not to inform a taxpayer in advance that one is committed to lifting bank secrecy. Please stop there. I told you that we agree on this point. Look at the content of my bill. But, colleague, what have you done? Since you have received the message from all kinds of tax lawyers to look at the articles and take care because a gate was opened, you have tried with your party to close it. I am pleased that this debate will at least allow that door not to be closed.

I will come to the last point in the same procedure. As regards the index-based assessment, I submitted an amendment because there is still uncertainty as to the possibility of contacting the central point of contact. If I look at the text that prefaces, then someone who is of bad will – tax lawyers who defend a taxpayer in a major fraud, go looking for all sorts of procedural errors – can sometimes use that. If in the procedure for the abolition of bank secrecy the tax office has used to the central contact point and there has requested all bank account numbers, on the basis of the current legislation, a lawyer could even say that the entire procedure is void because there was no right to contact the central contact point.

Therefore, I have submitted an amendment that we will submit to vote later. I hope that the colleagues who are good at tackling fraud will approve this amendment.

I need to assist Mrs. Rutten.

I would like to take a closer look again, Mr. Van der Maelen. You should be very pleased with the proposal on banking research, as it is presented now. We have a different view on this, but I think there is no adder under the grass for you. I think Mrs. Rutten is right on this point. I understand your reaction to what is here, not really. I would rather think that the VLD would not agree with this, but I do not understand that you are responding to this proposal on behalf of the sp.a.

I did not say anything about this until the telephone question of Mrs. Rutten came to the Minister of Finance. Then I said that one should be careful because there were attempts to do what tax lawyers have warned in Fiscolog and other magazines, in particular that the provision as it is now in the law will lead to slightly more abolitions of bank secrecy. Mrs. Rutten tried to close that door, and I protested against it.

Thank you, Mr Van der Maelen.

I feel a little like it might have taken an additional meeting of the Finance Committee to smooth out this kind of interpretation. If you want to go too fast, you find yourself with major misunderstandings. This seems to me regrettable. I therefore call on the chairmen of committees to finalize the work well before coming to the plenary session. This is an independent observer opinion.