Proposition 53K1973

Projet de loi instaurant le principe "una via" dans le cadre de la poursuite des infractions à la législation fiscale et majorant les amendes pénales fiscales.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Jenne De Potter, Carl Devlies, Raf Terwingen
Ecolo Georges Gilkinet
Groen Stefaan Van Hecke
LE Josy Arens
MR Marie-Christine Marghem
Open Vld Carina Van Cauter
PS | SP Alain Mathot
Vooruit Dirk Van der Maelen

Submission date

Dec. 23, 2011

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

administrative sanction tax tax evasion fine legal process criminal procedure

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

N-VA

Abstained from voting

LDD VB

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 ¶

April 26, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer, of course, to the written report I have submitted. I will, with your consent, immediately proceed to my presentation regarding this bill.

The bill introducing the una-via principle in the prosecution of violations of the tax legislation and increasing the tax penalties implements an important recommendation of the Parliamentary Investigative Committee on the large tax fraud dossiers, which published its report on 7 May 2009.

I remember the very important and, by the way, very constructive investigation committee that we held in 2008-2009, in which a lot of solid work was done across the party boundaries. The basis was laid to conclude other agreements to fundamentally address tax fraud.

One of the most important proposals was, in our opinion, the introduction of the one-via principle. Several witnesses supported the one-via principle. This principle implies that violations of tax legislation are either administrative or judicial punishment. They advocate for a system that addresses small-scale tax fraud by administrative means, while for each file of large-scale tax fraud consultation takes place between the tax authority, the police and the court on how the file should be handled.

The present bill also provides a solution to the problem that today can run simultaneously and separately a criminal and an administrative procedure. Not only does this often result in an inefficient use of resources, but the interconnection of procedures is also pressured by the current European case-law on non bis in idem.

In addition, an increase in the fines should have a deterrent effect on the taxable person, regardless of whether he receives an administrative or criminal sanction.

Anyone who is guilty of violating tax legislation in Belgium will quickly fall into the water of tax criminal law. Whenever one commits a fraudulent violation of the tax law, there is a crime and therefore one is immediately in the criminal sphere. The main consequence is that administrative and criminal procedures are constantly structurally intertwined. This does not always lead to an efficient use of time, resources and people. That it has not produced optimal results in the fight against tax fraud does not need to argue.

The bill itself does not change the criminality of any form of tax fraud. However, it provides for a novelty, namely a consultation on the approach to tax fraud, both in terms of fraud phenomena and for individual files. Such consultation shall take place between, on the one hand, the District Director or the official appointed by him and, on the other hand, the Prosecutor of the King. The latter may prosecute criminal offences of which he became aware during the consultation. The consultation may also take place at the initiative of the Prosecutor of the King. The competent police authorities may participate in this consultation. If the Prosecutor of the King initiates prosecution for acts which are criminally punishable, he may, without prejudice to this consultation, seek the advice of the competent Regional Director. The prosecutor shall attach the factual material at his disposal to his request for advice. The Regional Director shall respond to this request within four months of receipt.

This one-way principle is essential in the further fight against tax fraud and should ⁇ be encouraged in this regard. My party Open Vld is convinced that it will result in faster detection and more efficient handling of large fraud files and this without damaging our companies in their daily operations and without bringing them up with additional administrative burdens. After all, it is essential for Open Vld that a faster and better approach to tax fraud does not constitute an obstacle to the vast majority of our bonafide companies that still form the foundation and engine of our economy.

The implementation of the formulated recommendations will no longer increase the fiscal downturn, which will undoubtedly also have a positive impact on our budget.

Remember, on 14 May 2009, we unanimously voted on the investigation report carried out by the Parliamentary Investigation Committee responsible for examining the major cases of tax fraud. This report contained 108 recommendations that were as many shortcomings in the fight against major tax fraud.

Of these recommendations, four were key: the lifting of bank secrecy, anti-abuse provisions, the making more personnel available to the administrative services and finally, the provision we are interested in today, the possibility of the "one way" principle.

At the time, we were aware that some of these proposals would lead to important and sometimes conflicting reforms. For the PS group, it was obvious that tax justice is primary for our country. Indeed, for our group, a just taxation for the well-being of all must be an absolute priority. Taxation must first be a tool for the redistribution of wealth, in particular through the optimal financing of the public service or of our social security systems.

In my opinion, the lifting of banking secrecy was one of the first major advances in this unceasing struggle. We had also submitted a text on this topic which we considered essential. It appeared that Belgium obviously could no longer afford to be pointed to the finger by international bodies such as the OECD. Our country was a sort of exception in terms of bank secrecy.

A few weeks ago, our government realised the anti-abuse mechanism, finally giving the tax administration the weapons necessary to enforce tax law fairly.

This measure is also accompanied by an increase in the number of agents assigned to the anti-fraud services. This is now a major step forward, as we are preparing to vote on our bill aimed at establishing the “one way” principle. The idea of this text is quite simple: thanks to it, the same file will no longer be handled in parallel by both the judiciary and the tax administration. Thanks to the text that we will adopt today – I hope – the prosecutor’s office, the police and the tax administration will now work together to choose the most appropriate path to bring the ongoing investigation to an end.

It should be emphasized that this choice will be made based on the means and needs required by the investigation, the status of the case and its content. From then on, the seriousness of the case will be assessed. This will result in an economy in terms of labour, since it will no longer be two administrations working on the same file, but a single service.

Second, it should be remembered that the fines provided will be equalized between administration and justice. This was not the case before, since the same offence could be punished with completely different fines. This uniformization also allows to decide on the path to follow with regard to the amount of the penalties.

I am ⁇ pleased with this bill, especially since we had submitted a proposal with my colleague Van der Maelen, just after the end of the committee’s work. It took a few years to wait, but better late than never. Following further hearings and an opinion from the State Council, the legitimacy of this text was found to be strengthened. I am very pleased that we were able to find a majority in favor of this proposal.

I will conclude by highlighting one essential element. These new tools made available to the tax administration and justice will, in my opinion, allow considerable money revenues for the state. These revenues are and have always been due to the Treasury.

For my group, it is time, or even urgent, that everyone pays according to their contributive capacity. We have always defended the importance of tax fairness. Every euro raised in the fight against large-scale tax fraud is, in my opinion, a euro that is put at the service of low and middle incomes, of the public service that needs it and of our social security.

In addition, I do not remember the current budget situation. It is even more essential to allow the recovery of a huge shortage to gain for the Belgian state. Indeed, we cannot tolerate that some have to tighten their belts to assume the daily life, while large fraudsters act impunely and steal millions of euros from the community. So much money that benefits neither citizens nor ⁇ but, unfortunately, only a few scrupulous people!

The goal is not to increase tax pressure, but to avoid illegal attempts to evade tax.

We will continue to monitor the implementation of the recommendations in order to strengthen the resources available to combat large-scale tax fraud.

This is an important moment, now that we can begin the discussion of the present proposal during this plenary session and subsequently proceed to the vote on it. Per ⁇ it will even be unanimously approved, which would be very nice.

As previous speakers have also noted, it is one of the important recommendations — ⁇ the most important ones — that have arisen from the work of the investigative committee which examined the fight against large-scale fraud, or rather its failure.

After that, there was a long work on the implementation, which in itself is not bad. After all, the proposal is somewhat revolutionary and very profound. So it was good to prepare it together with specialists in a very thorough way. This has also been done, with the support of the administration and the judiciary, in order to ensure qualitative texts.

The system must be functionally and legally coherent, and hopefully it is also waterproof. After all, we must not forget that during this plenary session we may have a great enthusiasm to approve the present text, but outside the Parliament some people will look at the exact content of it with arguments. I am talking about those who are guilty of large-scale fraud and, of course, their lawyers, who, based on the existing legislation, will try to find out how to escape prosecution and heavy fines.

The text must therefore be qualitatively very good, to avoid searching for gaps, which are then also found.

The major fraudsters will not applaud the proposal, nor will their lawyers. Of course, they will try to be creative.

Colleagues, a second element I would like to point out is the aim of the current legislation, in particular the cases of tax fraud, especially of major tax fraud, to be completed faster and more efficiently. We know the numerous examples of large dossiers that have dragged years, after which they eventually led to nothing after ten, fifteen or twenty years. Of course, such a failure is not the intention. It is intended that tax fraud can be tackled in a more efficient and faster way. It is also intended that individuals and companies who have wrongly failed to pay their taxes pay their taxes correctly, which is also a good thing for the state treasury.

I am convinced that if an efficient anti-fraud system can be put on its feet, it will not only raise more money, but will also work preventively. When fraudsters find that government instruments are being strengthened and that they work efficiently, fewer and fewer individuals will attempt to blame themselves for such large-scale tax fraud.

Those who do so will then no longer encounter a slow, poorly supported tax administration or this legal apparatus, but hopefully a legal apparatus that can effectively tackle this large-scale tax fraud.

However, a new element has emerged between the time the Fiscal Fraud Investigation Committee made this proposal and the time we are conducting this discussion. We can't get around it, but the friendly settlement has been approved. We must take this into account. When this legislation has been adopted and a case is sent to the Court of Justice, due to its importance, it is of course still possible that a friendly settlement can be achieved in the judicial proceedings. The prosecutor can do this. In that case, it may not be our intention to propose an amicable settlement that is lower than the normal tax penalty that the administration would have imposed. This is one of the important elements that we should emphasize. The law on friendly settlement, of course, stipulates that friendly settlements must be concluded on the basis of agreement with and after consultation with the tax administration, but we hear that this is not always the case in practice. We must therefore be careful that this arrangement cannot be obtained through the use of the friendly settlement. However, I am confident that we will be able to manage this problem, provided that a good management from various angles.

Ladies and gentlemen, one last point. This reform is ⁇ profound. She also shows that serious work in research committees can be effectively rewarding, even if the work takes two or three years. I think the outcome that is expected today is very positive. I hope that this will strengthen the fight against tax fraud and, in particular, large-scale tax fraud and can be tackled more efficiently. As I said before, that would be a good thing for the public finances, even though it is actually the most normal thing in the world.

The fight against tax and social fraud is at the heart of our government’s concerns. Many measures have already been initiated within the framework of the 2012 budget and the recent Act-Program.

Even during the previous legislature, progress was made in this area. The Parliamentary Investigation Committee on Major Tax Fraud Cases has done a remarkable job. In its report of 9 May 2009, it made no less than 108 recommendations. In particular, it recommended the introduction of a one-way rule in tax matters, articulated around various coordination bodies composed of representatives of the tax administration and judicial bodies that decide, as bodies, on the follow-up to a tax fraud file, namely the administrative path or the criminal path.

Within the College for Combating Tax and Social Fraud, a working group and experts were commissioned to study how recommendation No. 7 of the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee could be implemented. The Working Group has drawn up a note concluding that, in order to be able to apply the one-way principle in the approach to tax fraud, a frank consultation between the relevant authorities is necessary, but that it must be in compliance with the respective competences of the tax administrations and the public prosecutor, as well as the obvious principles of the rule of law.

The Parliament continued the work initiated at the government level. The bill proposal presented to us today allows the necessary consultation by adapting the provisions of the Act of 4 August 1986 as incorporated in the different tax codes, in such a way as to allow an official holding a degree of director or a higher degree to participate in a consultation with the King’s Prosecutor, as regards the approach to serious and organized tax fraud in the context of phenomena of fraud and individual files without resulting in the nullity of the procedural act.

The implementation of the one-way principle aims to effectively organize the fight against serious and organized tax fraud in order to avoid double use of public resources and to improve their efficiency.

It is therefore necessary that the official with a degree of director or a higher degree who participates in the concertation may be assisted by officials who handle the individual file or who have sufficient expertise in the field.

Such consultation between the judicial, police and tax authorities will therefore be possible, subject to the general principles of law, on the basis of the principle of subsidiarity and the principle non bis in idem.

The principle of subsidiarity implies that the investigation, including the finding of tax fraud and tax debt as well as recovery, remains within the competence of the tax administrations with all legal means at their disposal. If these legal means are not sufficient to tackle and punish tax fraud, the means of investigation of the judiciary should then be able to be deployed, also within the limits prescribed by law.

The tax administrations have the know-how, means and officials to, in the light of the facts established, quickly and effectively determine the tax evaded and recruit it. Furthermore, the means of investigation of the judiciary are more extensive than those available to the tax administrations, so that within the planned consultation, a distribution of the cases of tax fraud can thus be achieved: on the one hand, the cases of relatively simple tax fraud in which the legal means of the tax administration prove sufficient to combat the said fraud; on the other hand, the cases of serious and organized tax fraud which require the means of investigation of the judiciary.

This will be carried out within the framework of the criminal policy of the Minister of Justice and the College of Prosecutors General.

When the one-way rule is introduced in the fight against tax fraud, it will be essential that the fines arising from the administrative procedure have the same dissuasive effect and impose an equivalent proportional penalty. Like the one-way expert group, the Parliamentary Inquiry Committee concluded, in its Recommendation 46, that the criminal sanctions currently imposed in tax repressive files could not satisfy this observation; therefore, it provides for an increase in criminal legal provisions.

This proposal increases the maximum amount of tax fines, which is 12,500 euros or 125,000 euros, respectively, to 500,000 euros. Furthermore, the law of 5 March 1952 concerning additional tithes on tax fines will now be applicable to the various offences covered by the various tax codes.

Finally, we also welcome the procedure established because it respects the basic guarantees of rights and does not affect the principle that the prosecutor’s office remains in charge of the proceedings and prosecutions of criminal offences, while allowing the most effective and quick response to intervene. This will help, we strongly hope, to reduce the feeling of impunity or laxism that some taxpayers might feel given the length of current procedures.

Furthermore, the non bis in idem principle is clearly realised by the fact that tax fines fall when a decision on the rules of procedure has been made to validate the choice of criminal prosecution, i.e. a decision of prosecution and not a decision of non-location.

For all these reasons, the MP will support this text. We will be very attentive to the concrete implementation of this important step for the effectiveness of the fight against tax fraud.

Contrary to other committees set up by this Parliament, the Commission of Inquiry on Major Tax Fraud has done an excellent job and the fruits we reap today.

It has relied on auditions as useful as many and its work has resulted in concrete recommendations, addressing one key topic: this tax fraud that deprives states, each year, of tens of billions of revenues, which constitutes so many additional problems for public finances and threatens our prosperity.

The investigation committee on large-scale tax fraud resulted in a broad consensus and 108 recommendations adopted almost unanimously by this parliament, already three years ago. Some were more or less perfectly implemented. In any case, we have actively collaborated on the lifting of bank secrecy, Mr. Secretary of State. Some are still waiting. In particular, I think of a proposal for a recommendation, which we strongly support, namely the penalization of lawyers who collaborate and participate in fraudulent assemblies. It is not worthy of the ethics of their profession. Other eventually, since 2008, should be added, as fraudsters do not lack energy, imagination, or money to get advice. We should not stop on such a good path.

It is a permanent race of pursuit which neither allows us to drag on the way nor to take imperfect and inoperative measures. Before we come to this bill we have co-signed, I would like to say that it is sometimes our impression – a feeling of slowness. These texts are the result of such compromises that their effectiveness is threatened. I think of a recent debate on the anti-abuse provision. It was necessary to condition the principle of lifting bank secrecy to the establishment of an amicable agreement, which is used by some fraudsters as an additional escape to the penalty they deserve.

The text that is submitted to us, and of which I am co-signed with my colleague Stefaan Van Hecke, aims to ensure that every fraud file takes the right path, whether administrative or judicial, so that tax fraud is prosecuted and punished. In too many cases, which were highlighted during the committee’s work, the absence of this principle of good file orientation has led to preventing the prosecution or accumulating delays in the prosecution of spectacular fraud cases. We hope that, thanks to this device that will be integrated into our tax law, we will be able to avoid this type of asshole or false track.

I would like to emphasize in particular, since the content has been extensively discussed by my colleagues, the interest of the process that led to the adoption of this text and to thank all those who contributed to it. First, there was a commission work, initiated by tax officials careful to perform their task – of which I would like to emphasize the essence – in the best conditions. It has benefited from the collaboration of the various administrative and judicial departments, which have worked to draft sometimes complex procedures, and a broad consensus in this Parliament. Indeed, eight parties signed this text, which was first deposited by our colleague Raf Terwingen, whom I would like to thank in particular.

This is obviously an important step, but it is not sufficient in relation to all the recommendations still to be implemented and those that this Parliament will have to come up with to fight against the tax havens that loot the wealth of developing countries, to fight against fraud mechanisms of all kinds, transfer prices but also the fraud operators (tax lawyers, business banks and speculators) that threaten our economy and – I will use a strong word – our “civilization”.

More than ever, this issue must mobilize the whole of this Parliament. Thank you for the positive vote you will vote in a few minutes.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Secretary of State, colleagues, with regard to the present bill on the introduction of a one-via principle in the prosecution of tax fraud, I wish to implement Recommendation no. 7 of the Parliamentary Investigative Committee on the major tax fraud.

The introduction of the one-via principle implies that infringements of tax legislation are prosecuted and punished either by administrative or judicial means. The choice between criminal or administrative prosecution is a rational choice for as efficient and effective as possible enforcement of tax legislation.

The one-way principle is very much supported. Also the N-VA is in favor of a doubling of the prosecution by the tax administration or the prosecutor’s office, with a distinction between the ordinary tax offences that will be treated by administrative means, and the actual tax fraud for which an efficient criminal prosecution is designated.

The Seventh Recommendation of that Parliamentary Investigative Committee already provided a preliminary description of how the one-via principle should be introduced. The schemes included in this Recommendation therefore provide for a new body, namely the Federal Service for Fighting Tax Fraud.

The former bill proposed by colleagues Van der Maelen and Mathot – Mr Mathot himself referred to it – was therefore a faithful copy of this recommendation, in which we find that federal service for the fight against fiscal fraud. In that bill, the body would be responsible for developing the fiscal prosecution policy and for prosecution in concrete files.

The negative opinion of the Council of State on that bill shows that in the development of the “only way” in the fight against tax fraud not one way but several ways can be followed. In the bill, the applicants had even entered a prohibited path.

The present bill is, in our opinion, again a narrower path than the only way of tax prosecution. The bill is limited to the introduction of a consultation in concrete files between the Prosecutor’s Office, the Fiscal Office and the police services, the suspension of administrative sanctions if the Prosecutor’s Office prosecutes the facts and the quadrupling of the criminal fines.

Unlike the majority parties and the Greens, we believe that the one-way in this bill is a missed opportunity and for five reasons.

First, the bill is for us a missed opportunity to address the cause of tax fraud, in particular the high tax burden and the tax burden differences. Instead, there is a policy aimed at maximizing income by questioning everything that is put on paper.

Second, the bill is a missed opportunity to create a social support for stricter tax fraud prevention among taxpayers who seek to fulfill their statutory tax obligations, despite facing the ever-recurring shortcomings of the IT applications at the FOD Finance. I refer to the recent errors in Tax-on-web, to a legislation whose application is still unknown months after its entry into force, such as the benefit of all kinds in commercial cars, to the legal uncertainty whether the administration understands the intention of the legislator in the same way as the taxable person who, without fraudulent intentions, wishes to follow the least taxable path. Finally, there is still the legal uncertainty whether the administration will not challenge even a clear law.

Taxpayers who attempt to meet their tax obligations are today punished with an administrative fine for the slightest mistake. The State could take a positive attitude towards them by giving, in analogy with the assessment power of social inspectors, the tax inspectors the power to provide information and advice, to give a warning, to impose a regulation or to verbalize in the event of a misapplication of the tax law.

I refer in particular to the fact that the granting of tax advantages is often subject to the fulfillment of certain formalities. Instead of giving the taxpayer the time to regularize those formalities, the tax authority rejects the benefit. Unlike in the fight against social fraud, the taxpayer can only dream of the fact that the tax authority would give him the opportunity to settle, let alone that the tax authority would warn him or provide intelligence or advice.

Third, the proposal is also a missed opportunity to limit the criminal definition of tax offences to those offences that are truly perceived as violations of civil order and which therefore need to be punished by criminal law. All violations of the Code of Income Tax and the Code of Value Added Tax constitute a criminal offence. Well, we must conclude that the fiscal system has not followed the modernization in the social criminal law. After all, with the creation of the Social Criminal Code, a clear classification was made into four levels of sanctions, with the first level only being sanctioned with an administrative fine and no longer criminal.

Fourth, we had the opportunity to meet the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. I would like to refer to the Fiscal Actuality of 18 April. Michel Maus concludes that it is time for the legislature to realize that the legal framework for the fight against tax fraud in the field of legal protection no longer meets the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights.

The fifth and last reason why we consider the proposal a missed opportunity is that the State Council was not asked for an opinion on the provisions at issue.

Collega Van Hecke emphasized everyone’s willingness to draw up a correct legislation, but in the committee meeting I had to determine that his party has not supported our request to seek an opinion from the State Council. Should I remind you of another negative parliamentary experience, namely in connection with the amicable settlement in cases of tax fraud? In the end, it turned out not to apply in the case of fraud. Therefore, we strongly doubt that the proposal in its current form will pass the test of the Constitution by the State Council.

In our view, the bill goes beyond the independent character of the prosecutor’s office in the individual criminal prosecution. Taking into account the jurisprudence of the Council of State, Section of Legislation on what should be understood under the independence of the prosecutor’s office, we strongly doubt whether the present bill can withstand the review of the Constitution, especially since the explanation also speaks of an open consultation. What structure the consultation will get in practice is not yet clear. This is ⁇ the case since the three sentences of the new article 29, paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have not yet revealed all their secrets under the one-via principle.

I conclude that the development of the una-via principle in the bill constitutes a choice between the administrative or criminal prosecution of tax breaches. We can participate in that choice, but the development of the una-via principle should, in our opinion, lead to a legal protection in the tax prosecution at the level of human rights. In our view, the bill does not pass a critical review of the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.

Furthermore, why the bill differs from the one-via principle in the Social Criminal Code is not clear to us. In the development of the one-via principle in the Social Criminal Code, the principles of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights were integrated.

Finally, in our view, an opinion of the State Council would show that the one-via principle at issue still does not pass the constitutional review, since the one-via principle is used for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak for a moment, without discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the present bill. Many parties have done so in the meantime. I am pleased that most parties see the advantages rather than the disadvantages.

I am pleased that Parliament is implementing the Seventh Recommendation of the Parliamentary Investigative Committee on Tax Fraud. That recommendation was, by the way, based on the note of the group of experts who, as a result of the decision of the College for the fight against tax and social fraud in 2009, had to propose a solution to the problem.

I would like to briefly use the opportunity to thank the two Secretaries of State responsible for those aspects of the legislation, Mr. Devlies, and his successor, Mr. Crombez, for the good cooperation. The administration was also very constructive in further editing this bill and to amend it again and again and to find solutions to the comments made by the various parties.

Finally, I would like to thank the colleagues of the parties who will soon approve the bill, for the constructive way in which we have been able to cooperate this time across the boundaries of majority and opposition.

This is clearly an important discussion and an important vote, for myself in the first place. This discussion connects, in fact, with the fact, which we have already seen too often, that procedures for large-scale anti-fraud are ⁇ difficult, euphemistically expressed.

The choice made in the present bill is a choice to start with better procedures and to give more opportunities to combat large-scale fraud. I hear outlining why it could be a missed opportunity, but this has not been a discussion about the tax pressure, not even at all. I don’t even see the connection so well. This has also not been a discussion about the selection of the treatment of the files itself. This proposal marks the beginning of a better management of the files and the procedures themselves.

At the moment, the non-appropriate handling of large fraud files is one of the reasons why the support is sometimes so difficult to find. The contradiction between fighting small fraud and fighting large fraud is simply too big. That judicial path and its optimization is, therefore, both social and fiscal — both gaps are important and in the present proposal it is about the fiscal gaps — the more important.

I would like to thank Parliament for its contribution to this important debate.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly respond to what colleague Veerle Wouters recently said.

In the committee it was stated that the State Council should be consulted, but it should not appear that the State Council had not been consulted on this principle. There is an effective opinion of the State Council, in particular no. 47426 of December 2009. Based on a number of points of criticism due to the State Council, the working group and the specialists sought solutions to obtain a system that responds to the advice of the State Council.

The text was revised and indeed, on that revised text no advice was asked anymore. That is true. However, you must not make it appear that a text was simply drafted without seeking advice from the State Council.

By the way, I do not understand the positioning of the N-VA well. I hear a debate about the high tax rates. Discussions can indeed be held on this subject, but that does not have much to do with it in essence. I hear a lot of arguments about the possible disadvantages. I have the impression that the N-VA apparently has no real will to tackle tax fraud effectively. That’s what I feel when I hear your arguments.

It may well be that there will be a few more childhood diseases, but let’s give the proposal a chance. Let us go for it. Let us ensure that we have an instrument that can effectively tackle large-scale tax fraud. Let us not always look for its possible disadvantages.

This is what I would like to correct for the report.

Mr. President, Mr. Van Hecke, I would like to reply. You say that there was an opinion of the State Council in 2009. As you indicate yourself, a lot of changes have been made to the proposal that was then introduced and we are moving in a different way. You say that this is the only way, but solutions can be offered in several ways.

I think there would have been no problem if we had asked the State Council for an opinion, and I hope for you that the State Council would have given a very positive opinion. If you are so sure that it is all right, the better, but then it should not have been a problem for you to ask for that advice.

With regard to the prosecution of tax fraud, we have made it very clear that we are in favour of the one-via principle. We do not question the principle in itself at all, but we would rather have seen that it was more extensive, that one had compared the more with the one via used in the current Social Criminal Code, and that we could have gone even further than today is the case.

We also ask whether human rights are not violated. When human rights are not respected in the fight against tax fraud, I think it becomes very difficult to create a support for it.

We are not at all opposed to the fight against tax fraud, but as we do, Professor Michel Maus also raises questions about the way the legislation was drawn up.