Proposition 53K2458

Projet de loi portant des dispositions fiscales et financières.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

Oct. 22, 2012

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax tax relief basis of tax assessment service occupation direct tax financing donation tax on income tax collection child care natural disaster public administration damages corporation tax

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

∉ N-VA VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo

Party dissidents ¶

• Bernard Clerfayt (MR) voted to reject.
• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.
• Damien Thiéry (MR) 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 ¶

Nov. 28, 2012 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Carl Devlies, rapporteur, apologised and referred to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the present bill seems very innocent, but it is not, because it contains a lot of provisions with a budgetary impact that often represent an increase in taxes for many families. The title of this bill thus obscures the true nature, since it is mainly about fiscal provisions. For this reason, we have submitted an amendment to change first and foremost the title. The title would rather be “Draft of Program Law”.

Mrs. Wouters, do you fear that the title “Fiscal and Financial Provisions” actually masks that they are taxes? How can one conceal this when one speaks of “fiscal and financial provisions”? You have to explain it to me.

Mr. Minister, I will explain to you why we want to replace this with “Draft of Program Law”. A program law is a law for implementing budgetary provisions. A program law contains all sorts of articles relating to receipts. For example, I think of a change in taxation, a spending or savings. A program law is, therefore, the set of measures to ⁇ the general and financial policy of the budget.

I literally quote the first rules of this draft law, Mr. Minister: “The present draft law constitutes a third layer of the budgetary measures that the government has established in its government agreement of 1 December 2011.” These are also the literal words of the Secretary of State spoken in the committee. Just for the sake of these words I say that this is not actually a bill containing fiscal and financial provisions, but a draft program law.

This bill implements a number of budgetary measures that the government has set out in its government agreement. In addition, the bill prepares the amendment to the Special Financing Act in the context of the sixth state reform. In preparation for this, in the personal tax, most deductions of income are converted into a tax reduction, but these tax reductions are suddenly also tax increases.

For N-VA, the pursuit of greater fiscal autonomy has never meant that the federal government would change the terms of current federal law prior to a state reform. In the past, in every state reform, powers were transferred according to existing legislation.

With the government-Di Rupo, however, this is no longer the case and the greatest uncertainty is created, for example, about what will happen with the housing bonus. In the context of the tax simplification of the personal tax, the deductible expenses, with the exception of maintenance benefits, are converted into tax reductions.

As I have said many times, every time you talk about simplification, it’s usually about an increase in taxes. Now this government even manages to turn tax cuts into tax increases.

From now on, the rate will be adjusted to be 45 % for childcare and gift expenditure and 30 % for other expenditure. The rate is also adjusted, not upwards, but downwards.

I would like to point out that those who earn a little more than the minimum wage are already taxed at a tax rate of 45%. So it is again the working people who will bear the account of this tax increase. Do not say that it is not an increase in taxes, because it is.

While the Flemish government parties at the time in the Dutch-speaking press cheered about the agreement reached on the state reform, in the French-speaking press also appeared a jubilee message that thanks to the agreement reached with the Flemish Region that the same Region would receive approximately 61 million euros less and the citizens would ultimately therefore be more taxed.

Since the formation of the government-Di Rupo, the Flemish parties have thus been twice rolled: once in the loop of state reform and once in the loop of the budget. In the loop of the state reform, Flanders loses 2 billion euros, and if you read the two leaks together, you find that the Flemish Region loses another 61 million euros.

Furthermore, there is no homogeneous jurisdiction at the fiscal level. In the future, the Regions will be exclusively competent to grant the tax reduction for the matters in which they are competent.

I have already pointed out in the committee that there is no homogeneous competence in the area of child allowances. The sixth state reform includes the transfer of family allowances. Competence over the budget of the tax credit for children in custody is not transferred. The State Council identifies the tax credit for children as a subsidy. This is also a subsidy like the child allowance.

As the tax-free amount as well as the increase thereof for the liable persons remains a federal competence, it cannot be ruled out that in the future the federal government will still make expenses on the fiscal level through increases in the tax-free amount. I also refer in this regard to a bill proposed by Mr. Arens, which provides for an increase in the tax-free amount for school students.

A second note to this bill, especially after the developments of the last few weeks – when we discussed this bill it was not yet discussed – relates to Article 2. Article 2 was another fourth repair law to ensure, within the framework of the additional fee of 4 %, that a mobile advance fee cannot be regarded as a professional cost. In the context of the budget talks and the announcement of a dischargeable mobile premium of 25 %, I also believe that this adjustment may not be applied, or in any case will be applied at most for the revenue year 2012. So I think there is an article in this law that we will need to change again next week.

A final point concerns the fund tax, which will be extended from bond funds to mixed funds with a European passport and which do not pay dividends.

I am concerned that this tax is imposed retroactively from 1 July 2005. This tax is now no longer 15%, but 25%. Everything is done within the framework of the Savings Directive. In my opinion it is not so.

I also refer to 2005, when Mr. Verhofstadt introduced a tax or fund tax on capitalization funds that at that time invested more than 40 % in bonds. The fund tax imposes the surplus value that a saver realizes in a sale and which consists of the interest and the surplus value on the yield from the bonds in the fund. This is the interest rate and value added accumulated as early as 1 July.

However, this government now also targets the mixed funds. These are investment funds that contain more shares than bonds. As I said, the percentage of bonds in the fund is now reduced from 40% to 25%, according to the analogy of the Savings Directive. They are, of course, the same funds that the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Reynders, recommended to citizens in 2005 in order to avoid the new tax in 2005.

Those who then followed the advice of Minister Reynders will now be duplicated and grossly deceived, because the value added on those mixed funds will be taxable not from now, but retroactively, from 1 July, and no longer at 15%, but at 25%. Whoever did this, ⁇ did not do it well.

As the reason for the amendment, Mr. Minister, you note in the bill that the fund tax is extended due to the Savings Directive. This was also mentioned in 2005. That was the excuse. Nothing is less true, however, because the Savings Directive is about information exchange. If a Belgian receives interest in another Member State, that Member State shall notify the Belgian Fiscal Authority. However, this does not mean that Belgium should also tax that interest. That is not in it. Since 1 January 2011, EU member states have been obliged to exchange information on mixed funds. That is the same. This also does not mean that Belgium now suddenly has to tax those incomes.

I found it very strange that that change came, because the extension, to the extent I could find it, is not in the government agreement and, in my opinion, not in the 2012 budget.

Furthermore, that amendment in the draft law containing fiscal and financial provisions is misleadingly placed under the section “Companies and Other Legal Persons”, while – and I would like to point out on that – it is the savers, i.e. the natural persons, who will pay this additional tax. In this way, the government is trying to sleep this Parliament well.

The Secretary of State wanted to squeeze me and said it has a very limited impact. This may be true for the Belgian banks, as they have often issued investment funds without a European passport and are not taxable in this context, but in Belgium a large number of investment funds are sold and issued by foreign institutions, in particular Luxembourg sicavs, and they all have a European passport, with the result that they fall under this system and become taxable.

The way these tax increases are carried out in a sluggish way is unacceptable for us. Therefore, we will vote against this bill.

A bill containing various fiscal and financial provisions contains, by definition, positive measures and other measures that are less.

Among the positive measures I will mention those that improve the progressivity of taxation or that extend certain taxations to capital income. They are not always the result of political choices but external demands. Others are less interesting, because they are deprived of the ability to contribute capital income, movable income of foreign nationals to the financing of public entities, especially local.

I will have two main considerations to formulate in relation to all the provisions mentioned. The first concerns the modification of the tax masses before the transfer of certain policies as part of the state reform. In the event of a decrease in masses, less margins of manoeuvre will be transferred to the federated entities.

This results in less capacity for them to develop tax systems or more just and efficient subsidy systems as they would like. The less significant the amounts transferred will be, the less significant will be their margin of manoeuvre and their ability to effectively impose their own brand in the future on the new skills that will be transferred to them.

We will be careful as part of the upcoming work to ensure that, as you have done in the past with the abolition of tax aid to isolation, this does not become a habit on the part of the federal state. In a state like ours, we need more cooperation and respect for partners!

My second reflection concerns Article 23 of the bill, which is the consequence of a judgment of the Constitutional Court of 8 March last year. This judgment found an unequal treatment between couples who own a home and tenants as regards the possibility of tax deduction that a taxpayer can obtain for works to secure his home against theft and fire.

As a result of this decision, the law is amended, but retroactively. Therefore, the processing of the tax returns of the taxpayers concerned for the income of the year 2011 has been stopped. A few tens of thousands of people are, today, in expectation, often with the prospect of benefiting from a tax refund.

The fact that you have been delayed to make your decision, the fact that you have decided to block the processing of statements of these people is one way of improving the federal state treasury, but at the expense of tens of thousands of households, which I do not think is a positive way to function.

In anticipation of the next meeting of the Finance Committee – in your presence I hope – I have submitted a precise question concerning the number of taxpayers affected by the decision that was taken at the budgetary level, also concerning the processing of previous statements that will need to be corrected. I would like to know the actual budgetary effect of the measure that has been taken.

In any case, the treatment you have reserved for this problem is unsatisfactory. In fact, it is inappropriate to take taxpayers hostage and to take as much time to settle a matter that could have been before the summer, which would have allowed the interested parties to benefit, if necessary, of reimbursements to which they are entitled.

I would also like to mention what has been discussed in the committee. Some of the aforementioned points have already been the subject of extensive discussion in the committee. I will return to a couple of points.

As regards your comments on corporate tax, I would like to point out that the measure relating to investment funds is primarily a response to a judgment of the Constitutional Court extending the existing legal provisions to the investment funds established in the European Economic Area rather than in the European Community. The statements you refer to date, as you have indicated, from before 2005. However, some years have passed and an evolution has occurred internationally, especially with regard to the tax treatment of interest or moving income in general. It would be contradictory if we exchanged that information according to the Savings Directive – the current Directive, not the Directive of 2005 – whereas in Belgium we would allow an investment fund that generates international revenues which we can consider as interest but which we would not consider as interest according to our domestic legislation. In other words, I ask that in regard to this comment, we should take evolution into account.

I have a second observation relating to a matter cited by Ms. Wouters. I would like to specify that Article 2 of the draft stipulates that the additional fee of 4 % levied by the company on its shareholders is not a professional cost. That is a logical extension, because that 4% is not deductible in itself.

I would also like to comment on Mr. Gilkinet, which I listened attentively. As your party knows, the federal has not taken the decision of a total standstill while waiting for the transfer. It is not by making arrangements, which in some cases also facilitate the taking of responsibilities of the Regions, that we reduce the chances of the Regions to take their own responsibilities by choosing, if necessary, other formulas in the future.

Nothing prohibits us from doing what we do. However, I draw your attention to the fact that a number of things are being accomplished precisely to enable the Regions to fully assume their responsibilities, taking into account the effects of a budgetary nature. I cannot deny it, either in one way or the other. It is also a matter of responsibility. I am also referring to the report of the Supreme Council of Finance, which declares in full transparency that between today and 2015, the assumption, in any form whatsoever, of the budgetary effort up to 1% of GDP will have to be assumed by Entity II.

We will have to incorporate all this into our reflections. However, this is not to say that if something is likely to have an impact on the amounts to be transferred on the day that the law will allow it, it will reduce the capacity, the potential for new policies for the Regions, or even the Communities. It must be made a clear distinction between the autonomy that these governments, these entities will receive and the management in the meantime by the federal in full responsibility but also taking into account the budgetary limits that we must assume today.

Mr. Minister, as regards this last point, you say that nothing prohibits the government from doing what it does. Nevertheless, as part of a balanced, fair-play and effective relationship for collaboration between the governing entities of the country, we must be attentive. We have not forgotten and will not forget the example of the unilateral abolition of tax aid to isolation, which was an unfair act towards the Regions and a very bad alloy in economic and environmental terms. The responsibility of our group and all other groups is to be attentive to this type of choice. I would like to inform you that we will continue to be vigilant.

Mr. Minister, you refer to the Savings Directive, which I also mentioned. I have made it clear that in the framework of the Savings Directive the characteristics have been adjusted and the limit has been reduced from 40 % to 25 %.

I would like to emphasize that the Savings Directive primarily addresses information exchange and information exchange has nothing to do with taxes. That was my point.