Proposition 53K2756

Projet de loi portant des dispositions fiscales et financières et des dispositions relatives au développement durable.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

April 17, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

VAT EC Directive Greece excise duty alcoholic beverage bank tax return tax relief tax evasion special tax cultural event direct tax customs customs duties performing arts sustainable development protection of privacy electronic document inheritance euro area financial institution tax incentive guarantee indirect tax computer system tax on income tax collection international loan Internet investment small and medium-sized enterprises credit institution research and development public borrowing undisclosed partnership head of State corporation tax insurance tax-free allowance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo ∉ N-VA LDD VB

Party dissidents ¶

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

May 16, 2013 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I refer to my written report.

The title of the bill already indicates that we have dealt with several topics in that bill.

A first theme, which I find very positive in this bill but which, in my opinion, has not yet been sufficiently elaborated, are the reforms in the light of the tax shelter. We believe that is a first step in the right direction, including the special arrangement for the animation sector and the investment obligation. We fully agree with that.

However, I would like to point out once again that the hearings we have held on this subject have highlighted many other problems, such as the risk for investors in tax disputes and the formation of tax auditors in the framework of the tax shelter. So there are a lot of issues that need further attention.

Thus, this is only a transitional measure, but in any case already a good step in supporting the sector.

Therefore, I would like to call on the President of the Commission and the Minister to work as quickly as possible on a deeper review of the matter.

The second point concerns Article 21, with the renumbering now of Article 22 of the Bill. As a result, the mobile advance tax for a resident who has income exempted by a treaty that is not eligible for the progression reservation becomes a final tax.

That whole case does not take account of the specific case referred to in the judgment of the Constitutional Court of 29 March 2012.

If the movable tax is not refunded if the taxable person receives a professional income exempt by the Treaty without a progressive reservation that is lower than the tax-free amount, the article appears to constitute a breach of Community law.

Mr. Minister, you have acknowledged in the committee yourself that this article requires further study. Can I draw your attention to the fact that this majority has approved this article? You agree with it while you have yourself informed in the committee that this article should be voted down or amended because the article is actually not yet fully mature to become force of law because it still contains an error. We will therefore submit another amendment to delete this article. I hope that the majority will follow your advice.

Another point that has been discussed is whether or not exemption from VAT in education. Both the colleagues of CD&V, Mr. Devlies, and of Open Vld, Mr. Van Biesen, had a number of questions. That is why we want to submit our amendment again here in the plenary session. Mr Van Biesen does not seem to agree entirely with the answer you gave to this question.

I think there is a problem with the principle of neutrality. The principle of neutrality in VAT provides that all VAT transactions, regardless of the quality of the provider, should be approached neutrally in terms of exemptions or rates.

As regards education, the addition to the new Article 46 of the provision that the taxable person may not pursue a profit or earn profits, in our opinion, introduces an unjustified distinction according to the status of the taxable person. In practice, for example, language education is, in my opinion, offered by both public law bodies in the free education sector, VZW’s and commercial enterprises. Only these latter would be required to charge VAT for the same services as those provided by public law bodies and social enterprises.

We believe there is discrimination. Earlier, the administration recognized the distinction as distorting competition. For this reason, it was decided that the exemption envisaged in Article 44, § 2, fourth of the VAT Act could be extended to all forms of language education, regardless of the legal form of the service provider, the quantity and frequency of the lessons given or their adaptation to a normal life cycle.

With the introduction of the new article of the draft law, the previous administrative decision is actually revoked and, in our opinion, the distortion of competition is revived. We therefore submit an amendment. We want to restore the neutrality of VAT, regardless of the status of the VAT liable. Mr Van Biesen, I think you cannot object to this, because you indicated yourself that you had obtained a lot of advice from VAT specialists, who also agreed. So I hope, Mr. Van Biesen, that you will finally join us in this. Otherwise, you are contrary to what you have declared in the committee.

A final point I would like to talk about is the story of the non-recurring result-related benefits. I would like to point out not only the colleagues of sp.a, but also those of the PS, as follows. In the Program Law of 27 December 2012, in Article 75, we increased the non-recurrent result-related benefits, in popular terms the salary bonus, from 2 488 euros to 3 100 euros. That was a good step, but in addition to these benefits, a solidarity contribution of 13,07 % must be paid by the workers. If one makes the calculation, it is ultimately only about an increase to 2 695 euros. How does that come? The government has forgotten to exempt the increase from tax, so that half of the increase of 207 euros that we would eventually retain will also go to the tax office again.

Concretely, it means that all this increase will bring the employee 100 euros net. More than 700 euros of taxes are opposed to a net increase of 100 euros.

I would like to point out to the colleagues of the PS and sp.a. that their respective ministers, Mrs. Laurette Onkenlinx and Mrs. Monica De Coninck, on questions I have asked them both, agree that the 13,07 % is a solidarity contribution, which makes it impossible to build social rights. The salary bonus falls, as it is a tax favor measure, thus outside the salary standard, said both ladies.

Therefore, logically, there should be a tax exemption now. That tax exemption should be increased if you want something to remain after the gross amount of 3 100 euros is reduced with the solidarity contribution.

This is the first amendment that we intend to make to this law. That amendment we submit again, as the colleagues of sp.a abstained in the voting on our amendment in the committee. Per ⁇ they will come across the bridge today by supporting our amendment.

A second change that we would like to implement has to do with the indexation of the wage bonus. In the social chapter of the Program Law of 27 December 2012, the wage bonus is linked to a more recent index, while there is no adjustment in taxation. If we want an equal line between the increase and the tax exemption, then on the fiscal and social level one must naturally use an equal indexation.

These were briefly explained to us the main points in the present bill containing fiscal and financial provisions.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues, the present bill contains a series of measures in various fields, which we have discussed extensively in the committee. I would like to come back to a few of the planned measures.

First, there are the fiscal measures within the framework of the relance plan. This is about the possibility for SMEs to obtain the deduction for patent revenues, even without having a research center in a separate business department. This includes the increased exemption from the transfer of corporate advance fee when it comes to scientific research. Finally, it also provides for a slight increase in the tax credit for low-wage workers. It is clear that in economically difficult times the budget must be sought. It is positive that exactly a budget is being released to provide oxygen to workers, companies and sectors that need it, such as SMEs, the sector of scientific research, research and development and low-wage workers. We support the government in this political choice.

The second important measure, which our group welcomes, relates to the tax shelter. The various committee hearings showed that certain structures offer high returns to investors at the expense of the production budgets in the audiovisual sector. These practices can result in a kind of air bubble. Capital is raised through the tax shelter, a growing portion of which is used as a return for the investor. This, of course, does not coincide with the original purpose of the tax shelter. The original intention of the government was to give the audiovisual sector a push in the back. Therefore, the provisions included in the draft law constitute important additions. The aim is to make the money collected from the investor through the tax shelter also effectively spend on production costs for the realisation of the audiovisual work. That is a very good thing. We are, of course, looking forward to the other measures that the government will take in the context of the reform, improvement and strengthening of the tax shelter system.

A third very important evolution that makes this bill possible is the further automation and digitalization of the tax process. The FOD Finance has the ambition to guarantee a modern governance that evolves with society and with the new information and communication technologies. For example, the taxable person has been offered the possibility for several years to submit his personal tax, corporate tax or VAT declaration electronically. In search of ways to further improve and simplify the provision of services to the citizen, the administration now wishes to also offer electronic tickets for natural persons.

We can only welcome this opportunity. It is more efficient, more modern, and provides significant savings in paper, printing and shipping costs. An important point here is that for those who wish, it should always be possible to continue to receive their ticket on paper.

Finally, I want to talk about the fight against tax fraud. The Secretary of State is not present, but I would like to address this question to him as well. The bill introduces a new concept, namely, “serious fraud,” whether or not organized. In itself, we are very pleased that the recommendation of the Parliamentary Investigation Committee on Major Tax Fraud is being followed in order to introduce this concept and attach a penalty of five years in prison to it. However, I reiterate — which has been discussed several times in the committee — the importance of a clear definition of what should be considered as ‘serious fraud’.

The constitutional principle of legality requires that the criminal law be clear. People need to be clear about which fraud is considered serious, which is not, and what penalty is associated with it. This is not the case in this bill and in the existing legislation. I hope that we will soon be able to get somewhat more clarity on this.

These were, in a nutshell, some of the concerns and comments to this draft that we will of course support.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, you will allow me not to share the enthusiasm of one excellent colleague, mijnheer De Potter.

In a proposed law with various provisions, there is to drink and to eat. We know this because we have already done this exercise with your predecessors. Here, in this case, many of the provisions contained in the text are unbearable and very little appetizing. These include those relating to the guarantees granted to the Dexia default structure and to the central account register in the context of the lifting of bank secrecy.

There are also missed opportunities, ⁇ in terms of notional interest reform and tax shelter. We tried to improve them with amendments, but unfortunately the majority did not follow us.

Comments should be made on the positive provisions that we have supported: in terms of supporting associations active in the sector of sustainable development (this was the part of Mr. Verherstraeten, your colleague Secretary of State); in terms of combating tax fraud, we also supported most of Mr. Verherstraeten’s proposals. and Crombes.

I will, however, focus on the four points I have stated, starting with the tax shelter. Our committee took advantage of the intermediacy between two Finance Ministers to hear representatives of the cultural sector, of the French- and Dutch-speaking cinematographic creation.

They have, in a beautiful unanimity, described the derivatives of the tax shelter system. It must now be revised with several objectives:

- ensure that this tax deduction mechanism effectively supports cultural creation, a diverse cultural creation, including a different creation, truly culturally pointing, not just films with very high audience;

- to avoid fraud and the intermediacy of the money that should return to the creators, to limit the commissions they take on the passage of companies that have deviated the system from its original goal, and to come to much simpler mechanisms.

Faced with the richness of these hearings, we can regret that the text that was submitted to us, even if it has the merit of existing, is relatively minimalist.

We expect more: measures that will prevent certain producers from being claimed, from intermediaries, interests, dividends up to 18 or 20%, which diverts money from cultural creation and a fair salary for each stakeholder, every link of cultural creation, from actors to technicians and through post-production societies.

The Ecolo-Groen group, in connection with the actors we have heard in the committee, is working on a bill that we will submit very soon. From now on, we have a suggestion to present to you: improve the tax control system on the tax shelter.

Today, there is no specialized cell, although it is a relatively new and complex mechanism. Each regional district is responsible for controlling tax shelter files with an inability for field officials to specialize.

Let us also note the lack of dialogue with the administrations of the Communities, active in cultural and cinematographic matters, who are well acquainted with the sector and who are able, if we manage to organize one, which I agree that would be original in relation to the federal structure of our state, to draw the attention of the tax inspectors on certain anomalies in the files.

These are the suggestions issued during the hearings organized in the Finance Committee, which we concrete through an amendment, which, unfortunately, was not supported by the majority. We will put it back in the form of a more comprehensive bill. However, I would like to encourage you, because the dialogue should continue between the members of your office and the representatives of the film producers, a film industry useful to our economy and of which we can be culturally proud both in the head of the French Community and the Flemish Community.

I would like to encourage you to continue the work, because in terms of reform there is still work to be done, especially in the face of the upcoming deadlines: Europe announces reforms for 2015 and in six months, we will be caught up in other pre- and post-election adventures, which will be less conducive to a genuine quality legislative work.

In summary, if there is one of the files you can catch, it is this one! And if at this stage the content, as regards the tax shelter of this bill with various provisions, is positive, we consider that this is a missed opportunity to go further in the face of the urgencies that have been described to us. If you don’t change the system, he will die of his most beautiful death!

All these creative possibilities that we can be proud of – and I remind you that the Cannes Festival begins this day – are at risk of disappearing.

The second topic I wanted to address is that of notional interests.

Since 2006 and the adoption of this law on the notional deduction on venture capital, the Ecolo-Groen group has challenged the measure in terms of its economic efficiency and in terms of its cost in terms of lower tax revenues for the state. At the time, we were the only ones who opposed this measure. I have discussed this with your predecessors. Reynders and Mr. Vanackere, and I hope to find in our new Minister of Finance ⁇ a more attentive ear.

In our view, several problems arise in this mechanism of notional interests. First, a form of automatic access to the measure without assessing its economic effectiveness, in particular in terms of job creation and maintenance. Then, the fact that it offers enormous advantages to companies capable of mobilizing capital; I think of multinationals, their domestic banks, and also all companies active in the financial sector. Another concern, today denounced by Europe and I will return to it in the commission, is to allow triangular assembly (double dip), i.e. the possibility for a parent company and its subsidiary to use the same own funds to obtain a double deduction. Finally, in the budgetary context as we know it, the cost of the measure is exempt from tax when it exceeds 5 billion euros annually.

So today, some companies pay the theoretical normal tax rate, or about 30%, like smaller companies, SMEs. On the contrary, these companies under notional interests, including when they exhibit cowboy behavior towards our economy, purely monetary behavior, or decide to disinvest from our country despite significant profits, benefit from the measure for astronomical amounts. ArcelorMittal’s annual profit is 1.3 to 1.5 billion euros, which is more reportable in seven years.

Just recently, you were answering a question from our colleague Delizée regarding a tax problem that would arise for social benefits, in this case pensioners: you think the problem will exist, but solving it for everyone would cost very expensive!

I hear the reasoning. But in the current context, notional interests still cost us much more, without serving our economy in terms of productive investments aimed at creating jobs and supporting the real economy. You will say that it is easy to say. We have the responsibility to make proposals. We have submitted a bill on the subject, which we systematically defend. I have taken out some principles that were defended as amendments during the discussion. At the time, it was Mr. Bogart or Mr. Verherstraeten who represented you in the commission. I take advantage of your presence to try to convince you. Even if you do not decide to support these amendments today, I hope to have at least aroused your interest. That said, I hope they will be a little later, but not too late as it becomes urgent.

We believe that it is necessary to limit the calculation basis on which these notional interests are calculated (to a maximum of one-third of the corporate liability). Statistics indicate that a well-funded enterprise has a stronger resistance to bad economic circumstances, but that this advantage is no longer significant beyond one-third of the liability. So, the ideal capitalization of a company, to say otherwise, is, according to statistics, one-third of the liability. If the purpose of the notional interest measure is to strengthen the company’s own funds, limit that advantage to one-third of the liability. You play on the rates applied. We invite you to play on the base. In this way, we can effectively support companies to give them greater economic solidity.

We also call for the prohibition of triangular mountains. The measure has little economic meaning, but it has even less economic meaning when one can deduct the same equity twice. by Mr. Reynders, who was Minister of Finance at the time of the measure, pre-wrote, a few months after the adoption of the said measure, a book by Mr. Reynders. Bruno Colmant who explains how the measurement works and explains to companies how, simply, to spoil the state by applying this possibility of double dip. Today, the European Commission – a report that is less than a month old and on which I will question you – is questioning about this triangulation, is amazed at the absence of anti-abuse devices in the law. There is still time, even urgent, to adopt it.

The third essential element of reform is to condition this measure to the maintenance of employment. If there is direct or indirect state aid to enterprises, regardless of the level of power, it cannot be unconditional. Companies should be asked to play the game. We do our part of the work as a subsidizing power by creating investment conditions, but they must commit to ⁇ ining employment with us.

Finally, we believe that the smaller companies, whose employment is not relocalizable, only harvest the pieces of this system. However, for them, it is even more relevant to strengthen their own funds. This is also the meaning of certain proposals that you are trying to defend in the newspapers, even though we have not talked about the issue of pre-count exemption on the savings book. If notional interests allow SMEs to strengthen their own funds, let’s increase the profit of smaller companies in terms of notional interests! We propose to increase it to two points. Today, the difference is half a point. We would therefore have a measure, with the various amendments we defended, which would have much more economic sense of supporting the actual activity. This is also a missed opportunity. It’s not just about playing on the rate variable, there are other things to correct in the notional interest device.

Article 29 of the Act relates to the provisions relating to the central register of bank accounts. This provision came into the law one evening when, in the Finance Committee, the majority decided to dramatically amend a bill containing various provisions by adding different articles. There were mechanisms to facilitate the lifting of bank secrecy in case of suspicion of fraud. In 2011, and we consider that it is the cornerstone of the mechanism, there was the establishment of the central register of accounts.

And then, something else has made us much less pleased, and we do not cease to denounce it. I want to talk about the expansion of the possibilities of amicable criminal transaction to heavy faults, in particular in terms of tax fraud - the primary beneficiary of which is a Belgian of Kazakh origin, Mr. by Chodiev. He is now identified as responsible for the looting of natural resources in the Congo. He had found himself badly embarked in a fraud case that was to be tried, but the day before the verdict, he was able to conclude an amicable criminal transaction. For us, this is class justice. I close the parenthesis.

I return to the central contact point, planned since 2011 and which has not yet been implemented. What is the principle? It is about transposing into Belgian law and in a more restricted manner what exists in France under the name FICOBA. It is a central register of accounts, dependent on the National Bank and comprising a list containing the names of Belgian citizens and the different bank accounts they have. Today, when the tax administration has a suspicion and wants to obtain information from banks, it must question them all to see if, for example, Mr. Gilkinet opened an account. In terms of respect for my privacy, this is not extraordinary. That is why having a central register that can be consulted to know the banking institutions in which – and they are not very many, I reassure you – I have opened an account is a way to facilitate the work of the tax administration by making it waste less time – this also applies to banks. In this way, its search for evidence in case of suspicion of tax fraud is made more efficient.

I was ⁇ surprised by examining the arrangement, as Article 29 empowers the government to determine the types of accounts and contracts subject to tax collection. In the Finance Committee, I asked you a question that you did not answer: what kind of bank account would not be useful in the work of fighting tax fraud? Why a limited list? Why take the risk of forgetting a type of bank account or allowing, through a list, banking institutions to create other types of accounts that should not be included in that register?

This is what happened in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg with the Savings Directive. From the moment that this state accepted it and therefore agreed to pay the advance on interest on bank accounts belonging to Belgian citizens, in particular, the Luxembourg banks told the savers who had liquidity: "It's not important, you can turn your bank account into insurance product of branches 21 and 23 that are not covered by the Savings Directive."

By choosing to set up a limiting list – I don’t know how long your government will be able to agree on the subject because it’s a real gas plant – you risk leaving gaps in the device.

Today, on the television platforms or on the tribune of this Parliament, I hear all my colleagues say that the fight against tax fraud, which represents between 10 and 20 billion euros of non-revenue across Belgium, is a priority. But, effective devices are not put in place and in the way you put them in place, you create unnecessary difficulties and you create breaches into which I fear that some will sink.

I still did not understand the usefulness of limiting this register to what would be relevant in tax matters. For me, any banking information is relevant in tax matters. I regret, and I have already told your predecessor, that the government has not acted faster in this matter.

I will address the point that is ⁇ dissatisfactory to me. It relates to the guarantee granted by the government, through two royal orders of 18 October 2011 and 19 December 2012, to the Dexia discharge structure. This applies to Articles 116 and 125 of the bill, as well as amendments 1 and 2. This commitment, which was made by simple signature of the Minister of Finance, Mr. Reynders, equals 15% of our GDP and commits us for thirty years. It was taken without consulting parliament while it has a major macro-budgetary impact, you will agree. It constitutes a Damocles sword, a permanent threat to the state budget and to the well-being of all Belgians. There has never been, before today, a discussion within this Parliament as to whether it was appropriate to grant such a guarantee and to do so in the manner that was negotiated at the time.

Mr. Minister of Finance, we have always challenged this guarantee, and I will explain again why.

On the one hand, we regret that the period from 2008 to 2011, following the first rescue of Dexia, was not used, on the basis of clear instructions that would have been given by the Belgian government, to prepare a dismantling of the Dexia group and its split under good conditions. In 2011, the group was split, but in very poor conditions.

On the contrary, the duo consisting of the Chairman of the Board of Directors, Mr. Dehaene and the CEO of the bank, Mr. Mariani, has strengthened the group’s intrigue, the financial link between Dexia Banque Belgium and the rest of the group, which eventually put Belgium in a ⁇ difficult situation in 2011, when it came to split the group.

This is a concrete illustration of why banking business needs to be separated. The deposit bank, Dexia Banque Belgique, was used as a shield, as a life insurance by the rest of the group, forcing states, especially ours, to intervene in 2011, at a time when the problems could no longer be concealed. By the way, we expect from your government much clearer and more voluntary measures in terms of separating or dividing the professions.

On the other hand, we denounced the distribution of this guarantee as it was negotiated at the time by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Reynders, and by the Prime Minister, Mr. Leterme, who represented the federal state in this negotiation of which we do not know much, except its outcome.

Why did Belgium accept to assume at the time 60% of the amount of 90 billion euros, or 54 billion euros, 15% of our GDP, while the French state was much more capable in view of its economic weight to assume this burden, while the problems of the bank came from strategic or rather non-strategic choices made in France by Dexia Crédit Local, while the management errors and financial madness were mainly French, as is demonstrated today by the lawsuits that the French local authorities initiate and win against Dexia, in particular the judgment of Nanterre?

Why did you put the rope on your neck? This distribution of burden is a catastrophe for public finances. It is a permanent threat that puts your government in trouble and that is the justification, which we do not accept, of the worst austerity policies you are implementing.

Likewise, we have been concerned from the beginning, Mr. Minister, about the modalities of implementation of the guarantee. The Royal Decree specifies that this guarantee may be called upon first request, including without the intervention of neighboring States, including if illegal operations have been carried out by the bank.

By reading the exhibition of reasons and listening to the answers provided to our questions, we understand that it is very clear that it is about reassuring the markets, taking on the back of the state and therefore of the citizens the majority of the risk. by Mr. Bogaert said in the committee: “For Belgium, it was important to guarantee legal certainty to creditors. The requirement for first application is within this framework. This element was important for Dexia’s position in the market. Not granting this opportunity also has financial consequences in the form of a risk premium. We wanted to avoid such consequences.”

Ultimately, this is a speculative choice made by the government. To reassure the market and the creditors, we take the majority of the risk on our back and on the back of all citizens. The Belgian State is voluntarily putting itself in a weak position in this matter.

We denounce both the past mistakes and inattentions that have led us into this situation – one can ask about the period 1990-2008 – and that lack of imagination and combativity that makes one accept today as a fatality this unenvyable fate. This is at least what I felt in the Finance Committee, where, except for my colleague Ms. Meyrem Almaci and myself, no one intervened to question amendments 1 and 2.

Finally, we have always considered and we always consider, Mr. Minister, that this way of proceeding is democratically unacceptable and formally illegal. After having denied it at all times, the federal majority gives us somehow right today by adding to this law with various provisions the amendments 1 and 2, which confirm by law these famous resolutions taken, in our opinion, in an unlawful manner.

In a democratic state, budgetary competence belongs to the parliament. We cannot make a delegation to the executive in the amount of 50 billion euros. We will see what the State Council thinks of it – I will respect the separation of powers or you, as a law teacher, will tap me on the fingers. There is still an action pending in this matter before the Council of State.

In any case, it is certain that the debate can take place today in plenary session. But for a debate, there must be at least two, or even more than two in a parliament. I am surprised by the silence of the majority members of the committee. Maybe they will find their voice again today ... I think of Mrs. Vienne, Mr. by Arens, Mr. by Destrebecq, Mr. Van der Maelen, Mr. by Devlies, Mr. by Van Biesen.

All these colleagues in the Finance Committee, on such an important topic that will involve a few generations of elected as it is a commitment for at least 30 years, do they finally care about this question?

Is it normal for a State to engage under such conditions in such a ship at the drift?

In my opinion, this indifference has something surreal, Mr. Van der Maelen, since, with Mr. Van der Maelen, this indifference has something surreal. Van Biesen, you are the only one among those I cited to listen to me. Sorry, I had not seen Mrs. Vienne, which I will be happy to hear later.

Mr. Minister, once again, but probably not the last and I am sorry, I will rest on you the questions that we have about the subject of this guarantee.

Why have to let Dexia grow like this, until it becomes a multi-headed, untreatable monster that now costs so much to the public finances?

Why have those responsible for this disaster never been punished?

Why are the lessons of this crisis not taken, especially with regard to the separation of banking professions?

Why, but this concerns your predecessors, after 2008, who have not explicitly given a mandate to the group managers – I cited Mr. Mariani and Mr. Dehaene – to prepare its dismantling in good conditions and, at least, in better conditions than those you want us to accept today?

Why have they accepted such a guarantee burden – 60% of €90 billion – on the shoulders of the Belgian taxpayer in 2011, at the time of the actual division of the group?

Why, at the time, did not join the parliament? It is right to say that we are doing it today, May 16, 2013, but you will agree with me that it is too late, especially for a decision of such importance.

Why have you agreed to sign a convention containing such unfavorable conditions for the Belgian State? This is a guarantee that can be called upon on the first application, including in a way that is not joined by the other two States, since the market requires it.

What are the real risks associated with this guarantee? How many recapitalizations will the defeat structure still justify, in the coming months and years?

Are we not busy falling asleep and using the guarantee, as we did less than a year ago, and as we may do tomorrow – which I do not hope – to recapitalize Dexia?

Who are the beneficiaries of all this Dexia counterparty mechanism?

What are – I asked you the question yesterday in the commission – the precautions taken to avoid speculation on the fate of Dexia and new costs for public finances?

How much will this cost the state and therefore our fellow citizens?

All this is evidently in the context of a profound and urgent reform of the financial sector that we demand. Obviously, I have not received any satisfactory answers to these questions in the committee, questions that have been asked many times, in particular in the context of the work of the Dexia committee.

We have not supported the Government’s amendments 1 and 2, which concern the transposition by force of law of these resolutions. We did not do so, unlike our majority colleagues, of the six traditional parties that my colleague, Meyrem Almaci, sometimes calls, and it is very speaking, Dexia partijen. We did not support them, unlike our majority colleagues who, therefore, have an extraordinary responsibility for the budgetary future of our country and future generations.

Similarly, just now, we will not vote on this text that has a far too strong and uncontrolled impact. We continue to think that another agreement was necessary and possible and we do not want in any way to condition and support that which was unconsciously concluded by the Pentaparty government in 2011.

Thank you Mr Gilkinet. I no longer have any inscriptions.

by Mr. Gilkinet tried to wait for Mrs. Almaci, but she’s not there – it didn’t work.

I have the honour to answer, as far as I can, the questions I have been asked.

Mrs Wouters, I am pleased that you express some appreciation for the tax shelter, which you call a step in the right direction.

We have resumed the negotiations with the sector. The measure, as it has now been improved, is already the result of a number of hearings, whatever you know. Therefore, as part of the resumption of the consultation and after the corrections that have now been made and that take away your approval, we will ⁇ continue to evaluate and update the dossier.

This is also what I would like to answer Mr. Gilkinet, who insisted in the same way on a good follow-up of the tax shelter measure, in order to make its use as good as possible and without abuse by the audiovisual creative industry.

Mr Wouters, in fact, Article 21 proposes to eliminate the possibility of reimbursement of mobile advance duty for those who have exempt work income from abroad. They can now be reimbursed because they do not have Belgian taxable income, while the reimbursement of the mobile tax is actually intended for low-income persons. The same applies to the rate of the various incomes. It can also be returned by declaration if you have low incomes.

Article 21 is therefore intended to prevent such reimbursement from being made possible to persons with foreign employment income who are not subject to the progression reservation.

Indeed, I have stated in the committee that it could be useful to re-examine this measure. I will ask my administration to do that.

You and I have held extensive discussions in the committee on the measure relating to the exemption of paid educational services, together with Mr Van Biesen and Mr Arens. In particular, we asked what exactly Articles 132 and 133 of the VAT Directive provide in this regard. It is true that the directive exempts paid educational services from VAT insofar as they are provided by public institutions or by private institutions with similar purposes.

Article 133 allows Member States to further define the terms ‘private institution with similar purposes’. We have done so as “institutions subject to corporate tax”, but in slightly different words, and thus the educational services provided in a commercial connection are not exempt from VAT. This is the intention of the government and also fully in accordance with the European VAT Directive.

Regarding the non-recurring result-based benefits, the majority consultation did not lead to an agreement.

I come to the questions of Mr. De Potter, more specifically, about what is understood by “serious fraud.” This is stated in the Explanatory Memorandum to the Program Law of 27 April 2007. There are approximately fourteen indications of serious tax fraud in the money laundering law and I can refer you to them.

Mr. Gillian, I think I have answered your question and your comments regarding the tax shelter.

Regarding notional interests, you rightly pointed out that the government insisted on the rate and not on the basis. We have proposed, in particular, to change the calculation of the base rate for the deduction of notional interest to take into account the average ten-year linear bonds of the months of July, August and September of the year. For the financial year 2014, this would result in a rate of 2,742%.

You say that more work should be done on the base, including by limiting the deduction to one-third of the liability. I have listened to you well, but you know that this is not within the intentions of the government. In the new bill that the Government could approve tomorrow, at the Council of Ministers, we have proposed, on the basis of a suggestion to Parliament regarding the anti-abuse measures to be taken in the field of notional interests, to ensure that the double use of the deduction of definitively taxed income and the deduction of notional interests is no longer possible with regard to the non-fixed financial asset, i.e. in shares the liquid investments that would be held for more than a year.

Regarding the double dip, of which you are talking in terms of notional interests, the ISI administration has conducted an investigation and, for now, it has indicated to me that the abuse is much less serious than one thinks. This does not mean that no more anti-abuse measures will be considered, but it seems to me that it is also important to have some stability in terms of notional interests in order not to sow doubt about the future of this regime.

Regarding the Central Point that would be held by the National Bank, in particular the accounts and contracts that must be communicated, I can refer you to the answer I gave to a question to the Senate of Senator Laaouej today. Indeed, the draft royal decree on this subject is fully prepared.

Furthermore, within the Finance Committee, I read all that is in this draft royal decree concerning the accounts and the contracts to be communicated. I believe I have sufficiently stressed that the aim is to be as comprehensive as possible, on the one hand, as regards the accounts and, on the other, as regards the contracts to be communicated.

I went to Dexia. On this subject, we have had the honour to argue gently within the committee where you do not cease, rightly, to submit me to the democratic control of your questions. As regards the anti-crisis measures proposed herein under Article 116, it is clear that the Belgian State had to ensure that Dexia Holding continued to be subject to the consolidated supervision of the National Bank of Belgium. Therefore, this consolidated supervision must be made certain within the framework of Article 36/24 of the Organic Law on the National Bank. If we did not, it would not be certain that the guarantees we have given or would give would be entirely valid.

As regards the amendment submitted by the Government with regard to the legal basis of the Royal Decrees taken under the Dexia guarantees and which, in fact, seek to remove the doubts which have been planted on the validity of those Royal Decrees, these measures taken by the Belgian State appear to me to be obvious. Therefore, the government asks your parliament to give the certain legal basis, which is necessary to no longer have validity issues in relation to these royal decrees.

I hope you have answered my questions and thank you for your attention.

Mr. Minister, thank you very much for your answers. I am very pleased that the consultation with the sector in the framework of the tax shelter has been resumed. I therefore hope that the adjustments we talked about during the committee hearings can be made soon and that certain issues can be addressed as soon as possible, and that Parliament is involved.

I am pleased that you say that further study is needed with regard to Article 21, namely with regard to professional income exempted by the Treaty without progression reservation when the amount is lower than the tax-free sum. I look forward to this adjustment in a next law containing various provisions. Another solution is, of course, to support our amendment and not to approve the article for the time being and to remove it from the draft law.

Regarding the exemption from VAT, you say that Article 132 of the European Directive is applied, but Article 133 gives us the possibility to impose additional conditions with a slightly more restrictive interpretation. I am afraid that colleague Van Biesen also questions whether the interpretation given by the administration to this is correct. The future will tell who is right. I thank you in any case for your answer.

Mr. Minister, first of all, I would like to thank you for the cordiality of the dialogue and for the concern of exhaustivity present in your answers. I have not always known this with your predecessors. This does not mean that we will agree on everything. In any case, I am delighted that the work on the tax shelter continues, and you can count on us to submit constructive proposals.

The Notional Interests Act dates back to 2006. Since the beginning, we have denounced abuses. Better late than never! However, it would still have to wait for 2013, with a loss for the State of which I do not know the importance, to identify a problem existing between the cumulation of the finally taxed income and notional interest. We believe that even if you minimize the budget impact, you should eliminate the double dip. I will continue to discuss this issue with you, based on the report of the European Commission, which I cited on the tribune.

I would like to return to the argument that it should be avoided to sow too many doubts about tax stability. For me, this is an argument “cream cake”. If one of the provisions is too expensive and economically inoperative, political responsibility involves correcting it. We propose to maintain the notional interest principle, but by making it more effective economically and in terms of support for employment, given the situation in our country. This is our responsibility to all.

As for the central contact point, I look forward to seeing this ruling published, reviewing it and trying to find the types of accounts – headlines or other – that you would have forgotten. I remain convinced that there is a more direct way to ⁇ the goal, but I ask only to be deceived.

Finally, when it comes to Dexia, it’s ⁇ where you’ve been the least discerning – but maybe I’ve been too ambitious to ask you so many questions about this file you’ve inherited. We clearly challenge the necessity of such a guarantee and the government’s refusal to look for other more sustainable options for public finances and for all our fellow citizens.

This is the major problem that justifies the negative vote we will put on this bill recently, even if there are positive provisions to one or the other article.

I confess to be shocked. We are talking here about a project that will engage the finances of Belgium until 2031 for tens of billions and this happens in general indifference!

What are we supposed to vote for?

Dexia did some nonsense. I had to save her for the first time. They continued to do nonsense and now they are told not to worry, that whatever they do, at their first request, even if they do illegal things, they will be helped. This is completely non-educational. Imagine a child who does nonsense that has cost very expensive, that he had to help and then he would be told not to worry, that whatever he does in the future, we will help him and he will not have to suffer the consequences of his actions.

This is incomprehensible! The only ones who will suffer the consequences of these acts are the Belgian citizens.

I don’t understand how you can ignore the question of inserting the statement “even if you do something illegal, we will help you on the first request.” Until 2031, without passing through parliament! The fact that there is no answer, no debate is unacceptable!