Proposition 53K2891

Projet de loi portant des dispositions diverses.

General information ¶

Submitted by

PS | SP the Di Rupo government

Submission date

June 19, 2013

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

VAT excise duty adoption of a child lawyer alcoholic beverage work work contract tax on investment income tax relief tax evasion professional association fringe benefit inland waterway shipping fuel special tax collective dismissal service industry direct tax financial institution medicinal product family benefit fuel tax indirect tax tax on income tax on capital pharmaceutical expenses credit institution farming sector dismissal cessation of trading undisclosed partnership price reduction social-security contribution social security aid to agriculture foundation crew corporation tax Sunday working

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.
• 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 ¶

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

Full source

by MM. Jean-Marc Delizée and Stefaan Vercamer, rapporteurs, refer to their written report.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to intervene primarily on the amendments that were submitted in the Social Affairs Committee and which were clearly related to matters falling within the Finance Committee.

I would like to say a word about the form. This process is not acceptable from the point of view of the democratic organization. We have seen a slide towards the wrong commission. This can happen. There are very competent people in the Social Affairs Committee. We also witnessed the use of the amendment path rather than that of the bill for very important provisions. The texts were sent late (less than three hours before their processing) while they were available at least 24 hours earlier. No information was given in the committee about the fact that an opinion of the State Council had been requested. Finally, it is regrettable that this opinion was sent to us after reviewing and voting the articles. If we were not in Belgium, we would be concerned, from a democratic point of view, about what is happening! It is still that this leads to a certain fragility while it is a delicate fiscal device.

In essence, it is about implementing, in particular, the agreement reached on the 2013 budget adjustment, which had been presented as painless, which is not the case. He was also presented as an innovator, Ms. Onkelinx, by introducing a minimum corporate tax. We can see, after analysis, that this is far from the case.

The anti-social measures that have been raised...

The [...]

We will see! We will talk about it. When I hear the questions of your colleagues of the majority...

The [...]

and yes! Absolutely of course!

The Minister, Mr. Gilkinet must soon leave us to take his train!

In the "gallery of horrors", there is a decrease in deductibility on service titles, with no positive discrimination for isolated people, single parents or isolated elderly people.

From an energy point of view, nothing is done except to raise the tax on LPG – an environmentally-friendly fuel – and on lamp oil used in the most precarious environments. In terms of positive discrimination, Mrs. Onkelinx, you will go back!

There is also the increase of VAT on the services of lawyers, an initiative that comes in addition to a number of measures taken in the field of justice. Companies are recovering VAT. People who need a lawyer and who have the means will not encounter difficulties, which will not be the case for others. Following further measures taken by Ms. Turtelboom, this will be a new barrier to access to justice, which we denounce.

Obviously, as is the case with any text of this type, there are sympathetic aspects in the fight against offshore structures, in terms of supporting farmers. We would have preferred them to last, rather than have to be negotiated year after year. We have submitted amendments in this regard. There is also the taxation of surplus values. Whenever such a provision is submitted to us, we support it.

On the other hand, our two great regrets are the backsteps of this government, which is still very strong for communicating measures but much less for their implementation.

The first concerns the bank tax which was declared as inversely proportional to the investment of the savings in the real economy. Go backwards with a measure that becomes linear again as we must struggle to direct the means on the savings books to the real and nearby economy. Again, this is hidden in an amendment to a text containing various provisions. We do not boast of it, of course.

The fair tax, Mrs. Onkelinx, is ⁇ badly named. In the case of corporate tax, we face costly, economically ineffective and unfair arrangements. I think of notional interests. You have not addressed the problem. You did it peripherally by moving forward with a false nose. On the one hand, the device is extremely complex. In other words, it is easy to avoid; the questions of Mr. Van Biesen in the committee allows to realize this.

Effective rates will be very low. The example cited by the majority leads to an effective tax rate of 0.75% of actual tax. This does not solve anything in terms of tax justice or tax revenue.

A redistribution to SMEs is announced, which is rather sympathetic, but revenue is not guaranteed and redistribution will depend on revenue. I asked your colleague, Mr. The Minister of Finance here to explain to me the guarantees in terms of revenue.

We submitted two amendments on this subject. Amendment No. 1 creates a real minimum corporate tax; by saying that one cannot descend below 15% of the taxable base to which the theoretical 33% is applied, one comes to a 5% tax. We must use the most direct path. In the absence of the first amendment, we submitted an amendment no. 2. It concerns your fairness tax, which could have been dubbed "cream" tax because it is not very serious; we propose to call it "separate minimalist quotation of companies", which will better correspond to reality. (Brouhaha) by

We will think about it!

In the end, all this is the fault of Mr. of the cream. and laughing)

We need to keep the idea for future projects!

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Minister, colleagues, we discussed the draft law on social legislation in the committee in detail. I will not surpass the debate here. I would like to limit myself to two parts, where my group has great concerns. We did not really get an answer to this in the committee, so I would like to draw attention to it.

The first point concerns the manner of dismissal in the Paritarian Committee of Inland Shipping. You will now change that arrangement. I already see you suck. I have also expressed my concerns in the committee. You know that the dismissal is normally given to all employees through a registered letter or a court guard explosion. Specifically for the workers in the inland shipping industry, you now want to make an exception. For those employees, you will no longer have the dismissal announced by a registered letter or a judicial executor’s explosion, but simply by handing over the dismissal letter.

Nevertheless, this exemption was abolished twenty years ago due to the abuse of anti-data protection. For this reason, the dismissal was then also allowed for inland shipping through the normal procedure, namely with a registered letter.

In the committee, you motivated the choice for the exception you propose, arguing that inland shippers are barely at home and that it is therefore difficult to get that registered letter. I believe that there are also other employees who are few at home; think about long-distance pilots, who are sometimes weeks away from home, or certain managers or consultants who are also a lot abroad. The exception now made in the law containing various provisions seems to me therefore unnecessary, dangerous and, in addition, also discriminatory. The N-VA voted against this article.

A second and last consideration, which I would like to draw your attention to, relates to the trade unions. We have discussed this in the committee extensively. You normally exercise control, as trade unions had to submit their accounts to the Minister of Labour and Social Security. Now you will abolish the only external control for trade unions.

The reason for this would be that you would not have sanction options. You also say that the accounts must be kept at the seat.

Mr Crombez, who sits next to you, is busy detecting fraud. Our group does not understand that there is no longer any control possibility for the trade unions. Professional associations will no longer have to deposit their accounts anywhere, while other companies and social enterprises will have to do so.

You say that you cannot sanction, and therefore trade unions do not have to submit their accounts, which immediately means an administrative simplification. Then I wonder why this administrative simplification does not apply to CSWs and other companies.

In addition, not much is requested. They must keep their accounts in a seat. They can also copy them and deliver them to you, so that there is still control over them.

Another possibility is that they, like other companies, submit their accounts to the National Bank. We have also submitted an amendment to this committee, which, unfortunately, was rejected by the majority.

On three questions I received no answer in the committee. Therefore, I repeat them here, hoping that you have been able to find the answer in the meantime.

How many trade unions are there? Do you have a vision of the total value of all financial transactions? How do you ensure that trade unions remain exempt from fraudulent transactions without any form of external control on the accounts?

I look forward to your answer.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen ministers, dear colleagues, in its chapters dedicated to employment, this bill contains an important measure on which I would like to return somewhat: temporary unemployment and the accountability mechanism that the government, in consultation with the social partners, intends to establish.

Since the beginning of the economic crisis, temporary unemployment has saved tens of thousands of jobs in Belgium, even though the persistence of the crisis has forced many companies to reduce their staff. Temporary unemployment can help successfully overcome a difficult path, but it can also delay a deadline that results in a closure of a business or a restructuring with collective dismissal.

Like my colleague Mr. Delizée expressed this in a commission in 2009, at the height of the crisis, the system demonstrated all its usefulness since no less than 210,000 workers temporarily benefited from unemployment benefits for an average of 90 days. In March 2009, a peak was even reached as 312 000 workers benefited from these measures. Since then, the numbers have, fortunately, declined, but they still remain significant.

Our political group, however, remains attentive to some studies that do not deny the effectiveness of the system set up, but which focus primarily on measuring its consequences on the labour market.

There is obviously no question for us to adhere to these simplistic theories that economic unemployment would be an obstacle to the mobility of workers who have become overnumerous and whose purely dismissal would have been compensated by hiring in other sectors.

This is like condemning whole sections of our industry, where the use of temporary unemployment is the most important and where the workforce is not less well-qualified but above all specialized in functions for which the labour market, unfortunately, does not provide enough prospects for the future.

It should also be noted that we have had a recession of very large scale and very long in time. It has affected all sectors, including those known to be at the forefront of expansion and job creation.

On the other hand, it is not normal that very long periods of economic unemployment are not associated with the accompaniment of the workers concerned. For our political group, this shortage is a bad signal because passivity generates fatalism. We do not understand why the social partners refused to enroll in the provisions of the Programme Act of late December 2012. Certainly, the mechanism was difficult to apply and could even have perverse effects such as higher compensations to workers for whom the employer offered no training. Serious training is an added value for the future of our economy. Our group therefore calls on the government not to abandon this activation track.

As regards accountability in the case of misuse of temporary unemployment, the term ‘abuse’ is based on a theoretical model which must, of course, be tempered with regard to the notion of undertaking in difficulty, the sector-specific situation or the general economic situation. The draft law takes into account these different elements and we welcome this.

I now come to the ‘social security’ section of this bill which has been transposed through amendments and whose purpose is in particular to guarantee the budget objectives for the year 2013.

Regarding family allowances, no one can look forward to the fact that families will face a first decrease in August 2013 of the annual age supplement, commonly referred to as ‘school return premium’, and a second decrease in August 2014.

In its original design, this bonus was supposed to help parents who encounter the most difficulties to cover the costs of their children’s return to school. For reasons related to the fact that this premium was incorporated into the family allowance scheme, it was paid indistinguishably to all children receiving family allowances. In some ways, the new provisions are closer to the basic philosophy, since all children receiving a supplement due, for example, to their disability or the particular social situation of their parents are preserved from the reform.

As the Minister has very well recalled in the committee, this is a priority of families in a difficult social situation. It is true that other families have modest, or even very modest, incomes, but do not receive social supplements to the benefits they receive. This problem raises the whole question of the selectivity based on income, which does not have its place in the debate that occupies us today.

In short, to conclude this intervention, a few words about the provisions taken in the field of public health, in particular with regard to the prices of medicines. The extension of the measure relating to the blocking of the price of medicines and implants and that relating to the price reduction imposed on biosimilars and medicines for which there is a generic is obviously satisfying us. Patients win there, state treasures as well and, in the end, health care as a whole.

Furthermore, as regards biosimilars, the KCE recently published a study demonstrating that these drugs unfortunately fail to establish themselves on the Belgian market. Furthermore, the proposed measure in this regard is capable of combating the brakes of various kinds that hinder the emergence of biosimilars in our country. This is quite satisfactory. I thank you.

Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, Ladies and Gentlemen, first of all, a reminder: as part of the continued consolidation of public finances, Europe requires us for 2013 to reduce our structural deficit to 2.7% of GDP while ensuring that our debt does not exceed the 100% bar.

For caution, like any good manager who has no nose in his handle but has a longer-term vision, the government has taken the lead by demanding a sixth budget control, the second of this year 2013. According to the monitoring committee’s estimates, the macroeconomic prospects and growth targets on which it was initially based would not be achieved, resulting in an additional deficit of EUR 524 million.

As a result, Belgium was once again forced to take additional measures, which added to the 20 billion already achieved so far. This is the difficulty of the exercise.

Dear colleagues, the government is serious: it has not merely found the 524 million needed to cover the deficit, but it has also planned a security mattress of 226 million to offset a possible budget degradation. Furthermore, the choice focused on measures that will fully produce their effects next year, in 2014. In other words, these are structural measures that Europe wanted. Thus, the preparation of the 2014 budget will be facilitated, as the government has already managed to allocate 2.3 billion euros, or 80% of the efforts to be made for next year.

How are these budget measures distributed? First, we must rejoice in it, by reducing the life-train of the state. Thus, 58% comes from a reduction in our spending, or 1.5 billion savings, through a decrease in our primary spending and social security spending. When it comes to health care, let citizens reassure themselves: we have not taken any measures that could impair the accessibility or quality of care. The 80 million savings come from structural measures taken in the past that are now yielding fruit. This demonstrates the effectiveness of government action.

Secondly, new recipes, which contribute 35% to sanitation efforts. The government’s choice has focused on banks and intercommunals, rather than on ⁇ and citizens. The banking sector will be subject to a subscription tax, the expected revenue of which will be around 40 million. As for intercommunal companies that have so far been completely saved, they will also be taxed on their business activities and will see their distributed dividends subject to a mobile advance of 25% instead of 15%. They will also contribute to the state finances in the amount of 30 million euros. The privileges previously granted to the municipalities are no more. We can look forward to this, because beyond the budget gains, it is also a competitive advance.

A minimum tax will be levied on large companies that do not pay taxes but still distribute dividends. But most importantly, one-third of these revenues will be used to support our SMEs. Obviously, this is a real economic recovery policy.

Finally, I would like to address the issue of VAT on lawyers’ fees and the reform of lawyers’ services titles. As regards VAT, which will now be applied to lawyers’ fees, I would like to recall that this is a measure that would have appeared sooner or later, and that for two reasons. The first is that Europe has forced Belgium to align itself with the practice of other European countries. The second answered the same logic that prevailed for notaries and court officers.

With regard to the service titles, some are heard to say all the bad they think of the robbery on the tax reduction granted to the service titles on the grounds, according to them, that the average taxpayer will once again be penalized. I say it out loud and loud, and I think it’s completely false.

Let me go further in reasoning. The government is granting a tax reduction for the first 150 services per year per taxpayer, or 300 per household. When it is known that an average taxpayer uses 128 service checks a year, the government will help him more. On the other hand, it intends to penalize large consumers, or even those who benefit from this relatively expensive device for the state finances.

Dear colleagues, you will have noticed once again that we have not yielded to the temptation of extortionist rage. We don’t go into the pockets of the taxpayers or our ⁇ .

More specifically, we did not increase the tax on labour. We did not increase VAT. We have not raised the tax on real estate or on savings. We have not increased the taxation of our SMEs. We have not increased the tax on gasoline or diesel, if necessary for workers who have to go every day to their workplace. In the end, we were able to avoid touching on family allowances.

Dear colleagues, you will understand, Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen Ministers, you have deployed all these efforts to reduce spending rather than increase tax pressure. My group, the Reform Movement, and myself have always advocated management measures as a good family father. I am delighted that it is this rigorous methodology that has been put in place by our government to ⁇ the sanitation objectives.

The almost alchemical formula used so far, namely sustainable rigour coupled with relief, has demonstrated flawless effectiveness. My group and myself are convinced of the need to continue along the same path, with the same will, with the same method, in order to ⁇ the goals we set ourselves with Europe. Because we must at all costs maintain the trust of financial markets, supranational institutions and our fellow citizens. The government must succeed in ⁇ ining the path of good governance, it must get the boat out of the storm to better approach the next blue seas that are opening up to it.

For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, ladies and gentlemen ministers, the MR group will support the budget adjustment.

Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen ministers, colleagues, I would like to use the discussion of this bill to get into the fiscal provisions, more specifically the reporting obligation and the fiscal structures, which we now look through, and the fairness tax.

I would like to start by wishing the government and both competent excellences good luck with the proposed text. Our group is of the opinion that a major breakthrough is being achieved in two areas, which leads to greater fiscal justice.

After all, the obligation to report and disclose tax constructions will help us on the way to bring more tax justice to our country. In fact, we find that the Belgian who stays with his money within the Belgian borders is subject to a fairly heavy tax regime, compared with other Member States. At the same time, others with great wealth can flee abroad and hide behind all sorts of screen structures in tax havens. With the first provision, we are taking a very important step in the right direction.

Furthermore, a fairness tax is introduced. It is enough to look at the figures of the FOD Finance. I did that. For example, I learned that in 2000 the percentage of effective taxes paid by both large and small enterprises was close to 20 to 21%. After 2000 we record a very strange evolution. The percentage of effective taxes paid by SMEs remains close to 20%, but that for large companies in Belgium drops to 10 to 11%. That is still an average; for super-large enterprises the figures range between 5 and 0 %.

For me, the fair tax is a very important step in the right direction, as it largely eliminates the inequal taxation of large and small enterprises.

The second reason why the sp.a. group is very happy with both provisions is because they are consistent with international developments. They are an illustration that something has changed in Belgium. I am preparing a report for the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and I have many contacts with members of the OECD and the European Commission: they agree that something has changed in Belgium. Belgium has now become a nation that works constructively with European and international efforts to reduce tax evasion and tax evasion.

According to figures from the European Commission, this is a very significant amount: €1 000 billion is lost annually in the European Union due to tax evasion and evasion. Both the European Commission and OECD are working to establish international cooperation in this area.

I return to my first point: the obligation to notify and the mandatory transparency of structures are, in my view, a very important closing block of something that is being prepared internationally.

I tried to outline the current situation. Imagine that the Belgian tax authority considers that Van Biesen, who is not here, may have money in Liechtenstein. Most think that’s very easy to investigate after the changes of 2009, when the OECD started tackling tax havens. However, it is not so. Look at the facts. It is no coincidence that all the information about tax havens that has emerged over the last two years is in little to no way the result of the activities of the finance ministries themselves.

No, it was always the result of leaks or investigative journalism. There is clearly something wrong.

What is wrong? Before we can find out that Mr. Van Biesen has money in Liechtenstein, a number of conditions must now be met. First, we need to know that the money of a certain person is in Liechtenstein, not in another paradise. Secondly, we need to know which account number at which bank that person has there. Third, we must send a note to Vaduz, stating that there is reasonable evidence that tax fraud is being committed by the conscious person. There is a discretion for the state itself. Fourthly, if we can prove all that, we are not yet ready when the conscious person, here Mr. Van Biesen, is hiding behind an Anstalt, a trust, or any other name used in tax havens. There is no register in Liechtenstein.

In short, we are still struggling with these four problems. However, cooperation within the European Union and OECD is progressing considerably. An important new development is that the OECD will soon announce an action plan, and that there is growing consensus on automatic exchange of information.

If there is an automatic exchange of information – and that possibility is real – we no longer have to ask ourselves where Mr Van Biesen’s money lies abroad. We will get that information. We also no longer need to ask which bank and what account number he has, because we will have that information. We do not need to submit any documents showing that fraud has been committed. If the person in question is hiding behind a trust or an Anstalt, or anything else, we will try to put pressure on the country. However, because of the legal provision we will adopt tomorrow, we have the advantage that we will already have a look at it with regard to our own residents.

I hope that the international breakthrough will come. In any case, Belgium now, along with two or three other countries, belongs to the link that has ensured that we will be able to deal with Belgians who have money in tax havens and who hide behind screen companies, trusts and Anstalts.

That is the first reason why our group is very happy. We therefore urge our government to work fully at the international level, in the European Union and in the OECD, to ensure that the other measures that appear to be coming internationally are indeed rapidly implemented; they will help us fight fraud.

Second, I have already stated that a fairness tax is very closely aligned with international developments. Whoever follows the international tax actuality knows that not only in Belgium but also in many other countries, such as France and Great Britain, there is a great discontent over the fact that large, especially multinational companies pay little or no taxes.

At the request of the G20, the OECD is working on a BEPS program, with which it aims to combat base erosion and profit shifting, which is the harvesting of the tax base, on the one hand, and the shifting of profits, on the other.

A number of measures are being considered. We now have our springplank or trampoline with the fairnesstaks, which is a minimum arrangement. However, the action plan that is being prepared at the OECD, which I hope Belgium and the Belgian government will fully cooperate on, will require the countries to take a number of measures against – I must now become a bit technical – hybrid mismatches, against CFC rules, against various, especially intra-group interest deductions and against the preferential regimes. Does this mean the notional interest deduction in the vizier? I do not know. We will see. It also calls for measures against treaty shopping, against attempts to evade the status of a permanent establishment, against the intangibles and against the shifting of risks. These measures, if my information is correct, would be included in the OECD Action Plan.

On behalf of my group, I call on the Minister and the Government not to remain silent and not to remain silent on these fairness taxes, but to ensure that we maintain the good reputation we are building, in particular the reputation of a constructive partner who, together with other Member States of the European Union and the OECD, is active in combating tax evasion and tax fraud by large multinational companies. I am confident that we will be able to make a very important contribution which will also benefit our budget. This will allow us to hurt our citizens a little less, or we will be able to use it to help finance future challenges, such as aging.

The SPAA group expects that this Minister and his colleague Secretary of State will closely follow the international developments and take legislative initiatives in this regard as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, ladies ministers, colleagues, it must be my heart that the measures for this budget amendment are being chased through our throat and that this method is unworthy of a Parliament. Is it not possible that suddenly 41 amendments are submitted to a bill containing various provisions in order to make the measures relating to this last amendment to the budget still into law?

In the case of 41 amendments, should one assume that these amendments were submitted by the government? No, the amendments were submitted by Members of Parliament. Why Why ? Parliamentarians can submit amendments quickly and without the advice of the State Council.

The highlight of the whole story was that we could see those amendments only one and a half hours before the start of the Social Affairs Committee. In my opinion, however, tax measures should be discussed in the Committee on Finance and not in the Committee on Social Affairs. I have to thank President Mayeur, who has kept this well in hand and helped us. One and a half hours before the discussion began, we received those amendments. Otherwise, we would have had to react at the moment.

I find this unworthy of Parliament. In an unworthy way, these changes are pushing us through the throat. There was no advice from the State Council, which is normally used when discussing a bill. However, these were only amendments, and then only parliamentary amendments.

What we noticed was that many of those amendments transpose measures that should not enter into force until 2014. The question is why all this had to be done so quickly.

There was no advice from the State Council. On 8 July, an opinion of the State Council was also requested. On 9 July the matter was discussed in the committee and on 10 July we had to vote on the whole. Fortunately, a quarter of an hour before the start of the committee meeting in which we would vote overall, we were able to review the opinion of the State Council.

The State Council is not at all able to talk about this method. This is also not surprising. This is the first time this has been repeated in this Parliament. Mr. Minister, I remind you that the former Minister of Finance Vanackere, with whom we have already dealt with this, here solemnly promised that it would not happen again during this legislature, although, of course, we can no longer refer to it, because for him the ministry in this legislature is over. He promised that the State Council’s opinion would be given in advance and that MEPs would be able to examine amendments or legislative texts in advance!

The State Council was also asked for the urgent treatment. That request for advice refers to the 2013 budget adjustment. Apparently, a number of amendments concerned measures to ensure that this Belgium can comply with the European recommendations and that we can convince Europe.

Even the State Council says in these that many of those amendments relate to matters that will only take effect in 2014 and therefore do not require any urgency at all. We had already addressed this in the committee, but then it was said that this was not true.

A second point, which also lacks the State Council, is that the amendments were formally submitted by a number of Members of Parliament, but that it is clear from the above texts that they were drafted not by Members of Parliament, but by the Cabinets.

Again, this is accepted, so that one should not ask for the advice of the State Council. I am pleased that the President of the Chamber finally asked for an urgent advice.

The opinion therefore shows that the text is very summary. The State Council says it is unable to give adequate advice. It is not because there is no opinion on a particular amendment that the amendment is in order. If there is already an opinion on a particular amendment, it does not mean that it could be everything. I would like to point out what type of legislation is being made. This is also what the State Council has stated.

There were 41 amendments, only tax amendments. These amendments are referred to. What will be the consequence of this? If such important legislation is attempted in this way, legal certainty will be compromised, and that in a field where the principle of legality in tax matters applies and the taxable person must know in good time what legal and fiscal consequences will be associated with his activities.

What does the State Council say about them? Reparatory legislation will surely be necessary and legal certainty is not guaranteed. Indeed, the Council of State’s opinion contained some observations in the context of the principle of equality. The State Council has one day to review all amendments. I think there are a lot more underneath the grass. They simply didn’t have time to look at the texts.

Reparation legislation will be the result. One of the first compensation measures is child allowance. A sub-amendment and an amendment have been submitted to the Committee. The sub-amendment thus brings to life another article, suddenly removing the main mandate. Consequently, Mrs. Minister, we had a very concrete question within the framework of Article 44bis, whether or not it should be included in certain articles. I just asked you the question; it is, of course, a very technical question that we would have wanted to ask. I’ll give you the opportunity to look at it thoroughly. It would be hard, however, if we had to do a repair before the law was passed.

What have we all discussed? What have we gone through in the process, colleagues?

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Wouters, can I answer your precise and technical question?

Yes, because you have to leave Parliament, right?

for which thank you.

This is indeed a very technical issue. According to the sub-amendment introduced by Mr. Delised and consorts, if it is not necessary to reintroduce Article 44bis in Articles 27, § 2 and 27, § 3. This is a relevant question, but the answer is no because it is people who were born before 1966. Because of their age, they are no longer eligible for the award of the school return premium, which is why they are not found here.

This is because the ministers can no longer be present at a full vote; then we do not get thorough answers and such opinions and amendments are the result. Thank you for your reply, I will definitely review it thoroughly.

What fiscal measures have all been taken, colleagues?

First and foremost, there is a limitation of the tax reduction for service cheques and this already from 1 July 2013. The tax reduction is halved, which means that another 150 cheques per person can be purchased fiscally favourably. Thus, a single person can still seek up to three hours of assistance through service cheques in the tax-favourable regime. Not only was the tax reduction adjusted, but the rate was also adjusted. If you calculate all this thoroughly, you will get an increase of 3.2 euros per service cheque, paying more. This is, of course, the burden of people who work and who would like to have some help in the household.

Another point is the tax reform of the salary bonus. Mr. Minister, I am very pleased that after four questions to you, to the Minister of Finance, to the Minister of Labour and to the Minister of Social Affairs, this problem is now resolved. The tax gap was also adjusted in the context of the increase in the wage bonus. The majority voted against my proposal in a previous bill, because it was not agreed at the time. Colleague Van der Maelen, you could not get your heart over voting against and you abstained in the committee: honor to whom honor deserves. I am now happy, although I have not been able to collect the prey myself; but for the opposition, the result counts. The minimum logic was restored. That social contributions are charged on the wage bonus and that they do not generate social rights is something we can agree on, but in exchange for that, of course, the entire amount had to be tax-exempt. This is what has happened to them.

Another measure is the fairness tax. What does the government-Di rupo do just at the moment when Flemish Prime Minister Kris Peeters goes on a foreign mission to Texas to find investors who want to invest in our country? It is the decision to introduce a fairness tax!

This has also been noted by the Wall Street Journal and it was therefore more shameless that it is obvious that everyone wants to be taxed fairly. Who doesn’t want it?

But, dear colleagues, that new tax will ⁇ not improve our image abroad. It will ⁇ not help the idea that there would be a favorable fiscal climate here. It gets worse every day.

Moreover, the whole measure does not contribute to a simpler taxation. The calculation for this fairness tax is not always as clear.

Mr Van Biesen, you already pointed out in the committee that the new fairness tax is intended to encourage companies to immediately reverse profits. This new tax is entirely contrary to the goal of the notional interest to strengthen the equity of companies. We all know that companies with a strong balance sheet can withstand a financial and economic crisis much better than weak companies.

The fairness tax is, in our eyes, a bad signal to business. Everyone has to pay taxes, we agree with that, but because of the difficult way one wants to introduce this tax, I don’t think it will put a lot of soden on the dive.

The fairness tax also crosses the stable dividend policy of listed companies. When the results for a year are somewhat less or even negative, they will prefer to keep the dividend stable and to extract it from the reserves. After all, a reduction in the dividend shocks the investor’s confidence in the company. In the future, in order to preserve the trust of investors, they will suddenly have to pay more taxes by the fairness tax in a year in which the results are counterbalanced.

Ms. Wouters, now you say on behalf of your group that you may be the only political party in all of Europe that has no problem with very large companies succeeding in paying little or no taxes, thanks to the fact that they have international branches across Europe and are assisted by expensive tax advisors? You seem to find that no problem.

If I understand you well, you also find it no problem that there is no equal playing field between SMEs and large companies. I do not know if you have sufficient contacts with the business, but there are examples known in the business community of reasonable Belgian companies that have been competitive by branches of multinational companies because those Belgian branches, which were part of a multinational company, were able to avoid paying taxes through all kinds of tax structures and techniques, while those SMEs paid taxes close to the nominal rate, namely 20%.

In addition, I have not heard you say that the 50 million euro income from the fairness tax will be returned to SMEs. With this measure, the Government supports the key actors in our economic tissue, in particular SMEs.

I would like to know how the N-VA stands in the face of these three points. You disagree with the rest of Europe, which believes that something needs to be done to tackle tax evasion by large corporations. You do not have a problem of unfair competition between large and small companies. What do you think of the fact that this government succeeds in sending 50 million euros back to SMEs to restore unfair competition?

Mr Van der Maelen, here it is said that there is an exception for SMEs. I have also said that the State Council has made comments in the framework of the principle of equality. Furthermore, the question arises whether in this case the tax is also compatible with the mother-daughter directive. Now, let me talk about the technical gap.

Should the Belgian profits generated by a company here be taxed? and yes. However, if you look at the result of that calculation at the moment, that is very minimal, about 0.05%. I am therefore sorry that Mr. Gilkinet is not present and I do not dare to repeat his words.

Even Mr. Gilkinet says that the way this fairness tax is calculated is not entirely correct. We are speaking primarily about the technical gap. The way of calculating is nothing but simple. It will be a low rate. Companies will be encouraged to address their reserves. In order not to damage the trust of investors, one will try to pay those people equally by the calculation method of this fairness tax. As a result, these companies will eventually have to pay more taxes.

There is a huge difference between the super-big companies, the multinational companies that will find a way out here again, and the medium-sized enterprises that in this case will feel the fairness tax.

For SMEs, things are different. The State Council also has comments within the framework of the principle of equality. If someone does not agree with this fairness tax and goes to court with the complaint that the principle of equality was not respected, then we come back into a legal struggle and the question arises whether the fairness tax, as he now presents here, will eventually get it legally.

These were our comments in the committee. I would also like to refer to colleague Van Biesen, who also believes that by the way the fairness tax will be introduced, the companies will be directed in a certain direction. Whether that is the intention is another question.

Ms. Wouters, I think it is clear that these large companies succeed, precisely because of the international gap they have. A national state with its own national measures cannot do much against it. It will have to come from international cooperation. Only in this way will we ensure that they pay adequate taxes.

Our government has been very creative. I think she found a measure.

I hear different opinions here. I read the report with attention. Mr. Gilkinet says it is too little. In business, some stand on their back legs and find it inappropriate to ask for money. You apparently think so too.

I observe that the N-VA opposes every measure taken by this government, which is aimed at achieving some fiscal justice, and that very often beautifully camoufles under technical problems.

With regard to technical problems, the European Union is consulted. We will see what it will be.

If the argument in the State Council opinion were correct, it would not even be possible that we use a different nominal foot in our tax legislation for SMEs and for large companies. I do not see what the problem is there.

Again and again I find that the N-VA – the patron of your chairman is called Voka and there are mainly SMEs – draws the map of the big companies. That surprises me a little. Whenever one tries to get those big companies to pay a fair portion of the taxes, we hear the N-VA protests and search for all sorts of arguments.

I don’t understand why you don’t come with us. If you disagree with our solution, come up with an alternative. Make yourself a proposal to make it clear that you also think that it is not possible that large companies do not pay taxes, that for the sake of protecting our economic tissue we have all interest in taxing SMEs and that they deserve some support in what they do.

However, I reiterate that the N-VA is against it and has problems with it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not share the orientation of Ms. Wouters who would like to spare these large companies from paying a minimum tax.

But, Mr. Van der Maelen, we cannot accept that we are talking about an equity tax, when that is not the case. The little concrete information we have on the mechanism shows, on the one hand, that this tax will only be paid after deduction of all the benefits of the notional interest type and, on the other hand, that if the company transfers its profits and assets to a foreign subsidiary, it will be able to evade this so-called ‘fair’ minimum tax. It will continue to avoid taxation.

I would have preferred a clear arrangement to establish a minimum tax rate and to ensure that this tax is paid. Therefore, the revenues, which you estimate at 140 and 215 million in 2013 and 2014, on which you rely to strengthen SMEs, which still pay 30% tax and for which nothing has been planned, rest on sand! Honestly, I am not following you. In terms of taxation, there is nothing worse than to say that a minimum corporate tax is created and to find that it does not result in the facts. We must be credible: we must be able to control and enforce the law, but this will not be the case with this provision.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Gerkens, I can understand you on a number of points, although we are sometimes slightly different in the way the taxation must be completed. Also on this point we will continue on the next hammer. Every time again, measures are being developed here that provide nothing but legal certainty.

You say yourself that you have now sought the advice of Europe. When a measure is issued in which one is not 100% certain that the measure is in accordance with the Mother-daughter Directive, it seems to me generally logical that first the advice is sought. Thus, there is certainty that there is no problem. Then such a measure can come to Parliament, so that there is certainty.

For us, it is most important that measures are implemented here, about which there is no certainty and no opinion of the State Council.

I would like to comment on Mrs. Gerkens on another point. What can Belgium tax its companies at the moment? The Belgian profit.

What is happening? It is true that there will be a lot of shifts. In light of the judgment on the notional interest deduction, we will also receive shifts when the notional interest deduction is adjusted.

So the question arises to what extent the measure will accomplish what the government expects from it. We are in an economically difficult period. However, you want the revenue to be returned to SMEs. However, I must be very clear: there is nowhere a sum that will be returned to SMEs.

It is not mentioned in the amendments. There is a reference, but there is no amount in the amendments.

Mr. Van der Maelen, with this comment, we round out the part on the fairness tax. We have very clear questions about the legal gap. You say that the N-VA votes against all anti-abuse provisions or against all provisions aimed at combating tax fraud. I can guarantee you that we have voted against every time because the legislation is not legally concluding, because there are legally many angels under the grass, and because the legal certainty and human rights are often not respected in the relevant legislation.

You and I, however, apparently often have different opinions on this, which apparently will not change.

What other measures does the government still take, apart from the fairness tax, which is apparently subject to much debate?

Another measure is, of course, the increase of bank taxes, which is already a classic.

The question is, of course, what the banks will do. We notice it, of course. Mr. Van der Maelen, what will happen here? Profitable activities are increasingly moved abroad, so on the profitable loop no bank taxes or taxes need to be paid. That is now the way.

Are you against everything?

We are not against everything.

There is also an increase in the tax on investment funds. We had already extended them to the mixed funds, now they are also extended to the funds without a European passport. Mr. Minister, you assume that this was necessary. In this way, a lot of savers will also not be able to escape the dance of this final budget control.

There is an increase in the tax on intercommunals. The question, of course, is this: if they have to pay more taxes, they will likely be able to pay fewer dividends as well.

The abolition of the VAT exemption for lawyers. This will also be felt by law seekers in their portfolios. Sophie De Weiß will be speaking on this.

Ordinary consumers will also have to contribute. There will be higher excise duties on alcoholic beverages, LPG and a number of other energy products.

As a result of the increase of all these excise duties, the following question arises. We have a special committee for tax reform. If we look at the opinions of the High Council of Finance, we find that they propose a shift in taxes. If you raise taxes on energy products, alcoholic beverages, etc. to get the budget in order, you can’t do it again to get a reduction in the burden on labor, as should be the aim of that fiscal reform.

The shift of the tax burden is therefore a little more difficult for them, especially if one knows that one is absolutely not willing to talk about savings in spending in that committee for tax reform. The question is how we will be able to carry out that reform.

Mr. Minister, in addition to Mr. Gilkinet’s quick but sound discourse, to which I refer, I would like to go deeper into two remarkable measures that have been developed in budget control.

Soon, we talked about the first one, namely the famous fairnesstaks. It is remarkable to note that there are great defenders, such as Mr. Van der Maelen, who is very enthusiastic and euphoric. And an open world? I will later talk about the enthusiasm of Open Vld regarding the VAT on lawyers.

So on the one hand, there are members of the government, ⁇ from the Socialist group, who are very excited about the measure and on the other, there is the N-VA, who is not excited and fears that companies will now pay too much taxes. I think that fear is non-existent. Mr. Van der Maelen, I really think you bought a cat in a bag with the proposal.

I can also refer to the debate in the committee. Mr Gilkinet made the calculation. Everyone knows what the problem is, Mr. Van der Maelen, namely, the large discrepancy between the large companies that barely pay taxes, sometimes 0.5% or 1%, and the SMEs, which often pay around 30% or more in real life. You take figures from twelve or thirteen years ago, you say that large companies and SMEs both paid about 20%, and that this percentage has grown significantly over the years.

Why has it grown so strongly apart? Per ⁇ we should look at its causes, then see which remedies work best. I think you know better than I know the reasons. One of the reasons is, for example, the notional interest deduction; there are many other deductions, structures are made, and so on. In this way, international companies will reach 0, 1, 2 to 3%. It is not easy to deal with that. I do not think that the introduction of a fair tax, in which a company will pay ⁇ 0.7% or 1% tax instead of 0.5%, will provide a solution.

Why has the government not previously sought measures to tackle the abuses and to reform the notional interest deduction? We have submitted suggestions for a better description. They are not intended to punish SMEs, because for them the notional interest deduction can often be very useful, but above all to tackle the abuses by multinationals. I think that’s the first track.

We also submitted an amendment on the other track. With the method developed here, we will not get there. It is then better to provide for a nominal minimum tax rate, if one still wants the large companies to contribute effectively.

I fear, Mr. Van der Maelen, that a company that now pays 0.5 % taxes, with the avoidance mechanisms that are now being developed, which are already known and for which experts have already warned, will not pay much more than today. The future will show it, but we are not convinced that this measure will lead to greater tax contributions from those companies.

Indeed, the government has, probably at the request of the liberals, to soften the pill, used a portion to reduce the burden on SMEs. It intends to spend 50 million of the 140 million planned for 2013. But, colleagues, what will happen if the fairnessstaks later don’t yield anything? I hope I am mistaken, Mr. Van der Maelen, but I am afraid of it. Suppose that the fairness tax will later yield nothing, or only 20 million, or 50 million, instead of the intended 140 million? What will happen with the 50 million tax cuts promised? Will you then say that you are sorry, but that there is no room for a burden reduction because the fairness tax has done nothing?

Or will the tax reduction continue anyway, even though the fairness tax does not contribute anything? Then the liberals have reached their point, but they are the ones who are striving for more correct contributions from the companies.

Do not misunderstand me: we also advocate a reduction in burden, especially for SMEs, because they have difficulty. This measure is indeed necessary.

However, I fear that this measure will not have the anticipated effect. I wonder if the effective income can be calculated. I hope that he will make something, but I fear that the figures included in the budget are too optimistic.

Colleagues, a second notable decision is the introduction of VAT for lawyers. Who will have to pay the bill? The biggest victim in this case is the private client who draws to a lawyer following a family dispute or a rental dispute, or whatever, but who cannot resort to a pro-Deo lawyer because he earns something too much, and who also does not have a company which would allow him to deduct the costs and recover VAT. That private client will have to pay the bill.

Who are the big winners? These include accountants and accountants. After all, many lawyers will no longer carry out their own accounting following the introduction of that VAT and outsource them. So the accountants, the accountants, will be very satisfied.

Who are the big winners? The very large law firms, which hardly work with private clients but especially with large companies that are subject to VAT. Whether they pay 21% VAT or not, large clients will deduct it, so for them the measure remains neutral.

Recovering VAT can, of course, make the large law firms a lot of money. They can do that today. In other words, the big law firms, the big Brussels offices, are the big winners in this game. The loser is the private client: a worker, a servant who needs a lawyer once or twice in his life. He will pay the bill.

It must be noted that in this way no two- or three-speed justice is developed. On the one hand, you have the legal seeker who can use the pro-Deos system. There are evolutions there too. There are draft laws under way that will make legal assistance more difficult for certain categories. That is a category. A second category is those who just do not qualify, who must pay it themselves, who cannot recover VAT, who do not have companies. Then there are the big players who can easily pay all lawyers, who can recover VAT and will not feel that. We must take care of this two- or three-speed Justice, which will further aggravate the existing gap in legal protection.

This can also result in individuals thinking twice before starting a procedure, even if they are really right and think they should bring a lawsuit. The price increases by 21%. It can also be a brake to pursue right.

We have to ask ourselves a lot of questions. It also concerns, for example, whether VAT should be paid on pro-Deovercompensations. This will have to be paid by the government. If a pro Deo lawyer works and is entitled to a fee, will he then have to advance VAT when closing the file? This should be done normally when you issue an invoice. Or will the VAT only have to be paid at the end of the trip, if the pro-Deoverpayment is paid one and a half years or two years after the closing of the file? These questions remain open. What about a lawyer with primarily a private clientele, who often faces honorary statements that are not paid? Will he have to pre-finance the VAT? What happens if the bills are not paid? I see dramas happening in the legal profession, not in the big Brussels offices, but in the small offices, in small cities and municipalities, who work with a private clientele.

It is a pity that the liberals are not here. I remember how happy Deputy Prime Minister De Croo was a few months ago, when he came out of the first round of budget control. The VAT was not included. Apparently, Open Vld has taken a curve. I don’t know how they took the curve, but in any case, the curve is taken, the car is turned. They are not present to defend the case. The question is why Open Vld has turned its carriage. What convinced them to agree to this measure? Kwatong claims that there has been a very strong lobby for years to introduce the VAT obligation for lawyers, including from those large Brussels firms who find that they can benefit from it. And look, there is a new Minister of Finance and the VAT duty is introduced. It may be pure coincidence, but there may be a connection.

I find it very unfortunate that such a measure is introduced in this way and is also proposed as a budgetary measure.

By the way, the introduction of the VAT obligation for lawyers also means that a lawyer can recover the VAT paid for the past five years. What will the Belgian State collect for VAT in the first few years? If all lawyers raise their bills for the past five years and recover their VAT, the Belgian State may have to refund more VAT to lawyers than it will be able to collect.

How did you calculate the €89 million you entered into the budget? Have you taken into account the refund of VAT for the past five years to lawyers? Are you sure you can make income from it? I think we can raise a lot of questions about the measure.

To sum up, colleagues, this is clearly a budgetary measure, which is likely to go wrong, which may at first cost more than it will, which leads to much more costs for individuals and which brings a few big winners, in particular the big offices in Brussels and other big cities and the accountants. In the end, the price will be paid by the individuals. In this sense, it is also a rather associative measure.

Mr. Speaker, ladies, ladies, ladies, ladies and gentlemen, dear colleagues, as specified in the preamble to our committee work, the method used to file in time the various measures of our budgetary adjustment and allow, therefore, their entry into force from 2013 is not Orthodox.

No, my dear colleagues, advocating in the Social Affairs Committee tax measures, while we have a Finance Committee just planned for this purpose is not the most conventional! No, using a draft of various provisions by submitting last-minute amendments, leaving only a few hours for the opposition and a few more hours for the majority is not conventional! Just as it is absolutely not Orthodox to have to receive and analyze the opinion of the State Council, rendered exclusively in Dutch, just two hours before the start of the commission, which was to decide on the whole.

In fact, this is how the work went. We, members of the six majority parties, have agreed to use this legal possibility. If we preferred to leave the word to the government in the framework of the committee debates, today we will explain the reasons for this.

First of all, we are satisfied, at the PS level, with several decisions that were taken in the framework of the last budgetary conclave and which concern both the 2013 adjustment and the 2014 budget. Finally, a harmonisation of the taxation of sicavs is decided and a similar tax treatment is applied, regardless of whether the sicav holds a European passport or not and regardless of the place of establishment.

The subscription tax, which has existed for a while, is being revised. A fixed rate will now be applied to allow for budgetary neutrality. Let’s also highlight the maintenance of a system that we have been defending for years: I mean service titles. Its success is undeniable, but its cost as well. Since then, the government has decided to frame the device while now.

The aid to agriculture, which began in 2008, as a result of the crisis, will be extended in 2013 and 2014 to support a sector severely affected in recent years. I will return in detail to two ⁇ important measures of this budget adjustment. This is the fairness tax, of which we have already talked a lot, and the exemption from the payment of the professional pre-count.

Then, the work was carried out in this way because, in order for these measures to find, from 2013, their legal basis, their entry into force and thus generate the expected revenues for closing the budget and efforts 2013, it was necessary to be able to vote on them before the end of this parliamentary session. So, yes, in the legality, but not in the Orthodox way, we used the last possible vehicle that remained in the garage of the parliamentary house, a process that today, rightly, is criticized by the opposition, but also, rightly, is used by the majority.

Finally, because in politics, it is the results that matter and not always the way, even if it is legal.

As socialists, we therefore look forward to seeing what we call the minimum corporate tax appear as part of this adjustment. This is a real re-balance that must be placed in a perspective of tax justice. Indeed, it is difficult to understand why large groups reward their shareholders and pay almost no penny in taxes. Some see it as tax optimization; for my part, I see it mostly as tax injustice.

Some criticized the retained 5 percent rate, considering it too low. I simply notice that we are no longer in the “there is only to”. This fairness tax finally exists and should allow to generate new revenues and continue the policies of economic revitalization. I will explain it later.

I would like to use my presence at the tribune to answer the few questions raised in the committee, some of which were directly addressed to me or which, I think, deserve a slight development.

Those which were directly addressed to me, rightly elsewhere since I was, it must be recalled, the first signer of these amendments, concern the formula applied to calculate the minimum tax on large companies. On this formula, I will have two elements to argue, one exclusively technical, the other purely political.

On the technical level, a commissioner had suggested that I explain in a committee the formula from A to Z and the examples given in the supporting documents for the amendments concerned. Apart from reading these in the documents, I would have frankly been unable to go further than the explanations that the minister had given us, especially since it seemed to me that the government should also assume the paternity of it and then explain its content. Today, things have changed. We were able, with the help of our experts, to go further in the analysis and it is easier for me to return to the holders and finishes of the measurement.

How does this work? This is quite simple, as the Minister explained in the committee. We take the distributed dividends to which we subtract the taxable final result. On this result, we apply a proportional limitation.

Why Why ? To avoid falling into the taxation of income directly taxed, prohibited by the mother/daughter directive and thus avoid a judgment of the Court of Justice. It can be said that proportional limitation is a filter and that it is calculated by taking the postponed losses and notional interest, dividing the whole by the tax outcome with the distributed dividends. Both stages are subject to the 5% rate.

As regards the opinion of the State Council, I would simply like to recall that the concept of SMEs, as defined in Article 15 of the Corporate Code, is already used several times in the Code of Income Tax, in particular with regard to notional interest or advance payments. For the rest, I would invite Mr. the Minister of Finance to react as concretely as possible to this opinion of the State Council.

At the political level, which, in my opinion, has more legitimacy in this assembly, I will give you my opinion on the perception of this formula and, finally, its more symbolic side. In fact, this formula evokes in me the meaning of compromise. Of course, for some, 5% is not enough, while for others, it is too much. Obviously, for some, it is the tax too much, for others, it is too blurred. The sub-amendments are in all directions. By the way, speaking of these sub-amendments, know that I did not appreciate too much the humor of some talking about a "cream" tax!

But that is not my word. My speech evoked the parallelism that I wanted to make between the formula and the compromise because this is exactly what it evokes. We are six parties in a majority, sometimes eight, and we need to find solutions – here, in this case, to close a 2013 adjustment and a 2014 budget. This is what we have done, taking into account all political sensitivities in order to unleash the compromise we defend today.

I think that in terms of compromise, responsibility, these last sessions have been quite prolific. I mean as proof the completion of the sixth reform of the State, the harmonisation of the worker/employed status, the modernization of the monarchy, the budget that we will close. So yes, dear colleagues, I repeat, the method was far from orthodox but it has the merit of demonstrating that when there is a will to go forward between French-speaking and Flemish parties, between parties sweeping the left and right, balanced solutions can be found.

I will conclude with the second measure that we defended in the commission and which allows to change the rate of exemption from the payment of the professional prepayment for SMEs and self-employed persons. This change must be seen in the logic of the relief plan that the government has put in place since 2012 and which will allow small enterprises and individuals in companies to see their final tax reduction for a total support of 50 million euros.

I already hear some laughing and saying that it is incredible to affect part of the profitability of the tax on large corporations, of which we simply know the estimate (2013: 140 million, 2014: 165 million), and of which some already predict that tax advisors will find the parade to avoid it. I will tell them not to forget that they supported us in the Committee on External Relations when we talked about alternative sources of financing for development cooperation in a proposal for a resolution aimed at allocating part of the financial transaction tax to its output.

We will strongly and vigorously support these amendments and vote in favor of them.

Mr Henry, I want to tell you something.

First of all, regarding the method, I obviously appreciate that you said that she was no longer a cavalier. But you acknowledge yourself at the tribune that you didn’t have the time to understand the text you presented and voted for. The idea of leaving even one day to read the documents didn’t even come to you in commission!

It was said that we could possibly work until August 9th. Normally, we were all organized to do this. You could work one more week; you could work one more day. But no, we had to distribute a text and two hours later, meet in the committee and vote on it! And here, I find that there is a responsibility and attitude of parliamentarians who logically should have been yours in committee.

You say that what matters is the result, not the way. What I criticize with my group is the result you announce that will not be that. A minimum tax of 5% for companies should be removed from the vocabulary. They are “5% on a part that”; so it is not a minimum tax of 5%. It is estimated to be between 0.5 and 1%.

Then, you still did not respond to the major criticism of this provision, that the device ⁇ ins the possibility for these companies – which are essentially multinational companies – to send the money to a subsidiary abroad and thus escape your minimum tax.

I would have hoped to get an answer from you, because if you don’t have an assurance of results, you can’t talk about tax justice: you have to talk about appearance. That’s why we called this tax “cream tax” rather than “fair tax.”

I don’t think I said, Mrs. Gerkens, that I didn’t understand. I just said that I had received the proposals two hours before you and that, by the way, experts from the offices had come to explain them to us. I think you misunderstood my word. For the rest, you have heard my argument, I will not return to it.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, colleagues and colleagues, Mr. Van der Maelen has already talked about the fiscal gap and I would like to come up with the amendment on the salary bonus, the non-recurring result-binding premium.

I am very pleased that the contents of my Bill No. 2754 amendments have been approved. The non-recurring result-related premium is not considered as wage up to a certain amount. Until recently, that amount was 2,200 euros per year. In the Program Law of 27 December, we increased the amount in the social legislation to 3,100 euros. If this amount is exceeded by an employee, only the portion exceeding that amount shall be subject to the calculation of the ordinary social security contributions.

Non-recurring benefit benefits that are not covered by ordinary social security are subject to a special employer contribution to social security of 33%. Also in the Program Law of 27 December, a solidarity contribution of 13,07 % charged to the employee is added to the portion not subject to the ordinary social security contributions.

It has never been intended to affect the employee’s tax advantage. To that end, it was necessary to increase the threshold in tax legislation in a similar way. This amendment increases the threshold in the Income Tax Code to €2,695 euros. Had we not done so, the increase in the social legislation would have actually had very little meaning; as long as that amount was not increased in the tax legislation, it would have had no point to increase the amount of the salary bonus, since the employee would then be taxed otherwise for the additional amount. With the amendment, we ensure that employees retain the tax benefit as promised, and we also provide for an administrative simplification by talking about the same amount in both social and tax legislation. Many employees will be happy with it.

I only have to thank the members of the government and the members of the committees, both of the majority and the opposition, for their support for the proposal.

Mr. President, Mrs. Kitir, I am also very pleased that the measure has finally arrived. However, you must also admit that the ball has rolled after I asked about it to Minister Geens, Minister De Coninck and even Minister Onkelinx. They attracted great attention to this issue, because they did not know that the tax gap was not thus increased.

Therefore, it is a pity that your group did not support us when we submitted amendments.

We would, however, like to fully approve the conscious luke. We will not vote against or abstain, Mr. Van der Maelen. As far as this matter is concerned, we fully agree with you.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, I will be very brief.

A lot has already been said, but I would like to add something about the VAT obligation for lawyers. I refer to the Good Friday Agreement, in which Open Vld was not pleased to announce that there would be no additional corporate taxes, no additional excise duties and no VAT obligation for lawyers. It is now early July and the additional taxes will come.

And it was silent on the Open Vld banks! So quiet that they don’t even dare to come. Colleague Van Hecke just said that they have taken a few curves. Well, they have taken so many curves that they do not even find the way back.

Mr. Minister, in your accountability regarding the VAT obligation, you said that this is also happening abroad and you wondered why we would then be left behind. I understand that you need to provide for an arrangement, but it would make sense to follow the foreign example in other areas. After all, due to our tax system, we are still one of the heavily taxed countries. Abroad, people are often less interested in taxes. It would be nice if the foreign example also applied in that area.

On the ground there is concern and a lot of questions are asked about the VAT obligation for lawyers. Colleague Van Hecke has already cited a few of them. Eventually, however, one will organize itself, but that does not exclude that there is a certain concern.

This is a budgetary operation. You have wondered where you could get some more money. I also understand that. What you have done here is similar to a game on the jackpot, the one-armed bandit, in the sense that one can win but one can also lose. I am afraid that the VAT obligation for lawyers might sometimes be countered. After all, as Mr Van Hecke said, a VAT liable person can recover VAT back up to five years and for real estate even up to fifteen years. Just think about who built a new law firm and then you know immediately who the beneficiaries are. We were still looking for them, but we found them, Mr. Van Hecke.

These revenues could sometimes be reversed. Your jackpot operation could sometimes mean a loss and then you miss your goal.

Like colleague Van Hecke, I wonder if the pro-Deoverpayments also fall within that. That question was already asked in the Justice Committee to your colleague, Minister Turtelboom, who put her hands in the air and said that we should ask you, Mr. Minister, but who also showed with so many words that she was not in favour of it.

Our concern is that that revenue might sometimes collapse and target you beyond your goal.

Even worse, it could happen to the ordinary citizen. I am not talking about the companies, but about the individuals, as colleague Van Hecke has already very well outlined. For ordinary legal seekers, who need a lawyer for simple cases and who will not be able to recover VAT, but who will be allowed to pay a higher invoice, the threshold for recovering will be much higher. This will also be the case for his insurance companies. Think about legal aid policies. If they become more expensive, the premiums will also increase. Who pays that? The same private.

Mr Van der Maelen spoke about tax justice. Where is the tax justice here? You said you had been creative, but if the budgetary might not make so much at all, where is your creativity then?

In any case, the threshold for obtaining legal assistance will increase.

That brings us back to the beginning. You are entitled to a rate of 21% on an honorary state. You view legal assistance as a luxury asset. Now, by introducing that measure, I truly fear that legal assistance has become a luxury and will no longer be available to the less wealthy. That may not be the intention, right? Legal aid is a fundamental right, not a luxury.

This is why we are extremely concerned.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. and Mr. Ministers, dear colleagues, like others before me, I am really overwhelmed by the lack of consideration of the majority for parliamentary work. Indeed, by submitting budgetary amendments to the Social Affairs Committee, the majority mocked the Belgian citizens, the parliamentary rules, the State Council, in short, all the rules that underpin the rule of law and the functioning of this assembly.

The fairness tax and the subject of lawyers to a 21% VAT are the flagship tax measures of the government’s budget adjustment and will have a direct impact on the citizens’ portfolio, as others have just recalled. It is therefore essential that they follow the legislative process envisaged for this purpose. A tax measure within the framework of an adjustment must, at least, be examined by the State Council and debated in the Committee on Finance and Budget with the MEPs who specialize in these subjects.

By submitting amendments in the urgency, Mr. Henry — and even if you came to pay an honorable fine by declaring that you did not understand very well what you voted for and that you rely on others to explain the text to you — the majority showed no respect for the functioning of this Parliament and for the MEPs. This way of acting is pure piracy of parliamentary procedures. That is why the FDF have submitted amendments, notably No. 61, aimed at removing the new articles introduced in catimini by the majority and expect from the government a draft law-programme in good and proper form.

In fact, the precise of the budgetary rules for parliamentary use provides on page 33 that, in principle, a program law contains only urgent measures aimed at executing the budget. On the other hand, a law with various provisions contains non-budgetary urgent measures and/or non-urgent measures. According to the State Council opinion, which is enlightening, the latest budgetary decisions suffer from gaps that could undermine their legal certainty. The Legislative Section of the State Council indicated that most of the measures submitted to it are of a tax nature. I think that the professor of tax law of the KUL who is mr. Geens must have some awareness problems between the said function and that of a member of the government. I imagine that in his classes he explains exactly the opposite to his students by asking them to criticize parliament and government when they act this way. The section of tax legislation therefore recalled that a majority of the measures submitted to it are of a tax nature, that the principle of legality prevails and that in this case "the legal security is only more threatened, given the little transparency that accompanies the provisions in project".

The State Council also points out that there is a lack of motivation as to the urgency of the opinion for which it was requested. He doubts the Government’s justification regarding the urgent request for the opinion. Several amendments requested concern measures relating to the 2014 financial year; therefore there is no urgency to deal with them now rather than in October, at the parliamentary entrance. Furthermore, the request for an opinion was deemed inadmissible on two amendments containing neutral budgetary measures as they do not require any urgency. The State Council’s opinion also regrets that a number of measures are poorly drafted and unjustified and that they may undermine the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination. Finally, the technique aiming, and I quote the State Council, "to introduce by parliamentarians texts from the government in such a way as to circumvent the requirements allowing to meet the rules of a request of opinion in the urgency", is heavily criticized.

by Mr. Henry once said that only the outcome matters and not the way. What will be the outcome if the State Council, having decided on the legality of the measures taken, cancels them? The result will be brilliant! Your rush and your non-compliance with the rules will lead to a complete absence of result.

For the rest, I can only repeat the criticism I have already expressed about all the fiscal and budgetary measures that this government takes. Adjustment after adjustment, the government continually runs behind the budget balance. It takes increasingly painful measures that will affect citizens and affect companies on a macroeconomic level. It is impossible to say that the savings made by the government do not come from someone’s pocket! They come from the pocket of other economic actors such as ⁇ and households. They are the ones who pay for the state budget adjustment. These repeated measures, always in the same direction, which are always in the pockets of citizens and companies, which continually alter the tax rules, the context and the legal framework in which companies and citizens carry out their economic activity are likely to increase uncertainty and anxiety.

If we want a recovery, the government needs to create an economic framework that restores the confidence of citizens and investors. But they do not trust! The best proof of this is the investment figures that are deplorable. Another proof of this is the huge amounts that lie on household deposit books in banks. They are so afraid of the context and the measures you are taking, that they are saving more and more, which leads to a decline in consumption, a slowdown in growth and production. The economy slows down because the government, along with the harsh measures it takes and the levies it carries out in the pockets of companies and citizens, is unable to create a stable, reassuring framework that encourages citizens to invest and have confidence in the future.

For all these reasons, my group will vote against this bill.

I have only a few comments and answers to the questions asked by our colleagues. Most tax measures relate to 2013 or 2014 tax year, but therefore relate to 2013 income. Therefore, it was urgent to take these measures. We could not wait, even for the measures that enter into force only for the tax year 2014, the return or the year 2014 itself.

Regarding the distinction between SMEs and other companies made in relation to the fairness tax, I note that the distinction between SMEs and large companies in taxation is common because of their different economic roles.

For example, reference may be made to the increased deductibility of security and surveillance costs, pursuant to Article 185quater of the Code, to the exemption for the investment reserve pursuant to Article 194quater, to the imposition of monthly deductibilities rather than annually pursuant to Article 196, to the rules on investment deductibility pursuant to Article 201, to the higher interest rate for the deduction of risk capital pursuant to Article 205quater, to the exemption from sanction due to insufficient advance payments during the first three years of an activity, pursuant to Article 218, and, finally, to the recently introduced reduction of the personal tax rate to 15 % for dividends of new name shares held continuously in full ownership from the capital brin in the regulatory bonus on liquidity.

For the fairness tax, in particular, the international evolution must be taken into account. On an international level, the distinction should be considered within the framework of the Addressing Base Erosion and Profit Shifting Plan, approved by the OECD and subsequently referred to by Mr Van der Maelen. The plan was approved on 25 June 2013.

The plan will also be supported by the G20, which will discuss it at its meetings on 19 and 20 July 2013.

Indeed, the proposed fairness tax will result in an undertaking that applies Belgian tax legislation to be able to earn profits while those profits are hardly taxed will still be subject to tax.

I would therefore like to point out that the measure at issue is not incompatible with the formation of equity, as Ms. Wouters has noted. Indeed, it is evident that undertakings, if they do not pay the dividends, can still take them into reserves without taxing the fairness tax or retain them with the transferred profits.

The State Council also responded to our decision to retain the exemption from the transfer of corporate advance tax to small and medium-sized enterprises. If small undertakings and analogous undertakings of natural persons are not taxable persons in respect of the corporate advance tax but debtors of this retention at the source, the amount held on the salaries of the employees constitutes a wage cost borne by the employers included in the operating costs. Thus, an increase in the exemption from the deposit of the corporate advance tax for small undertakings and the analogue undertakings of natural persons constitutes a reduction in the wage costs for those employers and is a fiscal signal of incentive for the undertakings concerned to hire staff and participate in the economic recovery.

Indeed, it is estimated that the undertakings concerned will be able to hire new workforce faster than the large undertakings due to their greater flexibility and their more limited structure.

As regards the judgment in Aberdeen and the amendment no. The Council of State was surprised that the amendment, which is a consequence of a European judgment, comes into effect only from the financial year 2014. In doing so, the State Council may have missed the fact that the measure de facto applies from 1 January 2013, since it covers all financial years ending on the balance sheet date of 31 December 2013. In this sense, it covers the entire income year 2013 and all dividends received during that year.

There has also been a lot of criticism about the VAT for lawyers. I would like to signal you that my cabinet and my administration are in consultation with the orders of balies.

For now, my cabinet and my administration are therefore in concertation with the Orders of the Dutch, French and German-speaking bars. We look forward to being able to reach an agreement on measures that would ease VAT for legal aid in the context of a circular that my administration would prepare.

Here are a few comments that I could make, Mr. Speaker, in response to the questions I have been asked.

Mr. Minister, you have made me very curious about the VAT for lawyers. Your cabinet works on a relaxation through a circular, you say. If the Parliament adopts a law stipulating that 21% VAT is levied on lawyer’s services, without distinction between services provided to individuals or companies, what easing measures would you consider to introduce by means of a letter of reference? A circular must be consistent with the legislation; it cannot deviate from it. In what sense can there be a relief that is not contrary to the law?

Mr. Minister, you give here and there some additional explanation why certain comments of the State Council were correct or incorrect. I would like to clearly point out that for many of those amendments, there is simply a request for a better justification.

The N-VA asked the majority at the vote as a whole to first extend the reasoning and better explain it, so that it becomes clearer for the citizen, who must know the law, what it is about, for example in terms of the method of calculation. Colleague Henry remembers very well that you explained in the committee how the fairness tax will be calculated. If you submit your texts barely a day in advance and are not motivated enough, it is obvious that you will receive an opinion from the State Council that does not correspond to what you expect from it. That is because you have not communicated all the information in the justification to the State Council.

Furthermore, it appears that you apply a common practice with regard to the VAT for lawyers, in which you immediately adjust a proposal, after there is a lot of criticism and commentary and everyone stands on their back legs. Wouldn’t you have preferred to consult first to see how you could implement the measure properly, rather than approving a legislative text again to discuss it afterwards and to update the procedure of the administration via a circular?