Proposition 54K1007

Proposition de résolution visant à assurer la disponibilité d'iode en Belgique en cas d'accident nucléaire.

General information ¶

Authors

LE Catherine Fonck, Melchior Wathelet

Submission date

April 2, 2015

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

iodine nuclear accident resolution of parliament

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PVDA | PTB PP VB

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 ¶

Feb. 9, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Luk Van Biesen, rapporteur, refers to his written report.

When was the last time you passed a bill that was efficient, result-oriented and cost-efficient while at the same time increasing legal certainty? It was an eternity ago, but today you can do it again.

All madness on a stick, the call of the Recovery Service for a better procedural approach to recovery has sounded for a while. Recently, we, together with the administration and with the collaboration of a number of people on the ground, have been able to draw up a list of approximately 35 reasons why, in some cases, the collection of taxes is difficult.

We can grossly divide them into four categories. First, reasons of a practical nature, one of which we will address today with the procedure of the letters. Second, fraud that is very difficult to track, for example, the incapacity in which a number of people settle. There is also the follow-up of certain files. One example is the lack of a digital register of occupational prohibitions. There are also certain barriers that are legally built up, namely the seizability abroad of certain incomes that the government also makes available. At present, together with my group, we have drafted various legislation on all these different reasons and categories of difficulties surrounding recovery.

We also discussed practical procedural issues. Today there are two interventions. First, the ordering of the implementation procedure. We ensure that the taxpayer knows clearly in advance when an enforcement will take place. Second, a much more efficient letter management by abolishing the registered writing that we still send today as a reminder letter. Following colleague Van Mechelen in Flanders, we now stop this process.

Approximately 250,000 reminders are sent annually by the taxpayers.

Of those letters, 200 000 are not collected. Average costs of approximately 1.5 million euros per year, which are almost unrecoverable, are the result. Don’t be afraid, about 500 working days will be accompanied by classifying all postsouches that return. So it is an incredibly labor-intensive and archaic data, which absolutely does not contribute to the result.

In Flanders, the procedure has been in effect for two years. The first results are very positive. There is no difference in the recoverability of taxes.

In the bill, we have also included an element of legal certainty. In the future, a clearer line will be drawn from when it can be seized. Confiscation may be made 30 days after the sending of the letter. Those 30 days go into three days after sending the letter.

There was only one point of criticism from the opposition, namely that we have cooperated with the administration for this law. The separation of powers was challenged. That is of course nonsense. As a legislative power, we have the system of questions for a preliminary ruling. Of course, the legislative power should not be blind to what is happening on the ground. A good participatory process to come up with good, qualitative legislation will only benefit us all.

Thank you, my colleagues, and I hope to count on your cooperation as soon as possible.