Proposition 54K1920

Projet de loi portant des dispositions fiscales urgentes.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

June 23, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax authorities tax relief foreign enterprise tax law patent exchange of information corporation tax

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP PVDA | PTB

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 19, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Piedboeuf and Laauouej, rapporteurs, refer to their written report.

Mr. Speaker, with regard to this project, many things have already been said in the committee regarding the provisions submitted to us in the Tate and Lyle dossier. We know that the problem is complex and that the government has worked on it in successive phases, which does not call for further comments and I refer you to our exchanges.

The issue of patent deduction is more sensitive. We had the opportunity to talk long about this and I would like to draw the attention of the Government and Mr. Minister of Finance on the need to properly measure the sensitivity of the location of intangible assets to the tax regime applicable to them.

Indeed, as much as I do not believe in the competition of rates, so much it is important to be especially attentive to this type of income related to intangible assets.

I therefore expect that Mr. Minister can clarify the situation as soon as possible and ensure that research and development are supported in Belgium.

No one disputes the extent of the budgetary aspect linked to this measure. We must demonstrate efficiency so that every euro invested indirectly through this support translates into an economic return.

We hope that in the new European framework, BEPS, we can continue, through taxation, to develop this incentive function, support for research and development.

Dear colleagues, this two-part project could have been an opportunity to challenge the entire policy of tax niches for large companies that is somehow the determinant of our Belgian tax policy. The suspension of the deduction for patent income seems to go in the right direction. In fact, a measure that does not comply with international regulations is suspended. Unfortunately, it is only suspended. It is not removed, since the Minister's purpose is to replace it soon with another similar deduction but which will necessarily be a little different. We will have to wait to see.

I recall that this measure had not even been written by the cabinet of the then minister but by a lawyer’s office employed by a pharmaceutical multinational, which obviously raises questions about how tax laws are written in our country. Unfortunately, I would have preferred that it was a pure and simple removal of the measure like other tax niches of our tax system. This is not the case, which, as a result, leads us to a reserved position on this project.

The first part concerns an extension of Tate & Lyle to the furniture pre-account. The measure itself introduced here by the project is not really in question since it is about removing discrimination, which can be understood. On the other hand, what I think must be highlighted is the maintenance of a discrimination that exists in the whole of our tax system on RDTs in general and on the furniture pre-account. This is an amount discrimination, i.e. that large companies with holdings of more than 2.5 million euros benefit from a tax deduction or exemption from the pre-count, which is not the case for companies with holdings of less than that amount.

For me, there is a fundamental discrimination between small and large companies. This brings a second reserve to this project.

Mr. Lula, my answer will be made up of two parts. Following our discussions in the committee, I share your opinion. It is very important to look at what is happening in neighboring countries regarding tax or grant deduction.

England and the Netherlands are “dangerous” in this type of business. We are attentive to this. That’s why we take the time to look at what’s going on, as well as in other countries, in order not to make mistakes. Small differences can be very significant in this case.

Mr. Van Hees, I think a simplification of our tax system is desirable. There are always exceptions and this grant deduction can and will be very useful to attract future research and development investments. This is a defensive and desirable exception.