Proposition 54K1950

Projet de loi instaurant une nouvelle taxe annuelle sur les établissements de crédit en remplacement des taxes annuelles existantes, des mesures de limitation de déductions à l'impôt des sociétés et de la contribution à la stabilité financière.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

July 4, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax relief tax law credit institution corporation tax simplification of legislation

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Benoît Lutgen (LE) abstained from voting.

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

Crusnière and Piedboeuf, rapporteurs, refer to the written report.

Interesting and important exchanges took place in the Finance Committee. I will avoid repeats. What needs to be clarified in a context such as this where a number of taxes are merged into a single tax but where the contribution "stability fund" is also added, that is, where there is a slide from a non-tax income to a tax income, is what happens with the financing of the stability fund.

However, it would be appropriate that the Minister of Finance clarifies how, tomorrow, the contribution of banks to ensure the financing of this stability fund, will be able to be made. One thing seems obvious to me today, the banks must be able to feed what may be used tomorrow to repair any damage that would be caused by a problem related to the functioning of the financial markets.

C'est là où il nous faut, me semble-t-il, a clarification. The government makes the choice of any merger. D'accord, mais quid demain de l'alimentation de ce fonds de stabilité financière? What becomes it? It is necessary to be able to identify all this. On rappellera that the additional return is the 55 million euros. I hope that the government does not believe that it introduces a tax of 805 million euros on the banking sector. Of course, we are far from the account!

To be clear, this is not just an increase in taxes. It is an integral part of the tax shift. It is thanks to the increase of the bank tax, the merger of the different taxes and the increase thereof that it was possible to reduce the burden on labour earlier this year and that it is possible to reduce it even further in the future.

I think almost all the factions agree that the excessive labor burden was a shame for years and that the need for a reduction was essential. There are people who have been doing this for 25 years; now it is being realized. I think this is something to be proud of.

I would also like to emphasize that the bank tax creates a new balance by bringing together the different taxes and charges and reducing them to one new tax. Based on the credit of the clients, it has an impact on the balance in the sector. The small Belgian savings banks, which so far paid disproportionately high fees, will pay about 22.6 million less in the future. That is a good thing. Particularly the branches of foreign banks operating in Belgium and attracting Belgian savings to invest abroad will contribute about 57 million euros more. This is also a good thing to strengthen the competitive position of the Belgian financial sector and to strengthen investments in our economy.

Mr. Speaker, as I have already stated in the committee, it is good that there is an integration of the different taxes. Simplification makes things more transparent.

There are two things that we regret. The government agreement announced that bank fees would be adjusted so that the tax would be higher as the bank’s risk profile is higher.

A first consideration. In what is revealed today, I note that the tax base for the bank tax is the debts to the clients, in particular the deposits. This means that the risk profile of the financial institutions is not taken into account when determining that tax. This means that the traditional deposit banks are at a disadvantage compared to risky investment banks. We think this is a missed opportunity. I would like to hear from you why this has not been stopped in the present draft, despite the fact that the government agreement states that there would be a difference in rate depending on the bank’s risk profile.

A second concern. We establish that the banks must pay a maximum of 805 million euros, never again. I think many dream of a maximum invoice when it comes to taxes. Can you explain why there is an absolute ceiling?

This text inspires me three remarks.

First of all, I join my colleague Laaouej to question the minister about the future of this stability fund from the moment when all taxes are incorporated into the revenue of the state budget. I had already asked the question in the committee without getting a real answer.

The question then arises of how this tax is fixed and what can lead to possible discrimination between financial institutions. Certainly, the one that existed between small and large establishments was removed. This is a positive point. On the other hand, there is still a discrimination between deposit banks and investment banks, which have a higher risk profile. The State Council has emphasized this.

Finally, I wanted to address the problem of yield. Budgetary neutrality is ⁇ ined. Fifty-five million euros were added, but this was already planned by the government. Therefore, budgetary stability is preserved in this regard. The problem, on the other hand, is that the government has decided to maintain a fixed return of 805 million in the future, even though new laws will have to adjust the rate, in order to keep a certain amount. The pursuit of profit by banks has led to serious financial crises. We know that risk still exists. Their adventurous policies cost the state and therefore the taxpayers very much. We continue to pay our country’s debt as a result of these banking choices.

A proper contribution from banks is quite desirable in this country. The fact of arguing that, in the coming years, regardless of the situation and the evolution of the profits of the banks, their contribution will remain fixed at 805 million euros and that, no, the banks will never pay more under cover of the adoption of a law by the parliament, seems to me to pose a problem. The Minister told us in the committee that we need to have a significant financial sector. Mr. Minister, I think you are confusing two things: a successful financial sector and a profitable financial sector. These are two different things and the recent history of our banking institutions shows it. A successful financial sector is stable and secure, unlike a profitable sector that is essentially aimed at seeking profit at all costs, which has led us in the past to have a very poorly performing financial sector. There is no reason to limit, once and for all, the contribution of banks, regardless of the evolution of their profits, for example.

I will be speaking on the same issues, but in somewhat different terms. I would say, as far as I am concerned, that the project that is submitted to us has benefits. I do not want to deny them. There is undoubtedly a simplification in the tax system with respect to the banking sector. In itself, it is a good thing. This is a process that we want to support.

The proposed system shows a certain predictability. This can be positive, at least in the short term. We know how much the banking sector needs this stability in order to know in what fiscal context it can evolve. I do not underestimate and therefore do not challenge these advances, these positive points.

However, two points deserve vigilance and attention. This is a sensitive and fragile sector. The first point was mentioned by the Council of State. It was discussed in the committee and here in the remarks of the previous speakers. This is discrimination or somewhat different treatment according to the profile of the banks. You did not want to take into account the risk profile. It is a choice. But there is, I think, a potential source of discrimination. The arguments you have raised on this subject did not convince me entirely.

There is a possibility of appeal to the Constitutional Court. This is an element that the government should keep in mind, as banks whose profile is more stable, more cautious and less associated with risky behavior should not be penalized.

Second, the stability of the amount is an asset even though future developments cannot be predicted. With the National Bank, for example, it will be important to be attentive to the evolution of the banking sector, to the assessment of its profitability.

The profitability of the sector does not shock me. The fact that it is equally efficient and profitable is not necessarily contradictory. The taxation applied must be modulated to the extent that it must take into account the developments facing the sector. Objectively, today, in July 2016, it is difficult to predict what the future will be for a sector as exposed as the banking sector. I therefore invite the Minister and the Government to be attentive to the economic and financial development of the sector in order to be able to adapt, in one way or another, the amounts mentioned here, so as to take into account the economic reality of the sector and the need to consolidate it so that we are no longer exposed to the banking crises we have experienced in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to support the intervention of Mr. Dispa. In the general architecture, it would be good to take into account the profile of banks. It is known that there are banks, of a more modest size, which specialize in the collection of savings, with a management that is not aggressive and that finance private investment projects, for example a mortgage loan or a professional investment. Per ⁇ there is a matter of differentiation on objective bases, meeting the case-law of the Constitutional Court concerning compliance with Article 10 of the Constitution, between banks that have a share of turnover and banks that, on the contrary, are in sectors more related to the real economy or the needs of households.

This was the missed opportunity to do so. In this case, nothing is ever definitive and I can only encourage the government to think about this track.

First of all, I would like to comment on the contributions to the European Financial Stability Fund. There are currently six bank taxes, two of which are at European level, one for the Single Resolution Fund and the other for the European Deposit Guarantee System. These are not included in the 805 million. In addition to the European aspect, the contribution to the National Resolution Fund remains within the Deposit and Consignation Fund. There is a double path, but that does not change. This is included in the uniformization of the four taxes, outside of the European taxes.

Mr. Vanvelthoven, you are right, the parameter that is now chosen, the deposit total, a variation on the balance sheet total, does not directly capture where the risk level is, because then one would think sooner, for example, of market funding that, as we have to experience in 2008, unfortunately, is much more volatile and even quite large financial institutions in 24 hours time can bring into great trouble.

The reason for ultimately choosing this parameter is, firstly, to prevent major relocalizations, especially in larger financial institutions, and, secondly – that is also stated in the government agreement – to create a tax shift from large to smaller banks through this bank tax.

These two are linked to each other, because to the extent that there would have been a relocalization, we would again, given the inevitable automatisms, have to impose relatively more taxes on the smaller banks. With the system we have now unleashed, the smaller banks, the savings banks, will pay 21.6% of the tax, compared with 24.9% before.

These are the two reasons why the parameter of the deposits or, if you want, the balance sheet total has been chosen.

Then, indeed, it was also chosen for the ceiling to 805 million. We are in a period of almost zero inflation, so in real terms there will be no immediate change in that, as regards the intrinsic value of those 805 million.

Furthermore, the financial sector, the banking sector, is in full motion and – I have that impression – in ever faster movement. That means that we give some certainty in this regard, in particular a certain amount of taxation. Remember, too, that we are going from rounded 150 million to 800 million in a relatively short time, which is still a significant additional charge.

A final element is that the banks will of course remain subject to corporate tax and thus to the profits they generate, taking into account past losses, as you know.