Proposition 54K2090

Projet de loi modifiant le Code de droit économique, en ce qui concerne la compétence de la Commission des normes comptables.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Oct. 14, 2016

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive accounting public administration

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (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 ¶

Nov. 24, 2016 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mrs Smaers, rapporteur, refers to her written report.

Sorry to tell you this, but the devil is sometimes in the details. Between the time when a text is examined in a committee and the time when the report is read and the texts are examined, a number of elements can appear. Indeed, the bill aims to extend the competence of the Commission of Accounting Standards (CNC) in order to authorize it to make formal rulings to companies regarding the application of specific provisions of accounting law.

I would like to return, Mr. Minister, to the mission of the new college that will be established and which is to respond, by individual decisions within the scope of accounting law, ...

Dear colleagues, please! This is not to say that I am temporarily replacing the President. But many of you hold conciliabules. There is no respect for the speaker.

Thank you Mr. President.

Mr. Minister, I would like to come back on a few points. In the committee, you informed us that you consulted the Accounting Standards Commission for the presentation of this project. However, it would appear that this is not the case and that only its president has been consulted for the drafting of this bill and that no formal opinion has come from the Commission itself. I regret that the communication around this matter is not transparent. You did it this way. The Commission itself did not give an opinion, but the President of the Commission did so personally.

I would like to come back to two particular articles concerning this bill. Two amendments were submitted in the plenary session. In the explanation of the reasons and the presentation that you have made of the bill, you do not mention the anonymity that you will request from the college that you establish, recognised in article 3, § 7, paragraph 2, and there is no justification for this fact in the commentary of the articles. The fact that this Commission can give opinions anonymously is somewhat special. In other committees, the composition of commissioners is known. In other institutions, it is known who will make a opinion, a judgment (for example, at the judicial level).

The composition is not required. Even in the report on this draft, which is to be forwarded to Parliament, the composition of this Commission is not explicit. This situation is, in my opinion, somewhat disturbing. We do not know by whom the opinion will be given.

It is known that the role of this Commission is to determine the interpretation of the arrangements for the application of the law in the head of the applicant. Not knowing the identity of the applicant is one thing. However, from the moment a committee has to give an opinion, it is still interesting to know its composition.

I would like to draw your attention to one point. The article presented here is quite paradoxical in that, if the aim pursued is anonymity, it is lost in advance, Mr. Minister. Indeed, a member of the College of the Accounting Standards Commission must be a member of the College responsible for the management of the Service for Early Tax Decisions of the SPF Finance. Everyone knows the composition of this school. I would like to draw your attention to this point, which is why I submitted an amendment.

Moreover, Mr. Minister, we are facing a somewhat troubling situation in that you completely change the composition of the CNC with your bill. In fact, it is a matter of an office resignation of all Commissioners since the latter will not be taken back, the whole being modified.

Furthermore, everyone knows that to compose such a commission (consultation of opinion committees, various interpellations, etc.) eight to twelve months are necessary. This has been the case in the previous legislature.

The jurisprudence may be distorted in this representation.

I introduced another amendment, in order not to sanction or resign members of this Commission. It will allow you, if you wish, to introduce one or the other member for the college, outside of the supplementary commission, for the duration of the transition. You will find in the amendment that is on your benches this text explaining this dimension. It aims to avoid varied opinions and jurisprudence. Recognize that it is delicate to change the whole. If I can afford the comparison, it is like changing all the directors of the National Bank, or all the commissioners of one or another of the institutions, without guaranteeing the continuity of the activities.

Mr. Minister, I criticize your bill on these two points, arrived a posteriori I acknowledge it. I have introduced two amendments, suggesting that the majority also follow them. It is a matter of knowing the people who will issue opinions. Anonymity is not a good policy. It goes against transparency and clarity of decisions. To resign from office a certain number of Commissioners, or all of them, in order to be able to rename them afterwards, does not appear to me relevant or useful, within the framework of this Commission. This will give opinions. These notices, if applied, will also have consequences in matters of taxation and corporate taxation. I absolutely wanted to emphasize these two elements.

We have had an extensive debate in the committee. A lot of questions were asked. As usual, I have given some answers.

The first element is very important to me. I hope it is also for Mr. De Lamotte. Since its establishment, the Accounting Standards Committee has often received from companies, accounting experts or accountants, tax authorities and auditors on-time questions regarding the correct application of accounting law. In 2013, for example, CNC was asked 177 times of this type of questions, in 2014, 110 times and in 2015, 195 times. This means that there is now a large demand for punctual opinions with punctual questions.

We want to better organize this practice.

The second point I would like to emphasize is the problem of the College. It is intended that a limited number of members of the CBN together with the Chair will form the College.

And I said very clearly that the royal decree will precede the composition of the college.

The Royal Decree will therefore very clearly determine who is in that College. You referred to it, Mr. de Lamotte, and I also gave some more text and explanation on the composition. The Royal Decree will specify these details, but the composition of the College is considered to consist of a member appointed by the Minister of Economy, a member appointed by the Minister of Finance, a member appointed by the Minister of Justice and a member appointed by the Minister who has the Middle State under his jurisdiction. This limited group allows to respond quickly and efficiently to the concrete application of the CBN advice in specific situations. At least one member shall also be part of the College responsible for the management of the Pre-Decision Service in tax matters.

I also gave this information to the committee.

Finally, this one more.

The individual opinions are subsequently published, but their anonymity is guaranteed. That publication seems to me a good thing, because we want to realize the application of the accounting rules as correctly and as clearly as possible. It has been a practice for years that the Committee for Accounting Standards gives general opinions. Concrete, individual opinions, called by us IBBs, make it even clearer and will have even more effect in practice.

I mean, I am sorry for the amendments, and I hope they are not needed.

Finally, in my previous professional life, I have been a member of the Committee for Accounting Standards for years, so I know how it works. The former president, who unfortunately died, would be very happy that this is realized after so many years. This question has been asked for years. I hope that we will finally be able to give a concrete answer today by approving this bill.

As the Minister said, the number of interventions is increasing. That is why I think it is necessary to frame things in a precise and fixed way in terms of publicity and jurisprudence regarding this Commission of Accounting Standards.

I wanted to insist on this and I maintain the amendments as they were submitted. In fact, it seems to me to be more effective in the text than in an internal regulation or a declaration in this assembly.