Proposition 54K2536

Projet de loi modifiant le Code des impôts sur les revenus 1992 en ce qui concerne les libéralités accordées aux entités créées sous la forme d'une fondation qui dépendent des hôpitaux universitaires agréés.

General information ¶

Authors

MR Benoît Piedboeuf
Open Vld Luk Van Biesen

Submission date

June 15, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax law donation foundation tax-free allowance medical institution

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Voted to reject

PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Vooruit PP

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 ¶

April 19, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Robert Van de Velde, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

I welcome the presence of the Minister of Finance. As part of the discussion on this Bill proposal by Commissioner Van Biesen, some colleagues wished – but were not followed – that the Budget Minister’s opinion on this text be requested. I would like to take advantage of his presence to know his opinion on the subject.

I will give the opinion of the Ecolo-Groen Group on this proposal. We believe that research is an important thing and that health research is even more important. We believe that its financing must be assured first and foremost by public funds, so that we can determine its orientation according to the general interest rather than particular interests, which sometimes dominate the logic of health – which is then no longer public – in our country. We can trust, we can delegate our trust to university hospitals. The proposal of colleague Van Biesen, who likes to make gifts, especially when it is not he who has to bear the burden, is rather sympathetic, even though we consider that research funding should be more secured through own resources than through tax liberalism.

We intend to support this proposal of colleague Van Biesen, even though we have taken note of the fact that the majority was not unanimous on the subject, since the representatives of the party of the Minister of Budget voted against the text in the Committee on Finance and that they abstained from other work on bills with a potential budgetary impact, in my opinion to prevent new alternative majorities. This is a small disagreement among the majority. It can happen, but I find that it happens more and more often, and on various and varied topics.

Le groupe Ecolo-Groen supports this text. But, prior to the expression of this vote, we wish to understand the opinion of the Minister of Budget on this proposal and, in general, on any proposal that could have a budgetary impact because we have a lot of ideas in the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I did not want to speak today, because we should not repeat the discussion of the committee here. I regret a little the undertone, which states that we here again give a gift to a particular institution.

What we really want to realize with this bill is that sufficient resources are made available for scientific research in the university hospitals, under whatever structure. The latter is actually about. We extend it to other forms of corporate structures, which can take on that.

This is what we do today, at the express request of the university institutions. This question has come to us from both French-speaking and Dutch-speaking sides. That is why this bill is here, co-signed by my very good colleague of the MR, Mr. Piedboeuf. That is why we defend this too.

It is not a new gift. It is simply stimulating scientific research in the university hospitals, and this in any form.

This case is, at first, simple. It seems to me that this text responds to something that could appear as an anomaly: the absence of tax exemption for liberals, donations, which can be made to approved hospitals. It seemed to us that we could meet with the membership of the PS group. We support this bill.

But some confusion has settled in the ranks of the majority. It might be useful that, on the part of the majority, those and those who, apparently, today, have a difficulty with this bill can explain the state of their reflection.

I support Mr. Gilkinet’s request to have the opinion of Mrs. Minister of Budget. It seemed to me to understand that the difficulties could come from this side. By the way, it also seemed to me to see this week passing kinds of rebuffings of some members of the majority (M. Van Rompuy, M. Van Biesen) attacking directly Mrs. Wilmès, who was not there to defend itself. People will appreciate it.

It seems to me that there is in this case something symptomatic of the relationships that some members of the majority have between them, and in particular the appreciation with regard to the budget work of Mrs. Minister of Budget, who still works within a government. She is not alone in deciding. I find that some parliamentarians of the majority are no longer in phase with the decisions taken within the government. All this is a little strange and a little confusing, Mr. President.

Mr. Speaker, if you allow me, I will not go into the details of the surprisingly divergent positions, on a matter like this, within the majority. My colleague Mr. Benoît Dispa has already had the opportunity to do so. Just as he did in the committee, I see these tensions within the majority.

I allow myself to go beyond what seems to me to be the order of the "political" to return to the essential, to the bottom of the dossier. Today, the liberals granted to university hospitals can benefit from a special tax regime, while this is not the case for foundations which are directly attached to these university hospitals.

Dear colleagues, would I dare to remind you, including those who are not so in favor of this text, that the liberals, the donations made to these foundations are, as my colleague said, especially dedicated to research. But they are also, through a whole series of projects, dedicated to patients. I hope that we will all support this proposal.

Somewhere, this is an anomaly that existed and that should be corrected. We will support this bill.

We have thoroughly discussed this bill in the committee. This is an anomaly in the legislation. For donations to foundations affiliated with recognised university hospitals, a better tax regime should be provided.

This is a bill and I think that a bill should be treated in the same way as a bill. It is a bill that detects and remedies an anomaly in the legislation.

In addition, this tax regime concerns a very limited amount. In the federal budget there are revenues of approximately 100 billion euros. This is not even about 600 000 to 700 000 euros. That is a limited but meaningful amount because it can be an incentive for donations to foundations.

This is a parliamentary initiative. I believe that legislative proposals should also be able to be viewed, discussed and also approved from the Parliament. We are aware that this cannot fill holes in the budget. A Parliament serves to eliminate such anomalies, which would ⁇ not be corrected by the government.

In recent months, other topics have been treated in the same way. That not everyone always endorses everything seems to me obvious. In a committee, legislative proposals are discussed. I think it is necessary to ensure that a large majority is in favour of his proposal. If a group has problems with this, that is their right, but that does not mean that this is not a good legislation that is also budgetarily responsible.

Mr. Speaker, I agree very well with the Minister of Budget, which did not prevent me from co-signing this proposal with Luk Van Biesen because it was about repairing an anomaly. Knowing the matter, I directly supported Mr. Van Biesen’s smart initiative.

On the day of the committee, I was also called into the health committee. Sometimes we get the bad ones! You have experience in this area in the Walloon Region!

As for this proposal, I was not in the committee as the Minister of Budget was on the day it was supposed to be voted. But in terms of the functioning of the government, the Parliament and the way we work, in general, we like to have an assessment by the Budget Office of the submitted proposals. My colleagues didn’t have it and I wasn’t present to transmit them the information. As a result, they voted against.

This does not prevent the MR group from enthusiastically supporting the proposal, since the information was transmitted especially since I co-signed it and we received the approval of the Minister of Budget.

The statements of one and the other are funny, but that remains. Regarding Mr. Gilkinet’s remarks on research funding, we are also in favour of this, and this, through public funds. But it is also intelligent to go to capture private funds in so far as research will benefit because they are very important. If the impact is seen in the budget framework, it will be resources available for research. We are very pleased to support this proposal.

I came for the accounts, but they went blue. The discussion of the 2016 accounts seems to me to be carried out in an important and consistent manner. This was not the choice of the Parliament. You know that we are at your disposal to answer your questions if any.

I stayed here to satisfy the will of Parliament to have a member of the government present all the time in this hall. This gives me the opportunity to answer your question, Mr. Gilkinet, although I had not planned to be there.

It does not seem to me at all abnormal – I do not answer instead of the MR group – that, when a proposal is put on the table, no matter how good it is in the substance, a preliminary study is carried out by the functional cabinets regarding its probable, supposed cost, or even its budget neutrality.

I remind you that – I was not present in the committee at that time – on the day of the committee meeting, we had not received a formal note from the Cabinet of Finance that could enlighten the parliamentarians who remain free of their choice. Parliamentary initiative remains. At that time, there was no note indicating the cost as low or as important as it is or the neutrality that proved. Why Why ? Because the Finance Cabinet issued notes only during the holidays, or after the commission was held.

Of course, the Budget took note of this note and transmitted it. Without commenting on the substance in an official way, I consider that this is a very nice proposal and that it is budgetally neutral. It does not seem unusual to me that parliamentarians have questioned the cost of this proposal when it was put on the table. Indeed, we cannot demand that we have finances in order and not look closer, when it arranges us, the cost of the proposals. I think this is about consistency.

I said, without any ambiguity, on behalf of the Ecolo-Groen group that we would vote in favour of this text.

I pointed out a difficulty that we have had in the processing of this text, since we have the habit, which I think is good, within the Finance Committee, to assess the budgetary impact of a text. As much as it is interesting, Mr. Piedboeuf, to attract private funds in the service of important causes such as research, so much this has a budgetary cost, in the form of a tax expenditure. It is normal to pay attention to the importance of this cost.

We all have extraordinary dreams. There are a number of environmental proposals that are ⁇ useful in preparing for the future, which could be voted without measuring the budget impact for the future. Sometimes there is a logic with variable geometry. I may propose to Mr. Van Biesen to co-sign our excellent texts and then they will have more chances of being supported.

The incident due to the lack of note by the Minister of Finance and the absence of Mr Piedboeuf in the commission is closed, with the statement of the Minister of Budget that the budget impact is neutral. I confess to you that I have a hard time understanding your equation, but I can imagine that, if it is not neutral, it is not very important in budgetary terms and quite sustainable and useful with regard to the purpose of the research. I conclude this speech by saying that, for us, research is important and that we will support this text.