Proposition 54K2639

Projet de loi portant des dispositions fiscales diverses I.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Aug. 2, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax relief tax on income criminal law tax-free allowance

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo PS | SP PVDA | PTB 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 ¶

Oct. 5, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs, Mr Van Biesen and Mr Crusnière, refer to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my satisfaction with the fact that today we can approve the bicycle fee for speedpedelecs in the first section of the law containing various fiscal provisions. My group had submitted that proposal more than a year ago.

Bicycling to work has seen a real boost in recent years. Recently, it was found that the bicycle is used for 16% of the home-working traffic. The bicycle fee definitely plays a role in this. For companies that provide bicycle compensation, the bicycle even accounts for 20 % of the home-working traffic. This shows that there is potential.

For people who live a little further away from their work, the speedpedelec is ⁇ an ideal way to, despite the distance, still be able to go to their work in a sustainable and flexible way. By giving them the right to a bicycle compensation, which until now was not the case, many people who still take the car will go to work partly by bicycle. That is a good thing, both for mobility, air quality and for their health. The bike fee will undoubtedly be a trigger to make the investment in a speedpedelec, which costs some money.

Five days later, it is a year ago that the KB made it impossible for the speedpedelecs to pay a bicycle fee for this. I still regret a little that it has taken so long to work out that gap, but thanks to the present design and the work of many, it is now finally so far. I want to thank you for that. Of course, we will fully support the project.

Mr Geerts, you have the word.

Mr. Speaker, although this is a tax issue, my discussion focuses mainly on mobility.

Mr. Van den Bergh has already said that when the speed pedale were recognized in October 2016, there was actually a problem on the ground for people who moved on this new type of bicycle. Companies and local governments clung to us on this. Our group, like CD&V, submitted a text in October to resolve two issues, namely, on the one hand, the fiscal side of the story — which is now in our banks — and, on the other hand, the amendment on social contributions, which needs further development.

Why am I saying that? Bicycles are becoming increasingly important. Just think of the additional facilities in each province within the framework of the bicycle roads, which makes them frequently used by speedpedelecs. The distance across the cycling routes is travelled by speedpedelecs faster than the same distance by a car. As for the budgetary aspect, I read in the report that you are allocating 1 million euros, Mr. Minister. We often have doubts about the numbers we receive from your department, but in these I really hope that that figure is not sufficiently budgeted so that more and more people can use it in the future.

Like my colleagues, I would like to welcome two provisions of this text. The first is, of course, related to the extension of the bicycle compensation to speed pedelec or electric bicycles, which posed a problem – for reasons outside of taxation, but which were related to the Road Code. Through this measure, we have incorporated the possibility of benefiting workers from a bicycle compensation in case of use of an electric bike. This can be justified if you live relatively far from your workplace. I hope that this will encourage more people to use it to go to their work. Public infrastructure will also need to be better adapted to the weakest users.

Another part of this text deserves to be emphasized. I think of the one that relates to taxation affecting certain pensions. Indeed, in some cases, the increase in the gross pension could result in a decrease in the net pension. This is a problem that I had already raised in this Parliament a few years ago. Unfortunately, it has not been resolved structurally. This is all the more problematic as the lowest pensions are affected. This afternoon again, I was arrested by an eighty-year-old retiree whose career extended over forty-two years. He informed me that he had been surprised, or even disappointed and upset when he discovered on his role-extract warning that the amount of tax to be paid had increased. This can cause serious problems for the lowest pensions. We hope that the technical arrangements that are adopted through the relevant articles will finally resolve this problem. It will be worth paying attention to this.

If this text did not contain certain provisions on VAT, which we do not support, we could have voted for it. As a result, and despite the satisfaction that we are inspired by the two aspects already highlighted, we will abstain.

Mr. Speaker, in this project with various tax provisions, we find to drink and to eat. As much as I am pleased with the provision concerning the bicycle, as much I remain skeptical and totally dissatisfied with the chapter that has just been mentioned, which concerns the alleged resolution of the fiscal trap of pensions.

This problem is not resolved by this bill. This is an old issue about which I have asked the Minister of Finance several times before. In his answers to my first questions, it was seen that he apparently did not have the will to solve the problem. Eventually things evolved. The government has proposed another measure that attacks public services pensioners. Indeed, this government removed the bonification of the years of study in the calculation of pensions, but with the possibility, in return, to redeem those years. The problem is as follows: some public service agents will redeem those years of study, experience an increase in their gross pension, but no increase in their net pension. But it is with that that one can eat, not with the gross pension. There is a marginal rate of 100% and even more with the additional.

This bill solves a very small part of the problem. Indeed, from now on, to believe the Minister of Finance, if your gross pension increases, which also applies to unemployment and other replacement income, for which the problem is the same, there will be no more decrease of the net. But the net you get will be totally insignificant. Here is a numbered example: your pension increases from 16,000 to 16,500 euros gross per year. It increases in gross by 500 euros. Currently, the net is - 74 euros. You lose that amount. With the implementation of this law, we will have 9.5 euros more. Thus, 500 euros of crude extra gives 9.5 euros of net extra. The marginal tax rate is 98%.

This is the miracle solution of the government: it is no longer a negative net but a marginal tax rate of 98%! I don’t know if we can really talk about a solution. The State Council also raises the contradiction and, in the explanation of the reasons, the minister admits that this is a provisional solution.

The text of the law does not give a provision "on the horizon", i.e. with an end date. It is called “provisional-definitive”. In the committee, I asked the minister when the problem would be resolved. He answered me very clearly that he didn’t want to lock up in a deadline. In conclusion, we have a "provisional-definitive", a bit like the Atomium. In 1958, when the Atomium was built, it was said to be provisional. He is still there, you can go and see him. This is the “provisional-definitive”.

On the other hand, the government has well buried the bonification of the years of study for pension. It is clear! But the solution to the problem is completely imperfect. I think that under this legislature, at least I do not believe it, we will not have a solution to this problem. People who are going to repay their years of study risk investing today in order not to receive additional pension tomorrow. This government is a scandal.

First and foremost, I am very satisfied – if it is good, we must say it – with some points in the bill containing various provisions. I agree with colleagues Van den Bergh and Geerts: the problem of bicycle compensation has finally been solved. It would be very strange that costs related to wheels could not be charged and those related to other vehicles could. We should spend more on the bike and less on the car. I am pleased that this measure will be applied this time. I think my colleagues like that too.

In addition, there was the problem with the calculation of the additional tax reduction, especially for the taxpayers who only enjoy pensions or substitute income, a problem that we have already tried to solve, but not yet sufficient. One advantage now is that a measure does not have a negative effect: one no longer goes net down on it in case of a gross increase. That would be too crazy. These taxpayers received at the settlement less than what they had anticipated in advance and that was a pity. I can only welcome this adjustment.

However, it still happens that an increase in the gross pension net does not yield anything, as previous speakers noted. You have stated that this is a provisional solution. I wish you all the courage and much ingenuity, because it is not easy to ensure that an increase is not taxed off at 98 %.

Finally, I have an amendment. This has actually to do with the situation and events of the last few days, with regard to the referendum in Catalonia and, of course, the announcement by Prime Minister Puigdemont that Catalonia would declare independence. Meanwhile, we read in the press that the Constitutional Court suspended the meeting of the Catalan parliament next Monday, out of fear, of course, that the Catalan would declare independence. Knowing the Catalan people, however, I think that they probably know a backdoor to escape this and ultimately declare their independence.

If the Catalans declare their independence on Monday or one of the following days, then of course we also have a problem with the fiscal situation, Mr. Minister. It is the tax situation of Belgians who live in Catalonia, but also of Catalans who live in Belgium. This, of course, must also be arranged. We highlight legal certainty and we must therefore ensure that it is also guaranteed.

The tax treaties and agreements that we all know and that have been concluded with Spain are then a major problem. At the moment, they are not specifically closed with Catalonia. The exchange of information in the context of these taxes is extremely important. This is, of course, a very important rule, of crucial importance for the fight against tax fraud.

Therefore, we are actually submitting an amendment to ensure that, pending the recognition of Catalonia, the tax treaties, agreements, avenants and protocols currently concluded with the Kingdom of Spain also apply to the territory of Catalonia. The listing can be found in the explanation of all the agreements, avenants and protocols that matter. In anticipation of recognition, we would therefore like to have the tax treaties, agreements and the like with the Kingdom of Spain also applicable to the territory of Catalonia. For example, if the Belgian tax authority wants to obtain information from the Spanish government, which relates to the territory of Catalonia, then it is of course necessary that we can obtain that information from Spain itself. This government has all the historical data.

Conversely, when an independent Catalonia comes, we will have to request data from Catalonia itself and no longer from the Kingdom of Spain. We want there to be legal certainty in anticipation of recognition – which, of course, can take a while, but look at the Belgian example.

We want to ensure that, as a transitional arrangement until a final arrangement is reached, the Belgian government can start negotiations with the Catalan government on the conclusion of tax treaties from the moment the country is recognized.

I hope that you will also ask your provincial ministers, because they too can then conclude such tax treaties with Catalonia.

I have two comments.

First, I didn’t know it was five days later, but for the speedpedelec it actually took a year. However, I would like to point out that the current system will be retroactive from 1 January 2017. The benefits that the bicycle user can enjoy, therefore, effectively cover all year round.

Second, in the pension item there was effectively the problem of the increased gross pension, which, strangely enough, gave rise to a reduced net pension.

We have divided the problem that is of course important into two parts. On the one hand, everything is now plafoned anyway, so that a negative impact on the net pension can no longer be. On the other hand, there is a more comprehensive reform to reach a streamlined gross net system, which, by the way, is a very complex affair. That reform is now being developed.