Proposition 54K2946

Projet de loi portant assentiment à la Convention entre le Royaume de Belgique et le Japon tendant à éliminer la double imposition en matière d'impôts sur le revenu et à prévenir la fraude et l'évasion fiscales, et au Protocole, faits à Tokyo le 12 octobre 2016.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Feb. 19, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Japan tax convention double taxation international agreement

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

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

Abstained from voting

PVDA | PTB

Party dissidents ¶

• Stéphane Crusnière (PS | SP) 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 ¶

Nov. 30, 2017 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mrs Pehlivan, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, in 2015 an OECD Action Plan was adopted that strongly guided the way tax treaties are negotiated. In summary, tax contracts that are BEPS proof should contain at least one principal purpose test. Minister Reynders assured us in the committee that all treaties in the future will be BEPS proof. The agreement with Japan is the first that Belgium signs that can be called BEPS proof.

The agreement with Japan goes even a step further. It not only has a principal purpose test, it also has a limitation on benefits clause. Japan has included such clauses in treaties with other European countries. That clause is important because only with such a clause can multinational companies no longer simply escape their social obligations. They may less easily abuse the grey zones in legislation and treaties to evade their tax obligations.

Unfortunately, there is the government’s explicit acknowledgement that the additional arrangement came only on the insistence of the Japanese government. It is sufficient for the government, therefore, that there is only a principal purpose test in the treaties. In the light of the growing social inequality and the increasing concentration of power in a small number of international companies, we find that is not enough.

We will approve the treaty, but ask the Minister to take the treaty with Japan as an example for all double tax treaties that Belgium will conclude from now on.

Thank you, Mrs Pehlivan. The Minister is not here, so he can not respond, but I assume that he will take note of your concerns through the report.

I also discussed it with him in the committee. I know his position, but I wanted to clarify our position again in the plenary session.

For the sake of the record, as it is called.

March 22, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mrs Pehlivan, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, in 2015 an OECD Action Plan was adopted that strongly guided the way tax treaties are negotiated. In summary, tax contracts that are BEPS proof should contain at least one principal purpose test. Minister Reynders assured us in the committee that all treaties in the future will be BEPS proof. The agreement with Japan is the first that Belgium signs that can be called BEPS proof.

The agreement with Japan goes even a step further. It not only has a principal purpose test, it also has a limitation on benefits clause. Japan has included such clauses in treaties with other European countries. That clause is important because only with such a clause can multinational companies no longer simply escape their social obligations. They may less easily abuse the grey zones in legislation and treaties to evade their tax obligations.

Unfortunately, there is the government’s explicit acknowledgement that the additional arrangement came only on the insistence of the Japanese government. It is sufficient for the government, therefore, that there is only a principal purpose test in the treaties. In the light of the growing social inequality and the increasing concentration of power in a small number of international companies, we find that is not enough.

We will approve the treaty, but ask the Minister to take the treaty with Japan as an example for all double tax treaties that Belgium will conclude from now on.

Thank you, Mrs Pehlivan. The Minister is not here, so he can not respond, but I assume that he will take note of your concerns through the report.

I also discussed it with him in the committee. I know his position, but I wanted to clarify our position again in the plenary session.

For the sake of the record, as it is called.