Proposition 54K3254

Projet de loi modifiant le Code de la taxe sur la valeur ajoutée en ce qui concerne la taxation optionnelle en matière de location de biens immeubles par nature et modifiant l'arrêté royal n° 20, du 20 juillet 1970, fixant les taux de la taxe sur la valeur ajoutée et déterminant la répartition des biens et des services selon ces taux en ce qui concerne le taux de TVA réduit en matière de location taxée de biens immeubles par nature.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

July 31, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

VAT VAT rate tax law real property property leasing

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Open Vld N-VA LDD MR

Voted to reject

Groen Ecolo PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

Vooruit LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ PP VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) 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 ¶

Oct. 4, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs Roel Deseyn and Benoît Piedboeuf refer to the written report.

Pope Francis, you have the word.

Mr. President, I thank you. After the important debate we have just had, the topic we are dealing with here is probably lighter but I would still like to allow myself to return to it. This text is not insignificant when it comes to VAT legislation. It consists of two parts; the first contains favourable provisions relating to buildings for persons with disabilities, buildings for teaching, student guidance and housing within the framework of social policy. These are provisions that we support.

The other part raises a question of budgetary order in particular. This is an important tax incentive for the rental market, especially for new buildings. It is also an incentive for the construction and real estate renovation sector.

Mr. Minister, in the committee, you have outlined the objectives pursued by this measure, and one can adhere to it in one sense: simplify VAT regulation, encourage investments, remove the competitive disadvantage in relation to neighboring countries. So far, we agree. But the problem that today appears even more acutely than in the committee, concerns the budgetary impact of this proposal.

You explained to us that according to the calculations of the SPF Finance, the budget impact of the bill would be approximately 21 million euros per year when the measure has reached its cruise speed. This is an estimate that failed to be unanimous since within the majority itself, one or the other member questioned and argued that it was difficult to calculate the exact budgetary impact of the measure.

The new element compared to the debate we had in the committee concerns the fact that experts have spoken in the press to consider that the budget impact as you announced it is largely underestimated.

The reform is presented as a real gift to the real estate sector, which will cost much more than the 21 million euros announced.

Mr. Minister, in favour of this debate in plenary session, I would like to ask you, because I find it essential to take a position on this text with full knowledge of cause. In any case, it will require, when the measure comes into force, to verify the estimate that you have announced to us. Can you confirm that amount? Can we not fear that through this tax gift, we do not expose ourselves to some disadvantages or in any case, to impacts that would be much higher than those you have indicated?

Subject to the information you provide us and given the uncertainty in which we are plunged on the budgetary level, the CDH group will abstain from this bill.

I am also aware of what has been this in certain journals and certain publications. It is not easy to find specific elements to introduce them in calculations. I have a new price contact with the SPF Finances. Comme M. Dispa l'a clairement this, ils ont fait les calculs. These have given place to a gross estimate of 47 million and a cost of just 20 to 21 million. Eux non plus ne trouvent pas d'arguments pour changer ces estimations. You confirm again that the budget cost estimated at this moment is 21 million net. thank you .