Proposition 54K3424

Projet de loi portant des dispositions fiscales, de lutte contre la fraude, financières et diverses.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Michel Ⅱ

Submission date

Dec. 18, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

tax evasion tax law tax on income registration tax corporation tax stamp duty

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit Open Vld N-VA MR PP

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ 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 ¶

Jan. 31, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteurs are Mr Deseyn and Mrs Smaers. They refer to their written report.

Mr. Speaker, my group welcomes two aspects of this project.

The first is the intensification of the fight against fraud and tax evasion. A series of measures are taken and implement some of the recommendations of the Panama Papers Commission.

Then there is the implementation of this agricultural carry back. My colleague Caroline Cassart had submitted a proposal and it was joined by other MEPs. It is known that the agricultural sector is in difficulty and is subject to a whole series of climate challenges. The advantage of carry back is that it allows you to recover losses on previous and no longer subsequent fiscal years, which makes it possible to anticipate the possible reimbursement of taxes.

This bill is really very interesting and we will support it with enthusiasm.

I would like to agree with what Benoit Piedboeuf said. The draft is initially a translation of part of our work in the special committee "Panama Papers". That committee has formulated a number of recommendations, following which several resolutions have already been adopted. The present draft makes some aspects of fraud prevention more operational. For example, there are some financial provisions related to the avoidance of taxation. The result is not yet what we had expected from the Panama Papers committee, but it is already a step forward.

Secondly, the design meets a demand that has lived for years in the agricultural and horticultural sector. A carry-back system is now being established to protect farmers and horticulture growers, for example in years when weather conditions struggle, when there are problems related to food security or when losses occur due to increased competition from third countries. The draft law can anticipate losses or can spread costs over several years, thus meeting the demand of that sector, which depends on different circumstances. The bills of Mrs. Muylle and Mr. Van den Bergh from our group and Mrs. Cassart from the MR found their translation in the broader bill. We are very pleased that this can be voted on today.

In favour of the agricultural and horticultural sector, the Finance Committee approved the proposal to reduce the VAT on plants. In government circles, this proposal is not received equally positively everywhere. However, the reduction of the VAT on plants means an incentive for the gardening sector. The budgetary implications range between €19 million and €30 million, but I am convinced that that VAT reduction will boost the dynamism in the sector, thereby making the measure a part of itself.

In the same sense, I think that the carry-back system will provide stability in the agricultural and horticultural sector, as the profession of agricultural and horticultural worker has become very uncertain, also by the way with few start-up, young agricultural and horticultural farmers, precisely because of the many risks. We have now developed a system, as Mr Piedboeuf said, to spread any losses over time.

Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that our group will support this bill. There are a number of, although very limited, measures in the context of combating tax fraud. We will of course support them.

I would like to take the word to express my disappointment. We have just heard the Chairman of the Committee on Finance, colleague Van Rompuy, who rightly refers to the Panama Papers committee.

We have been working on conclusions and recommendations in that committee for almost a year. These 132 recommendations were approved here at the end of October 2017. Today we are fifteen months ahead. When we see how the government comes to this Parliament today, that is really disappointing.

We have already had previous discussions on this subject during the questionnaire on Thursday afternoon in the plenary session. It was then with the former finance minister. Then it turned out that in the preliminary draft transposing the recommendations of the Panama Commission two measures had been removed, which the committee had however taken as a recommendation. It was about the whistleblower system and the sanction for non-cooperation in tax control.

What we approve here today, we will approve with it, but it is ⁇ disappointing that after fifteen months we have not gone further than this. For me, this is the proof that this government is not really familiar with the approach to tax fraud, but I can repeat that every month. Unfortunately, it brings very little sores to the dick.

A second point I would like to point out is that we have submitted five amendments to this text, amendments that we have also discussed in the committee. The reason we submit them today is because I want to have a general vote on them.

I would like to know clearly the position of every representative who speaks on the five amendments we submit.

The first amendment concerns the reduction of the VAT rate on the supply of electricity to household customers. We discussed it this week in the committee, but it was voted out there. I re-enter it today, as I said, so that others in this assembly can also speak out on it. It will undoubtedly be useful to us in the debates ahead of the next election to know who was for and who was against.

The second amendment concerns the cliquet system in the context of diesel, the increase in excise duty, in other words. The amendment we are submitting removes the legal basis of the diesel cliquet system. After all, such a tax is highly regressive and affects especially the lowest incomes very hard.

A third amendment concerns the reduction of the VAT rate on a number of medical devices such as glasses and contact lenses. I will not repeat the numbers today, but when we see them, it is clear that some people cannot pay the cost of glasses and contact lenses today. They cannot provide this for their children. The reduction of VAT from 21% to 6% is therefore appropriate. We approved this week in the Committee on Finance a reduction from 21% to 6% for garden contractors who purchase plantations. Here we are talking about people who need glasses or contact lenses and for them we should at least do the same.

The fourth element concerns the abolition of the diamond system. Parliament approved this scheme some time ago. The majority’s official argument for the diamond system was that the diamonders actually paid too little tax. The diamond system was intended to increase taxes on the diamond sellers, but on the basis of the financial year 2016 it has been shown, as ⁇ in the press, that the diamond system imported by the majority last year constitutes a tax advantage for 80 % of the companies concerned. Not a tax increase, but a tax advantage. Let us be consistent with ourselves. Then we thought it would be more taxes for the diamond sector, but now it turns out that the opposite is the case. So it is high time to abolish that system advantageous for the diamond sector and subject the sector to the tax regime that applies to every Belgian and to each of us.

The last amendment we submitted concerns the tax on the securities accounts.

With the amendment, we would like to address a comment of the Council of State on an unjustified distinction between name shares held in a stock register and name shares held on a securities account.

We want to remove this distinction with the amendment. In other words, we want to close a back door. When we talk about tax fraud, we must ensure that the backdoors that may be identified are closed.

With these words, I close my presentation.

Mr. Speaker, we supported the overwhelming majority of the articles of this text, in particular the tax exemption system on exceptional aid provided to farmers called carry back, the measures in the fight against tax fraud from the Panama Papers Commission, in particular the correction of a first text that had been adopted by the majority and that we had, at the time, attempted to amend on the implementation of the ATAD directive.

On the other hand, we abstained, at the final vote, on articles 2 and 3 of the text, which do not relate to the fight against tax fraud but which constitute a budgetary tool to postpone obligations related to the harmonisation of the workers and employee statutes which is an old agreement, but in relation to which the public finances had to assume a cost of 250 million smooth over five years.

I would just like to say a word in response to the satisfaction expressed by Mr Piedboeuf regarding the balance sheet of this government in the fight against tax fraud. As I said, there are a number of interesting provisions in this text and as such, we supported them at the time of voting the articles. However, there are still interesting recommendations, Mr. Minister, formulated by the Panama Papers Commission, which are, at this stage, still not implemented. I think in particular of the banking oath on which a bill is currently being discussed in the Finance Committee, or the experimental system of support for alarmists that has not been implemented in that law, while I think that was the initial intention of the government. Among the recommendations of the Panama Papers committee are also more problematic recommendations that we do not want to be implemented because they do the opposite of the fight against tax fraud. Fortunately, they are not included in this text.

Mr. Minister, I would like to remind you of some priorities in the fight against tax fraud and financial crime that are not met today.

On the one hand, the human and regulatory means of combating tax fraud are insufficient and, in particular, given the services that are required to respond and handle increasingly complex cases. On the other hand, it seems to me that the Service for Early Decisions has excessive power over how certain tax files are handled. There is a contradiction between the analyses carried out by field agents and the sometimes too broad authorizations granted by the Advanced Decisions Service with a far too low control capacity over those advanced decisions that, sometimes, can have a very significant negative impact on public finances.

In my opinion, our tax system is generally too lax on certain dimensions of control. The latest studies show that the money that should return to the state treasures (if everyone assumes their tax obligations correctly), but which does not return, represents every year a very large sum amounting to tens of billions of euros. There is still much effort to be made. This will remain, in the future, a priority for the Ecolo-Groen Group in order to ⁇ more tax justice in our country.

Mr. Speaker, the draft law is already an important step forward in the light of more measures to implement the recommendations of the Panama Papers committee.

Mr. Vanvelthoven, we are not there yet. We also want to take further steps to implement the recommendations of the Commission. We fully support the draft law. He submitted five amendments. The first two amendments concern the reduction of electricity VAT and the removal of the legal basis for the cliquet system. These amendments do not seem to be really aimed at the fight against tax fraud. On the other hand, we had an important climate debate today. Well, those measures do not really promote ecofiscality.

I understand that your starting point is purchasing power, but you do not propose any reasonable measures, if we want to shift to more ecofiscality. On the one hand, you are calling for more and better climate action, but on the other hand, you are proposing measures that are meant to counter so-called tax fraud, while they are not aimed at it, nor contribute to ecofiscality.

Mrs Smaers, I would like to briefly respond to your claim that our proposals are contrary to what is being discussed in the Climate March.

First, the yellow vests also express a certain dissatisfaction in society. Some people, even in our country, are no longer able to pay their bills.

Second, with regard to the green vests, our position is clear and clear that green measures should be taken at a higher pace than the government has done in recent times – we agree on that – but that it should not be paid only by the middle class and the people who are in difficulty.

When I hear you speak, it is almost like your decision four or five years ago to raise VAT from 6% to 21% was an environmental measure. This was a purely financial measure to get around the budget. That’s what we talked about then, so don’t turn it around today. Environmental measures are necessary, but please consider them carefully, so that they do not create a new division in society between the sucklers and those who can pay for it.

I welcome most of the provisions contained in this text. There is implementation of several recommendations from the Panama Commission. The fight against tax evasion will never end. However, progress has been made and we should be pleased with it.

I am especially pleased with the measure concerning the agricultural and horticultural sectors. It will undoubtedly allow to bring an oxygen balloon to farmers and horticultors when they are penalized by ⁇ unfavorable weather conditions.

That said, it is a full-fledged law that also contains some less satisfactory provisions. It is the currency of the Royal Belgian currency. We are creating a budget fund that will complete this transformation and I’m not sure that it will be a happy decision. We could have ⁇ ined the Royal Belgian Currency or revised its missions. We will abstain from this text.

Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that among Mr Vanvelthoven’s proposed amendments, there are many positive things that we will support without reservation, in particular the measures relating to securities and the proposal to reduce VAT on certain medical devices.

With regard to the reduction of VAT on electricity, we are demanding. At the same time, a number of considerations that must be integrated into the reflection cannot be dismissed. Is this really a favourable measure for the end of the month? Yes, but not entirely, since the analysis shows that it is mostly the highest income that will benefit and that there will be a negative effect on the indexation mechanism. This would somehow correspond to a mini-index jump so that those who most need a VAT reduction on this basic necessity good will not actually benefit from it.

Is this measure totally beneficial for the climate? We can also ask questions about this.

In my opinion, it could be if it was accompanied by an ambitious plan to reduce energy consumption, including a plan for building insulation. This component should be complementary to a VAT reduction, but this cannot be implemented as part of an amendment.

It will therefore necessarily be necessary to resume the discussion to imagine measures that allow both to address the difficulties in terms of purchasing power of the poorest and to ⁇ the climate objective with in particular a plan for renovation and insulation of buildings, as my colleague Michel de Lamotte has long demanded.

This will probably be postponed to the next legislature, especially – we must be honest – that the proposed measure to reduce VAT on electricity is not without having a budget impact. It is estimated at 700 million euros. This is a heavy decision. We have no budget and we are in the provisional twelve. This is probably not the most suitable context for taking such a responsibility. There will be a new debate on the subject.

The various interventions have provided a good overview of what this bill contains including tax, anti-fraud, financial as well as various provisions. I will emphasize a number of measures in the fight against fraud.

I hear certain groups say: is this all that has come from the work on the Panama Papers? Of course, not everything is in this bill. A number of chapters covered the work of criminal proceedings, a number of cases covered organisational aspects within the police, the statute and liability of tax service providers, and so on. A number of issues have already been addressed through parliamentary initiatives.

However, I would like to point out that raising the investigation period to ten years when legal structures are used is a very big step forward.

Also, the obligation to file for income related to a foreign company that a Belgian employee or business manager receives is a measure that will reduce a major source of fraud from 2019.

Others also talked about carry back, a measure that I fully support. For agricultural activity, the climate impact becomes very unpredictable. This measure helps our ⁇ and farmers to better overcome the difficult caps.

But I am very pleased that we can still approve this here in Parliament, since it still contains a number of important provisions.