Projet de loi portant des dispositions fiscales diverses et modifiant l'article 1er, § 1ter, de la loi du 5 avril 1955.
General information ¶
- Authors
-
CD&V
Roel
Deseyn,
Eric
Van Rompuy
MR David Clarinval, Benoît Piedboeuf
N-VA Peter Dedecker, Rita Gantois
Open Vld Luk Van Biesen, Dirk Van Mechelen - Submission date
- Feb. 6, 2019
- Official page
- Visit
- Subjects
- excise duty tax on investment income customs duties tax law tax on income tax-free allowance
⚠️ Voting data error ⚠️
This proposition is missing vote information, which is caused by a bug in the heuristic algorithms. As soon as I've got time to fix it, the votes will be added to Demobel's database.
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 4, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)
Full source
President Siegfried Bracke ⚙
Mr Calomne, rapporteur, refers to his written report.
Georges Gilkinet Ecolo ⚙
Will we be honored to have the presence of the Minister for this discussion? Although it does not present major political content, it still seems to me that, in principle, a member of the executive should be there to answer any questions from colleagues.
President Siegfried Bracke ⚙
Mr. Gilkinet, as stated yesterday at the Conference of Presidents, the competent minister, Mr. De Croo, is apologized. It was specified that he would be replaced by Minister De Backer.
Like you, I see that he is not there. I therefore ask the services to call him so that he joins us as soon as possible.
Peter Dedecker N-VA ⚙
Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I will not bored you with a flower reading of the various beautiful articles in a law containing various provisions, but I would like to emphasize two brief points in it.
These are two major changes.
Through the first amendment, we resolve a key problem of recent years, in particular that when listed companies split their shares or create a spin-off, they were subject to a previously rotating surcharge. The investor lost 30%, even though he did not actually get any revenue from it. The share was divided into two parts, with the sum of both parts having the same value as the original share. The investor did not get a return, but could pay 30% taxes, which, of course, was not so nice. This error will be corrected through this proposal. In the past, such a division has occurred several times. For example, I think of the split of Osram from Siemens, Verizon Communications from Vodafone, Kraft from Altria and, more recently, Google that split its shares. Whoever had an A- and B- share received a C-share. After that, they were no longer taxed, but the legal certainty was not there in advance. Many investors have sold their shares in advance and then bought them back to avoid the 30% tax. Through this change, we will prevent such conditions so that investors no longer have to pay tax on them.
A second important point that I would like to emphasize is the strengthening of economic growth and social cohesion. In the relance law, a burden reduction was approved for the companies in the construction sector. That was a very important burden reduction that would provide job creation. Unfortunately, the indexing mechanism of the non-partial flow of the corporate premium was not properly implemented. As a result, this measure could not come into effect and would have to pay a much too high minimum wage. This is also being corrected now, which allows us to fully strengthen job creation. I assume that this is also to your great pleasure, Mrs. Temmerman.