Proposition 54K3625

Logo (Chamber of representatives)

Projet de loi introduisant le Code du recouvrement amiable et forcé des créances fiscales et non fiscales.

General information

Authors
MR Gautier Calomne, Benoît Piedboeuf
Open Vld Luk Van Biesen, Dirk Van Mechelen
Submission date
Feb. 27, 2019
Official page
Visit
Status
Adopted
Requirement
Simple
Subjects
tax authorities tax law tax collection debt claim

Voting

Voted to adopt
CD&V Vooruit LE DéFI Open Vld N-VA MR PP VB
Abstained from voting
Groen Ecolo PS | SP PVDA | PTB

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.








Bot check: Enter the name of any Belgian province in one of the three Belgian languages:

Discussion

April 4, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source


President Siegfried Bracke

Mr Steven Vandeput, rapporteur, refers to the written report.


Georges Gilkinet Ecolo

Mr. Speaker, as environmentalists, we are ⁇ concerned both about the correct collection of taxes – some techniques can help the staff of SPF Finance to perform it correctly – and about the situation of some taxpayers. This situation has been highlighted in the regular reports of the Federal Ombudsman. He is concerned about somewhat too automatic recovery methods, with very damaging consequences for some taxpayers who are not given enough time to get in order from an administrative point of view, or to negotiate with the SPF Finances a sustainable clearing plan. This can have very heavy chain consequences for the interested parties and cause them to shift into sometimes dramatic situations of great poverty.

This is a bill transformed into a bill, like other texts that will be analyzed today. We have suggested that the applicants consult this Parliamentary department, the Federal Ombudsman, to ask for their opinion on the situations he has himself highlighted, including during hearings in the Finance Committee. This has not been achieved. It is a pity. It will probably be necessary to do so a posteriori to verify whether a differentiated treatment in relation to the type of tax debt and the type of taxpayer is not desirable.

That is why we did not support this text in the committee. Likewise today, we will abstain from hoping, unless we have taken the necessary time before the vote on this text, that it will be evaluated and, if necessary, corrected to protect the most fragile taxpayers from a ⁇ too violent and too automatic approach to recover tax claims, with sometimes terrible consequences for those interested.