Proposition 55K0791

Projet de loi transposant la directive (UE) 2018/822 du Conseil du 25 mai 2018 modifiant la directive 2011/16/UE en ce qui concerne l'échange automatique et obligatoire d'informations dans le domaine fiscal en rapport avec les dispositifs transfrontières devant faire l'objet d'une déclaration.

General information ¶

Submitted by

Chamber of representatives (2019-10-27 - 2020-03-17)

Submission date

Nov. 26, 2019

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive European tax cooperation tax law exchange of information

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI Open Vld N-VA MR PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Roberto D'Amico (PVDA | PTB) voted to reject.
• Wouter Raskin (N-VA) 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 ¶

Dec. 12, 2019 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am informed that Minister De Croo is on the way.

Mr. Speaker, my co-rapporteur Mr. Bertels and I refer to the written report.

Both rapporteurs therefore refer to the written report.

Can we start the general discussion in the absence of the Minister? There was not much discussion about this. (approval of consent)

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I will give my brief explanation of on my bench.

The sp.a. group will of course support the draft, as transparency obligation in relation to cross-border tax structures can and will make a significant contribution to the fight against international tax evasion and fraud.

Nevertheless, we are of the opinion that three points of the design have missed the opportunity to be more ambitious.

First, we would have liked to see that the reporting obligation would also apply to domestic tax structures, which, by the way, was already requested in 2009 by the Parliament on the basis of one of the recommendations of the Investigative Committee on the large tax fraud files.

Second, we consider that the concept of tax advantage is too narrow because it is only linked to direct taxes, although the Directive does not exclude the possibility that indirect taxes are also subject to the reporting obligation.

Third, for our group, it is okay that there is a high minimum penalty of 5,000 euros for non-compliance with the reporting obligation. However, the maximum sanction seems to us to be far too low, ⁇ compared to the sanctions imposed in the countries around us. In the Netherlands it amounts to 830,000 euros; in Luxembourg it amounts to 250,000 euros. In the present draft, it is only about 100,000 euros.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, together with Mr. Bertels and Mr. Bayet, I have submitted some amendments to Articles 18, 31, 33 and 47, aiming at raising the maximum fine in our country to the level of the fine in Luxembourg, namely to 250,000 euros.

Indeed, there is still an aggressive tax planning and some structures deserve ⁇ additional attention. Fortunately, there is less and less attention to the measures that have been taken since 2011. In the meantime, we are already on the sixth European Directive to share more information.

These structures can be addressed in two ways. One could choose a total European harmonisation. But this would, in our opinion, be unreasonable, since it must also take into account the fact that Europe is a unity in diversity and that Member States also have their own peculiarities. The problem can also be addressed in a better way, namely by sharing the information. This is precisely what is stated in the directive that we will implement today. We support the principle of the directive, in particular to share information and to enhance cooperation between administrations.

There is a gap in the conversion. A part of the document must also be translated. There are two discussions on this. First, who is responsible for the payment? Second, what happens if the translation turns out to be inaccurate? In the design lies the full burden on our companies. We do not think that is the best choice. It must also be partly with the administration, even if something is related to the sanctions regime, as sp.a noted. What happens if something is translated inaccurately? Can there be heavy penalties? We had submitted an amendment on this subject. This was rejected in the committee. That is why we abstained from the committee and why we will do so again today.

I would like to come up with the amendment of sp.a, which aims to tighten the sanction measure. In fact, some Member States of the European Union impose far more severe sanctions, but similarly other Member States have less severe sanctions. I think the system, which is on the table today, is in line with the Belgian fiscal environment. We can find ourselves in that, because the proposed sanction measure is effective, proportionate and yet seems sufficiently deterrent to address the problem.

In short, we support the sanctions regime, but not the amendment of sp.a.

Our group also supports the conversion. If we want to advocate for fair taxation, we must be able to take action against aggressive constructions and optimization schemes. This can only be done if you have knowledge. That knowledge comes through the conversion automatically, rather than ad hoc. I think that can only be positive.

I would also like to address the amendment of sp.a, and more specifically the aggravation of the sanction measure for matters not or too late ⁇ . In the draft, the sanction measure for non-notification is already much higher than for an incomplete declaration. The State Council has also commented on this difference. If this sanction measure is further tightened, everything becomes even more out of balance and that can create problems. Therefore, we will not support this amendment.

We support the conversion, of course.

I would also like to talk about the fines.

We would like to emphasize that the high minimum fines will also apply to infringements not committed in bad faith. It also includes sanctions for non-compliance with administrative obligations and not sanctions for the structures themselves. We will not support the amendments.

In terms of language usage, we naturally follow the N-VA. In the general vote, we will abstain.

I want to be very clear. We do not have a problem with transparency, but we are sorry if sanctions are imposed, even if one is in good faith. I would also like to emphasize another aspect: one must not forget that it is about regulation in relation to intermediaries such as tax and accounting offices. Two-thirds of these companies are located in Flanders. The legislation is primarily directed against Dutch-speaking intermediaries, against Flemish companies in Flanders. We, as Flemish politicians, must be aware of this.