2023-12-30 09:00:00
20 years ago, in 2003, it was called “single discharge declaration” (DLU). A poorly named operation, since there will be a total of four cycles of tax and criminal amnesty, including three between 2004 and 2013. It was, in each edition, “the last opportunity” to rebuild a fiscally clean profile.
This time, it’s really the last of the last: in 2021, the Chamber validated the abolition of the DLU system. The fourth “round”, launched in 2016, therefore ends for good on December 31, 2023. It is estimated that tax regularization brought in a total of around €4 billion.
After the deadline, to spontaneously declare certain assets of which the tax administration is not aware, it will be necessary to go through a criminal settlement.
We take stock with Laëtitia Bousez, associate lawyer within the tax entity of the Xirius firm.
Mr. Bousez, from your point of view, can we draw a positive result from these tax regularization operations?
Financially, for the State, obviously yes. But the latest version, the DLU quater, seems totally disproportionate to me. Taxpayers have been put against the wall, mainly by the banks.
That’s to say ?
Some were forced to regularize prescribed capital simply because the banks, sometimes foreign, sometimes Belgian, were afraid of finding themselves complicit in money laundering by repatriating the funds. Even if these prescribed capital had already been subject to the tax regime. But the incumbents were unable to prove it. Personally, I believe that this is a confiscatory process.
This impossibility of proving that we have nothing to reproach ourselves with, is it common or exceptional?
In my experience, in 9 out of 10 cases, proof is impossible to provide.
What case, for example?
Most of the time, these are savings, personal savings placed abroad 30 or 40 years ago. But the initial postulate was that there was a presumption of fraudulent capital. As soon as it comes from abroad, the banks’ red flashers go on.
But how can we be put in a situation where we cannot prove that the origin of the funds is clear?
A typical case: parents make a donation to their children. They do not always know the origin of the money. There are also cases where funds have been placed abroad for years without the heirs knowing anything about it. We had a few files like that in 2023. A family, for example, contacted us for an account whose owner had died 20 years ago. The heirs were stunned. We are far from the image of taxpayers who have invested “black” professional income abroad.
But have you had profiles of this type anyway?
Yes. Especially at the start of DLUs. This is not the majority of cases.
Regularizations can revolve around what amounts?
Regularization taxes are sometimes ridiculously low. In a case where several heirs have distributed the capital, the levy was €200 per person, for example. In this case, the intention of the people concerned is to clean up the situation, to close an account. Besides that, deductions can go up to €800,000 or €900,000. It depends on each file, the stories behind it…
The Court of Auditors estimated that around 40 billion in capital repatriated during previous operations were not subject to withdrawals and are lying dormant in bank accounts in Belgium. Because capital income is regularized, not capital itself.
It’s likely. The regularizations only concerned income. Following previous DLUs, capital was able to be repatriated without ever having been subject to tax.
With the end of the tax amnesty, we will now have to go through a plea bargain. How will you advise your clients?
Either we will tell them to spontaneously contact the tax inspector, who will decide whether or not to refer the case to criminal proceedings or to pursue tax matters. Either do nothing and wait for the tax audit if it has to take place. It will depend on the origin of the funds, what has already been declared or not, etc. Having an account abroad is not fraud in itself. What is fraudulent is not declaring income, life insurance, etc.
And compared to the 40% levy of the DLU quater, the criminal transaction will be heavier?
We don’t have much perspective on this. It will undoubtedly depend on the amounts involved for the “diehards”. But it is likely that we will remain in this proportion. Fines may also be applied. And we can go as far as confiscating the assets if the transaction does not go through. But everyone has an interest in finding an agreement.
This content is not available in this configuration.
Find out here.
1703945839
#tax #amnesty #days #remaining #balance #expired