On 11 August 2017, an administrative circular letter was issued with respect to the Belgian exit taxation rules. Belgium amended, via the Act of 1 December 2016, the Belgian tax provisions on exit taxation largely in line with the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directive (ATAD) requirements on exit taxation. More precisely, the Act introduced amongst others the option
Insights into the EU proposal on mandatory disclosure of tax information by taxpayers and intermediaries
The European Commission, on 21 June 2017, published a draft Directive that would impose mandatory reporting by taxpayers and intermediaries to the tax administrations of EU Member States for various cross-border transactions and arrangements, and the automatic exchange of this information among Member States (see previous coverage). Taxpayers and intermediaries (such as consultants, banks, and
On 26 July 2017, the federal government reached an agreement on an important tax, economic and social reform package. A significant gradual reduction in the corporate income tax rate to 25% in 2020 and fiscal consolidation are key components of the package. The agreement preserves the notional interest deduction. The tax reform is built around
Remark: The following announced measures will have to be formalised in draft legislation which should only be available as from September/October. Only then will full details be known. On 26 July 2017, the Federal government reached an agreement on an important corporate tax reform, significantly reducing the corporate tax rate. More details will follow below.
In the fight to crack down on corporate tax avoidance, the European Parliament has voted in plenary that multinational companies should disclose tax information in each country they operate. Consequently, multinationals with a worldwide turnover of minimum EUR 750 million should publicly disclose how much tax they pay and where, including taxes paid outside the EU. Large firms
On 28 April 2017, the Belgian Council of State annulled the nomination of the French-speaking Board members of the Ruling Office, due to a complaint by a previous Board member (see our newsflash of 8 May 2017). As a result of the judgment, the Ruling Office was not able to take any formal decisions because