Benefit in kind on immovable property: tax authority abides by the court ruling (for now)

The Federal Public Service Finance published Circular 2018/C/57 on 15 May 2018 on the flat-rate valuation of the benefit in kind for providing an immovable property or a part of an immovable property free of charge to employees or managers. The flat-rate estimate of these benefits is laid down by the Royal Decree implementing the Income Tax Code 1992 (RD/BITC 92). The Courts of Appeal of Ghent and Antwerp recently confirmed that the distinction to calculate the taxable benefit depending on whether that benefit is awarded by a natural person or a legal person, is unconstitutional. To correct this difference of treatment, Article 18, § 3, 2 RD/BITC 92 requires an amendment. How best to do this, is currently being considered.

Royal Decree unconstitutional, what now?
In anticipation of this legislative intervention, the tax authority has decided to abide by the above-mentioned ruling. In the event that a legal person makes a property available to an employee or manager, the taxable benefit will be estimated at 100/60 of the index-linked cadastral income of that property and, where appropriate, increased by 2/3 for a furnished property.

The tax authority further confirms that in regard to the treatment of statements of objection and legal procedures that may have arisen, it can be agreed that Article 18, § 3, 2, first paragraph, RD/BITC 92 can be applied when calculating a benefit in kind for making available an immovable property or a part thereof, irrespective of the person who makes the property available.

Remission?
What is less clear is that the same tax authority circular indicates that requests for remission will be rejected. A request for remission can be submitted within a period of five years from the first of January of the tax year, such as in the event of a new fact arising for which the late invocation for legitimate reasons is justified. According to the fiscal administration, a change in jurisprudence is not considered a new fact. It is therefore not possible to rely on the above-mentioned case-law to submit a request for remission, even after expiry of the regular objection period. This last point is somewhat open to challenge.

The law sets out that a “change in jurisprudence” cannot be considered a new fact. However, according to established case-law this does not apply to Constitutional Court judgements. Such judgements do qualify as a “new fact” on the basis of which a remission can be requested. It could be argued that the same logic applies to the above-mentioned judgements by the Courts of Appeal since the flat-rate valuation of the benefit in kind is not included in the Income Tax Code itself, but in Article 18 of the implementing decision. Since it is not possible to have the validity of a Royal Decree reviewed by the Constitutional Court (the Court is only authorised to review regulations with force of law), the courts themselves are obliged to review the legality of the provisions of the Royal Decree on the basis of Article 159 of the Judicial Code. In this particular context where the validity of a provision of a Royal Decree is reviewed against the Constitution, it could be argued that a judgement by a court of appeal, for example, in which it makes a ruling on the legality of a Royal Decree, can be equated with a judgement by the Constitutional Court.

Parliamentary question confirms “new fact”
In his response to a parliamentary question a while ago, the Minister of Finance stated that the jurisprudence to which Article 376, §2 BITC 92 refers, only consists of the interpretation and application of law provisions, the validity of which is not contested. Decisions about the validity of the law itself would for that reason form no part of the jurisprudence under Article 376, §2 BITC 92. Further to this parliamentary question, it can therefore be argued in our view that the relevant judgements represent a “new fact” because they are not excluded by Article 376, §2 BITC 92 as a “change in jurisprudence”.

The requirement to register gets a broader scope
More entrepreneurs must register with the Crossroads Bank for Enterprises (CBE)
Under the aim of creating a more attractive business climate, changes were made to the existing company law. In that context, the legislator has done away with the ‘trader’ concept, replacing it with the umbrella term ‘enterprise. Besides forming the basis for the rules of the Code of Economic Law, the Judicial Code and the Civil Code, the new enterprise concept also has consequences for reg
More specific: matrimonial property law
A new compensation obligation in the legal system
What if a spouse practices his profession in a company whose shares all form part of his separate property? The Act of 22 July 2018 has introduced considerable changes to matrimonial property law. This article addresses a specific addition to that law, namely the possible disadvantage incurred by the matrimonial property when a spouse practices their profession through their own company1. 
Changes in the cary proxy and usufruct
Estate planning: recent developments
Over the last few months, we have regularly reported on the important changes in estate planning and inheritance planning. Below is an update of some of those changes.   The care proxy: secure your estate for later The classic example is a person who, due to a physical or mental limitation (e.g. coma, dementia), is – temporarily or permanently – unable to manage their assets properly.
Happy Brexmas?
How to prepare your company for Brexit?
On 10 December 2018, the British Prime Minister decided to postpone the vote on the Brexit deal in the House of Commons. The risk of a ‘no deal’ disaster scenario is increasing. What are the important dates? On 29 March 2017, the United Kingdom formally informed the European Council of its intention to leave the EU (according to the procedure provided in Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty). C
A popular control structure
The all-powerful manager of a civil-law partnership: was it always a fiction?
The civil-law partnership has long been a popular control structure among wealth planners. In many cases, donors do not want to give up their assets entirely, and still want to retain some control over what they donate. Definitely in cases of transfers of family companies, the donors (often parents or family members) still want to retain control over the course of the business.  The advant
The tax framework
Company subsidies: exempted or not?
Various subsidies were briefly described in the article by our colleagues from Strategy and Operations. They explained that they can assist you and your company with guidance on subsidies, from A to Z.1 In this context, we would like to discuss the tax framework for subsidies: how are awarded subsidies treated tax-wise within companies? Are these subsidies exempt from corporation tax and, if
Right to deduct VAT possible for costs incurred during the purchase of shares
The Ryanair ruling
Right to deduct VAT also possible for costs incurred during the purchase of shares, if the purchase ultimately does not (fully) go ahead The European Court of Justice recently confirmed that VAT on costs incurred during the purchase of shares may be deductible even if the purchase ultimately does not (fully) go ahead. As such, the Court of Justice has upheld the principle that the preparatory t
What are the options?
The deduction for investment: an illustration of the options
The deduction for investment allows companies and natural persons who earn profits or benefits to reduce their taxable profits by placing part of the acquisition or investment value of investments in new tangible and intangible fixed assets. Depending on the size of your business and the nature of your activities, you can generally apply the regular, one-off deduction for investment of 20% (tem
Valuation of usufruct
Now also a witch hunt when usufruct is sold?
In previous editions, we have already written about the valuation of usufruct when purchasing property, but recently there have also been regular reports of checks on the valuation of usufruct when reselling. However, up until now, the case law has followed the viewpoint of the taxpayer. Brief description For several years, there has been a lot of controversy regarding the valuation of usufruc
Vlabel is using conciliatory language
Has the decrease in Flemish sales duty led to an increase in the costs for purchases of usufruct?
The decrease in sales duty: also for split purchase usufruct-bare ownership The recent drop in the rate (to 7.00%) for purchases of family homes comes with a number of conditions. For example, the purchaser must be a natural person. Following some uncertainty, it was subsequently confirmed that, in the event of a split purchase of such a property by a company for the usufruct and the bare owner f

Subscribe to our newsletter