Unformatted text preview: other
entities that would not have benefited in any way from it, but which, to the contrary, would have been compelled to
engage in budget cutbacks in their own fields of jurisdiction.
For all of these reasons, a stalemate was reached in respect of this part of the Sainte-Thérèse agreement, given that the
91% determined according to the forecasts of future contributions to the European Union were a broad estimate that
favoured the federal government, which found that the final compromise worked to its advantage.
It should be noted that this measure respecting the sharing of the cost of additional contributions to the EU concerns
only the federal government and the communities (the regions were excluded from the arrangement and will not
participate in any way in the increase in the federal government’s costs. One can ask what the justification is for this
discrimination. This situation has also played a role in the outcome of the problem discussed in the two preceding
paragraphs. The differentiated treatment accorded the communities and the regions could have been even more
pronounced if the communities had had to suffer the effects of the tax reform announced.
In order to resolve the second question concerning the communities, i.e. the radio-TV fee, the Sainte-Thérèse
agreement stipulates that “the radio-TV fee [shall be regionalized]” and that “the transfer of the radio-TV fee shall be
carried out in such a way that no community loses as a result any financial resources in relation to existing financing
rules.” [our translation]
Given that the radio-TV fee henceforth concerns both the regions and the communities, we will discuss this tax in the
section devoted to regional taxes. However, it should be noted that the communities will no longer benefit from the real
revenue generated by the radio-TV fee, which has achieved the status of a regional tax, but will receive a compensatory
transfer from the regions, through the federal budget. The amount of this transfer in 2002 has been determined for each
community, in light of the average of its radio-TV fee recorded from 1999 to 2001, expressed in 2002 BEF. In
subsequent years, the amounts thus obtained will be tied to inflation.
To conclude this section, and without going into details, we would like to point out that, bearing in mind the specificity of
the German-speaking community, a specific refinancing program has been elaborated in respect of this community,
based on the number of students. 2.2.2. Budgetary effect of the Lambermont agreement Below is a budget projection concerning the VAT transfer of the French-speaking and Flemish communities between
2002 and 2010, which compares the financial resources available had the Lambermont agreement not been concluded
and the funds available when the adjustment in respect of 91% of growth in GNI and the new mixed allocative key are
taken into account. 202 Commission on Fiscal Imbalance TABLE 2.3
BUDGETARY EFFECT OF THE LAMBERMONT AGREEMENT ON THE VAT TRANSFERS OF THE
FRENCH-SPEAKING AND FLEMISH COMMUNITIES
(in million BEF)
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 168349 172216 176418 180722 185132 189649 194276 199017 203874 171427 177944 184560 194757 20...
View Full Document