This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: crease without first obtaining a
favourable opinion from the court of auditors, which made it unnecessary to define the fines. The negotiators ultimately
abandoned the idea of disallowing the implementation of a measure without first obtaining a favourable opinion from the
court of auditors, although they did not restore the fine procedure. 38
42 Section 9, paragraph 5 of the special act of July 13, 2001 amending section 6 of the special financing act.
Conseil d’État, 31.227/VR, page 42.
This cooperation agreement is defined in section 92(a), §3 of the special act of August 8, 1980 respecting institutional reforms.
Section 12 of the special act of July 13, 2001 inserting a section 9(a) into the special financing act.
In light of this timing, which is original to say the least, the court of auditors will not systematically examine a final text since legislators will still have
an opportunity to amend the decree, either through a commission and during a plenary session in the case of a draft, or solely during the plenary
session in the case of a proposal. 207 Commission on Fiscal Imbalance There remains only one way to enforce a negative opinion of the court of auditors, i.e. recourse to the court of
arbitration. In this respect, a shortcoming has once again been noted in the special act. No specific procedure is
stipulated, except that the court of arbitration may request an additional opinion from the court of auditors. The traditional
procedure will thus be applied, one that calls for the suspension of the decree in question only if certain conditions are
To illustrate the problems related to this procedure, let us assume that a region introduces a tax reduction. The court of
auditors hands down an unfavourable opinion but the region goes ahead, adopts the decree and implements it. Another
region seeks recourse before the court of arbitration. Since the conditions for suspending the decree are not met, the
decree remains in force during the entire period of examination by the court of arbitration, which can last for many
months. The court of arbitration ultimately cancels the decree. At this point, the question of retroactivity arises: how can
the region recover the amount of the tax reduction from the taxpayer?
It should be noted that, in conjunction with its responsibility for providing opinions, the court of auditors will develop,
with the consent of the federal government and the regional governments, an open, uniform evaluation model that will
make it possible to test the regional reforms contemplated.45 Moreover, the court of auditors will prepare an annual report on the outcome of all of the regional fiscal measures in
force during the preceding year.46 3.2.2. Budgetary effect of the Lambermont agreement In order to precisely estimate the budgetary effect of the implementation of regional fiscal autonomy in respect of
personal income tax, it is necessary to ascertain the value of 1% of the personal income tax in the region concerned.
Moreover, it is necessary to assess the effect that...
View Full Document