B. SO FAR, A NARROW SCOPE OF APPLICATION WHICH LIMITS ADOPTION OF THE MECHANISM BY MANY PLATFORMS
The law is based on the following compromise: a lower tax rate (10% instead of 33%), but collected more efficiently.
Well received by the actors of the collaborative economy in Belgium, the bill initially sparked strong reservations from taxi drivers, hoteliers and self-employed professions, who are fearful of unfair competition from fake private individuals. This opposition appears however to have calmed down since last year.
The first platform to have implemented the system is Listminut , which puts private individuals in contact with each other for services such as DIY, gardening, assistance for people, home tuition and babysitting. Founded in 2013, it is the equivalent of Stootie in France and TaskRabbit in the United States. During his interview with the members of the Working Group, its founder, Jonathan Schockaert, emphasised that a 10% rate would of course always be less advantageous than a continuation of the informal activity, but that its relatively low level should all the same convince many individuals to regularise their activity . In other words, users who already applied the tax rules obtain a financial advantage by going through a participating platform, and the others will obtain at least a service (simplification of procedures) and the guarantee that they are complying with the law .
Jonathan Schockaert also stated that one of the other great virtues of the system was that it constituted a springboard towards entrepreneurship, citing the example of a person wishing to test outhis capabilities as regards DIY household services before turning professional. This is the case for several users of Listminut , of whom approximately 15% are now professionals 110 ( * ) .
The advantage of this mechanism, which also applies to that proposed by the Working Group, is particularly relevant to the case of Belgium, where a micro-entrepreneur status does not exist . Therefore there is a sudden switch from private individual status to that of full-blown self-employed worker, with all the obligations that such a status implies (in particular the payment of social contributions including in the case of a loss-making activity). This threshold effect, which can only encourage undeclared work with regard to small occasional services, is appreciably attenuated by the new measure. During the interviews conducted by the Working Group abroad, micro-entrepreneur status was often cited as an important comparative advantage for France , which the study by PwC on the collaborative economy in Europe also notes 111 ( * ) .
However, beyond the technical questions not all of which appear to be resolved at this stage (frequency of payments to the Treasury, format of the data sent, check of when the threshold is crossed, etc.), the new Belgian law has weaknesses that, for the moment, still restrict its scope .
Thus, most large international platforms have not yet expressed their willingness to apply this measure 112 ( * ) which is voluntary.
The main obstacle seems to be the relatively small area of income eligible for the tax advantage, i.e. miscellaneous incomederived from service activities carried out by private individuals.
The main weak pointof the mechanism, as Belgian authorities admit, is the exclusion of real estate income, and in particular the income from rental platforms such as Airbnb which therefore is not taking part in the system. More specifically, the administrative authorities have clarified the characterisation of income from platforms of the Airbnb type, applying the following fixed-amount allocation criteria: 48% for real estate income, 32% for movable property income (for furniture and household equipment), and 20% of miscellaneous income (for services such as reception or the supply of bed linen). Only these last 20% could therefore benefit from the measure, an advantage which appeared too small to warrant participation in the mechanism .
In addition, the EUR 5,100 threshold, expressed in gross income, may seem to provide little inducement with regard to the rental of furnished accommodation , which can quickly produce higher proceeds 113 ( * ) .
Also excluded from the miscellaneous incomecategory, and therefore from the tax advantages in its current form is income from movable property , i.e. from the rental of a car or a drill between private individuals, as well as income from the sale of goods in a virtual marketplace, such as personal creations or movable goods.
* 110 i.e. they have self-employed worker status and they indicate their VAT number.
* 111 Source: Robert Vaughan et Raphael Daverio, PwC UK, « Assessing the size and presence of the collaborative economy in Europe », a study for the European Commission, April 2016.
* 112 Some platforms, which offer services carried out exclusively by professionals, cannot by definition receive the advantage. This is particularly the case of Uber , on which all drivers have a professional status (the service UberPop also having been outlawed in Belgium).
* 113 Although the Working Group also proposes to apply the EUR 3,000 threshold to short-stay furnished accommodation rentals of the Airbnb type, it does not however wish to change the EUR 23,000 threshold applicable to social contributions for affiliation to the self-employed workerssocial security system (RSI) or to the general system, for the same reasons.