C. A TESTFOR THE WORKING GROUPS PROPOSALS
Despite these few limitations, which could be removed, the Belgian system is a very encouraging initiative, producing far fewer deadweight effects than the British system and moving in the same direction as the Working Groups proposals . This convergence is notable with regard to the following points:
- it is based on the same virtuous circle : a tax advantage in return for automatic reporting;
- it is based on a single annual income threshold 114 ( * ) , applicable to all income received via online platforms, and transposedas far as social contributions are concerned in the form of an assumption of the non-professional nature of the activity. The slightly higher level of the threshold is offset by the existence of a levy in discharge below this amount .
However, besides its principle which is perfectly in line with the propositions of the Working Group, it should be remembered that the creation of a new income category , subject to a specific fixed rate of 10% instead of the progressive scale, could pose a problem in French law with respect to the principle of equality before taxation .
Indeed, unlike the advantage proposed by the Working Group, whose effect is neutral when the income is significant (see above), the Belgian law always grants preferential tax treatment to the first EUR 5,100 earned via platforms, without an exit threshold . There is therefore a risk of creating, for the same activity, a subsidyfor using a platform, which could be a distortion of competition in relation to physicalprofessionals.
* 114 The EUR 5,000 threshold was also proposed in the first report of the Working Group on the subject, published on 17 September 2015 (see above).