1. Title and exact reference: IN 193-C PL 13609
2. Objective Principal: The primary objective of this initiative is to propose a counterproposal to the original IN 193 proposal by the UDC, which aimed at reducing vehicle tax. However, the finalized counterproposal took a different direction and did not have a direct counterpart in the original proposal.
3. Proposed Modifications: The Counsel of State (CE) considered a potential counterproposal involving a sugar tax but ultimately decided against it due to contextual factors related to the initial proposal's fiscal nature and the direction taken by the counterproposal. Instead, the CE focused on a fiscal pounce mechanism as the primary modification in their proposed counterproposal.
4. Discussions/Avis: The CE considered the idea of focusing on a counterproposal more closely aligned with the original proposal, for example, discussing quotas or amounts. However, the CE would not support such a counterproposal due to its opposition to the mechanics of the initial proposal.
5. Implications: This proposed counterproposal is significantly different from the original initiative in both material and formal aspects, raising institutional concerns expressed by the CE. The proposed fiscal pounce mechanism opposes the logic behind the cheque of 300 francs for subsidy beneficiaries, as stated in the original proposal.