Post by account_disabled on Mar 6, 2024 8:38:46 GMT
Among the aspects regulated by IN RFB nº it is noteworthy that the granting of authorization was conditioned on the fiscal regularity of federal taxes a requirement that does not appear in Law nº . Its legal support would be article of Law No. which generally conditions the granting or recognition of tax incentives or benefits related to federal taxes to proof by the taxpayer of their tax regularity before the Union.
However as Law No. does not provide anything about the taxpayer's fiscal regularity in taking advantage of the credit there appears to be an antinomy with the general rule of Law No. resolved by article of Lindb with the prevalence of specific norm Lexis specialis derogat gerali .
Especially when considering that Law No. the B2B Email List result of the conversion of MP No. had as its object the monetary system being essentially a rule of financial law. Law No. conversion of MP No. provides for the authorization of tax credits arising from investment subsidies that is it is an eminently tax rule.
If that were not enough Laws No. and which excluded investment subsidies from the IRPJCSLL and PISCofins calculation bases also did not provide for the need for the beneficiary to have a regular tax status.
Nor should they foresee it as the tax benefit related to the investment subsidy has a clear extra-fiscal character aiming for legal entities to implement expand modernize or diversify their economic enterprise in the territory of the federative entity that granted the subsidy.
Along these lines the exclusion of subsidies from the tax bases above as was the case previously or the permission for crediting as provided for in Law No. aims to attract new businesses or expand them. Therefore making it difficult for taxpayers to access such an incentive seems to be at odds with the mens legis .
Furthermore without a textual legal provision IN RFB nº could not extrapolate its regulatory function to create a requirement not foreseen in the standard establishing the tax benefit.
As Minister Regina Helena Costa of the Superior Court of Justice clearly warns there is “ the practice unfortunately repeated of through such acts issuing norms that under the pretext of providing for the adequate execution of tax law generate duties or impose restrictions on rights not provided for in it which ends up violating it given its manifest incompatibility”.
Professor Luís Eduardo Schoueri clearly clarifies that the regulatory power conferred on acts of public administration by law is not carte blanche as “… the act of Administration must observe the legal contours with the regulatory power remaining within the lines that it were established by the Federal Constitution”.
However as Law No. does not provide anything about the taxpayer's fiscal regularity in taking advantage of the credit there appears to be an antinomy with the general rule of Law No. resolved by article of Lindb with the prevalence of specific norm Lexis specialis derogat gerali .
Especially when considering that Law No. the B2B Email List result of the conversion of MP No. had as its object the monetary system being essentially a rule of financial law. Law No. conversion of MP No. provides for the authorization of tax credits arising from investment subsidies that is it is an eminently tax rule.
If that were not enough Laws No. and which excluded investment subsidies from the IRPJCSLL and PISCofins calculation bases also did not provide for the need for the beneficiary to have a regular tax status.
Nor should they foresee it as the tax benefit related to the investment subsidy has a clear extra-fiscal character aiming for legal entities to implement expand modernize or diversify their economic enterprise in the territory of the federative entity that granted the subsidy.
Along these lines the exclusion of subsidies from the tax bases above as was the case previously or the permission for crediting as provided for in Law No. aims to attract new businesses or expand them. Therefore making it difficult for taxpayers to access such an incentive seems to be at odds with the mens legis .
Furthermore without a textual legal provision IN RFB nº could not extrapolate its regulatory function to create a requirement not foreseen in the standard establishing the tax benefit.
As Minister Regina Helena Costa of the Superior Court of Justice clearly warns there is “ the practice unfortunately repeated of through such acts issuing norms that under the pretext of providing for the adequate execution of tax law generate duties or impose restrictions on rights not provided for in it which ends up violating it given its manifest incompatibility”.
Professor Luís Eduardo Schoueri clearly clarifies that the regulatory power conferred on acts of public administration by law is not carte blanche as “… the act of Administration must observe the legal contours with the regulatory power remaining within the lines that it were established by the Federal Constitution”.