Post by firoj8240 on Jan 11, 2024 6:55:09 GMT
Mário de Andrade wrote in his book Macunaíma that Brazil's ills were “too little health and too much health”. Today, the imposition of strange taxation by states and municipalities on various economic sectors must be added. The issue of state taxes on mining and the energy sector , and municipal taxation on infrastructure , as in the case of Guarulhos airport , has previously been addressed . Let us now turn to agribusiness, responsible for around 23% of Brazilian GDP between 1995 and 2021. SpaccaThe current “tax trend” in states is the creation of funds to increase taxation, with an apparent social appeal. The state of Mato Grosso do Sul created Fundersul; the one in Mato Grosso created Fethab, and the one in Goiás just approved Fundeinfra last week. The state of Paraná is trying to create the FDI-PR with the same scope. Such funds have in common their unconstitutionality.
Let's look at the case of the state of Goiás, which has a curious design. The legal construction indicates that the resources collected will not go to the state coffers, but to the coffers of a state agency (Goinfra) – which belongs to the state itself! This simple description already demonstrates a financial dribble, as what would go to the state Treasury coffers goes to the coffers of a state agency – which is confusing, as it is commanded by the same Executive Branch and submitted to the same Legislative Branch of Goiás. What is the reason for this dribble? The answer is in article 5 of Fundeinfra, which Betting Number Data establishes the payment of a contribution condition for enjoyingpecial export regimes and (3) in some cases of tax substitution. There are several irregularities in this standard. On the one hand, the state grants the tax benefit, but the state authority charges a contribution in order to enjoy this incentive, indirectly reducing the amount, which violates, among several rules, Precedent 544 of the Federal Supreme Court.
On the other hand, exports are being taxed, which is equally unconstitutional, as they are protected by constitutional immunity. In fact, the States do not even return to exporters the ICMS due in the export chain, and they still want to increase taxation obliquely, through this “toll” called contribution. Furthermore, there is also the overburdening of operations with tax substitution, which reveals another range of problems. The fact is that the analysis of this legal issue will not be resolved solely by focusing on the tax-taxpayer relationship. It is necessary to look at the entire operation and understand the financial dribble that is being applied, distorting positive law, which becomes clearer when observing the argument that the state tax authorities will use in its defense. Let's try to anticipate the main arguments. It is impossible to charge ICMS on exports of goods abroad (article 155, paragraConstitution). It turns out – tax defenders will say – that the charge being imposed does not refer to ICMS, but to a contribution collected for a local authority, therefore, the constitutional norm has not been violated.
Let's look at the case of the state of Goiás, which has a curious design. The legal construction indicates that the resources collected will not go to the state coffers, but to the coffers of a state agency (Goinfra) – which belongs to the state itself! This simple description already demonstrates a financial dribble, as what would go to the state Treasury coffers goes to the coffers of a state agency – which is confusing, as it is commanded by the same Executive Branch and submitted to the same Legislative Branch of Goiás. What is the reason for this dribble? The answer is in article 5 of Fundeinfra, which Betting Number Data establishes the payment of a contribution condition for enjoyingpecial export regimes and (3) in some cases of tax substitution. There are several irregularities in this standard. On the one hand, the state grants the tax benefit, but the state authority charges a contribution in order to enjoy this incentive, indirectly reducing the amount, which violates, among several rules, Precedent 544 of the Federal Supreme Court.
On the other hand, exports are being taxed, which is equally unconstitutional, as they are protected by constitutional immunity. In fact, the States do not even return to exporters the ICMS due in the export chain, and they still want to increase taxation obliquely, through this “toll” called contribution. Furthermore, there is also the overburdening of operations with tax substitution, which reveals another range of problems. The fact is that the analysis of this legal issue will not be resolved solely by focusing on the tax-taxpayer relationship. It is necessary to look at the entire operation and understand the financial dribble that is being applied, distorting positive law, which becomes clearer when observing the argument that the state tax authorities will use in its defense. Let's try to anticipate the main arguments. It is impossible to charge ICMS on exports of goods abroad (article 155, paragraConstitution). It turns out – tax defenders will say – that the charge being imposed does not refer to ICMS, but to a contribution collected for a local authority, therefore, the constitutional norm has not been violated.