Post by account_disabled on Mar 9, 2024 22:17:53 GMT -6
Despite our embargo regarding the illegality and unconstitutionality of PIS and Cofins taxation on the portion corresponding to monetary correction, this study is restricted to demonstrating the illegality of the Revenue's guidance regarding the moment in which the amount raised in the repetition should be offered for taxation. of the undue payment, referring to the exclusion of ICMS from the PIS and Cofins calculation bases.
Well then. As can be seen from the above guidance contained in SC 308/23, the Revenue understands that the undue payment must be taxed at the time of delivery of the first compensation B2B Email List declaration, in which the full amount to be compensated is declared under resolutory condition and, much worse, when such values are recorded prior to the delivery of the first compensation statement.
With all due respect, none of the hypotheses listed in SC 308/23 reflects the best scenario, simply due to the fact that the Revenue's guidance does not conform to the hypothesis of incidence of each of the taxes, precisely, article 43, of the Code National Tax (CTN) for IRPJ, to article 2, of Law 7,689/88 for CSLL and Laws 10,865/04 and 10,833/03, respectively, for PIS and Cofins.
Without prolonging the debate, the tax debt must be taxed only at the time of approval of the compensation request.
This is because, before that moment, there is no precise net and demandable value. At this point, the question arises: does submitting the declaration guarantee compensation for the tax? Obviously not, considering that the compensation may be totally or partially rejected.
Therefore, the correct time for the offer for taxation to occur is when the compensation request is approved.
Furthermore, the Revenue's guidance in SC 308/23 still borders on absurdity in the sense that, in the case of bookkeeping of such values, at a time prior to the delivery of the first compensation declaration, because bookkeeping is not the hypothesis of incidence of these taxes, especially IRPJ and CSLL.
Take a good look. If there is no legal availability of the values before the approval of the compensation request, what is the logic of taxing these values? There is no availability of income to justify taxation.
Well then. As can be seen from the above guidance contained in SC 308/23, the Revenue understands that the undue payment must be taxed at the time of delivery of the first compensation B2B Email List declaration, in which the full amount to be compensated is declared under resolutory condition and, much worse, when such values are recorded prior to the delivery of the first compensation statement.
With all due respect, none of the hypotheses listed in SC 308/23 reflects the best scenario, simply due to the fact that the Revenue's guidance does not conform to the hypothesis of incidence of each of the taxes, precisely, article 43, of the Code National Tax (CTN) for IRPJ, to article 2, of Law 7,689/88 for CSLL and Laws 10,865/04 and 10,833/03, respectively, for PIS and Cofins.
Without prolonging the debate, the tax debt must be taxed only at the time of approval of the compensation request.
This is because, before that moment, there is no precise net and demandable value. At this point, the question arises: does submitting the declaration guarantee compensation for the tax? Obviously not, considering that the compensation may be totally or partially rejected.
Therefore, the correct time for the offer for taxation to occur is when the compensation request is approved.
Furthermore, the Revenue's guidance in SC 308/23 still borders on absurdity in the sense that, in the case of bookkeeping of such values, at a time prior to the delivery of the first compensation declaration, because bookkeeping is not the hypothesis of incidence of these taxes, especially IRPJ and CSLL.
Take a good look. If there is no legal availability of the values before the approval of the compensation request, what is the logic of taxing these values? There is no availability of income to justify taxation.