Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 0:40:17 GMT -5
Tax professionals on duty were taken by surprise on the last working day of December with the publication of Provisional Measure No. . This MP among other tax measures proposed the revocation of tax benefits from the Emergency Program for the Resumption of the Events Sector Perse. The measure appears as a legal question mark raising questions about its legality and constitutionality.
Perse implemented by Law No. was a direct response to the devastating impacts of Covid- on the events sector. Article of the aforementioned law reduced IRPJ CSLL PIS and Cofins rates to zero for companies in the sector for a period of five years with the clear objective of promoting the resumption of the events industry.
In fact companies in the events sector over the last few years have organized and planned their operations based on the benefits provided by the program. On the other hand since its CG Leads conception Perse has never been fully accepted by the federal government which has consistently demonstrated its intention to revoke benefits.
In this sense MP No. amends article of Law No. establishing the end of Perse tax benefits in advance as of January for IRPJ and from April for CSLL PIS and Cofins. This abrupt move by the government raises serious concerns about the justification of “relevance and urgency” essential criteria for issuing a provisional measure.
The implementation of Perse was a calculated and planned decision offered for a specific period of time which allowed both the benefited companies and the government itself to prepare and plan based on this measure.
Therefore the tax planning of companies in the sector was based on this concession. Several jobs were maintained or created precisely because of the tax benefit. Revocation without prior notice and without a plausible justification goes against the stability and predictability necessary for business management as well as posing a threat to legal security.
Likewise the federal government should have considered the impacts of Perse in its budget planning for future years. The granting of the benefit was made with a defined period which should allow the government to organize its finances and fiscal policies according to the stipulated period. The sudden revocation of the program through a provisional measure which should be reserved for situations of extreme urgency and relevance is an action that is not justified in this context making it unconstitutional.
Perse implemented by Law No. was a direct response to the devastating impacts of Covid- on the events sector. Article of the aforementioned law reduced IRPJ CSLL PIS and Cofins rates to zero for companies in the sector for a period of five years with the clear objective of promoting the resumption of the events industry.
In fact companies in the events sector over the last few years have organized and planned their operations based on the benefits provided by the program. On the other hand since its CG Leads conception Perse has never been fully accepted by the federal government which has consistently demonstrated its intention to revoke benefits.
In this sense MP No. amends article of Law No. establishing the end of Perse tax benefits in advance as of January for IRPJ and from April for CSLL PIS and Cofins. This abrupt move by the government raises serious concerns about the justification of “relevance and urgency” essential criteria for issuing a provisional measure.
The implementation of Perse was a calculated and planned decision offered for a specific period of time which allowed both the benefited companies and the government itself to prepare and plan based on this measure.
Therefore the tax planning of companies in the sector was based on this concession. Several jobs were maintained or created precisely because of the tax benefit. Revocation without prior notice and without a plausible justification goes against the stability and predictability necessary for business management as well as posing a threat to legal security.
Likewise the federal government should have considered the impacts of Perse in its budget planning for future years. The granting of the benefit was made with a defined period which should allow the government to organize its finances and fiscal policies according to the stipulated period. The sudden revocation of the program through a provisional measure which should be reserved for situations of extreme urgency and relevance is an action that is not justified in this context making it unconstitutional.