Post by xyz3800 on Feb 28, 2024 5:39:43 GMT 1
Fiscal reclassification requires a technical analysis of the nature, composition and constitution of the product, and it is up to the supervisory body to prove that the category adopted by the company is wrong, if it is questioned. This was the understanding unanimously reached by the 1st Ordinary Panel of the 3rd Chamber of the 3rd Section of the Administrative Council for Tax Appeals (Carf). Disclosure Carf establishes thesis that a case in analysis involving tax reclassification requires technical analysis of nature, composition and constitution In the case under analysis, the Revenue alleged that a company had wrongly classified its products in order to avoid paying the IPI. The parts were wind energy turbines, and were sold disassembled. In the vote, the rapporteur, councilor Semíramis de Oliveira Duro, states that the taxpayer acted correctly, as he issued an opinion stating that a dismantled wind turbine would not lose unity.
Thus, it is not enough for the inspection to present its understanding of the description formulated, but rather the burden of proof, which must be met through the presentation of technical elements that support the classification intended by it", he says. According to the rapporteur, fiscal reclassification requires a technical analysis of the nature, composition and constitution of the product, and it is not enough for the inspectorate to present its Exit Mobile Number List understanding of the description formulated by the importer. "The burden of proof is incumbent upon you, fulfilled through the presentation of technical elements that support the classification assigned by the Administration, removing that used by the taxpayer", she explains. For the counselor, the case is yet another finding that highlights the oversight of the inspection in the reclassification. "The classification adopted by the taxpayer remains irreproachable, there is no talk of imposing an ex officio fine", she says.
This is because article 10-A, included in the CLT through the labor reform, offered the consolidated legislation legal certainty by determining the filing of the labor claim as the milestone for interrupting the two-year period for holding the withdrawing partner liable. Furthermore, the legal provision now under analysis brought to execution within the scope of the Labor Court other commands regarding the liability of the withdrawing partner, as can be seen: contrary to the provisions of the Civil Code, which determines the joint and several liability, as previously mentioned, of the withdrawing partner, in light of article 10-A of the CLT, he is subsidiarily responsible for the company's labor obligations, obeying the following list of preferences: debtor company, current members and withdrawing members ; another important change in the understanding regarding the responsibility of the withdrawing partner was the concept that he is only responsible for the period in which he benefited from the worker's labor power.
Thus, it is not enough for the inspection to present its understanding of the description formulated, but rather the burden of proof, which must be met through the presentation of technical elements that support the classification intended by it", he says. According to the rapporteur, fiscal reclassification requires a technical analysis of the nature, composition and constitution of the product, and it is not enough for the inspectorate to present its Exit Mobile Number List understanding of the description formulated by the importer. "The burden of proof is incumbent upon you, fulfilled through the presentation of technical elements that support the classification assigned by the Administration, removing that used by the taxpayer", she explains. For the counselor, the case is yet another finding that highlights the oversight of the inspection in the reclassification. "The classification adopted by the taxpayer remains irreproachable, there is no talk of imposing an ex officio fine", she says.
This is because article 10-A, included in the CLT through the labor reform, offered the consolidated legislation legal certainty by determining the filing of the labor claim as the milestone for interrupting the two-year period for holding the withdrawing partner liable. Furthermore, the legal provision now under analysis brought to execution within the scope of the Labor Court other commands regarding the liability of the withdrawing partner, as can be seen: contrary to the provisions of the Civil Code, which determines the joint and several liability, as previously mentioned, of the withdrawing partner, in light of article 10-A of the CLT, he is subsidiarily responsible for the company's labor obligations, obeying the following list of preferences: debtor company, current members and withdrawing members ; another important change in the understanding regarding the responsibility of the withdrawing partner was the concept that he is only responsible for the period in which he benefited from the worker's labor power.