Post by account_disabled on Mar 4, 2024 6:38:09 GMT -5
Crucial difference in relation to the complex model in force until then (forward tax substitution — article 150, § 7, of the CF), according to which it was the responsibility of the first taxpayer in the chain to collect his own tax and, by presumption, that of everyone the others. Furthermore, it was still up to the latter to be repaid or complement possible differences between what was supposed and what had occurred in reality (Extraordinary Appeal No. 593.849/MG, October/2016). Quixote had always argued that, with monophasia, this "substitute irrationality" would end. In a single incidence, inspection would focus on just one link in the economic-productive chain, optimizing public resources, as well as making revenue more predictable.
In the same way, there would no longer be any need to talk about tax supplements and refunds, which allowed states to effectively receive only what was rightfully theirs and taxpayers to immediately reinvest their resources in the economy. Therefore, with single-phase incidence, the obscure tax burden adjustments, which brought so many costs to companies and society in EL Salvador Mobile Number List general, would come to an end. Yes, because, without quixotism, these charges could be reflected directly or indirectly in prices, leaving the bill for all of us to pay. "As I am content with little, but I want a lot, I just want the tax hassles to end. With monophase, everyone will know the charge that is paid for each liter of fuel", dreamed the hopeful tax lawyer.
In fact, as Dom had always said, the next two changes brought by LC nº 192 were simple logical-legal consequences of that first. In other words, if it was up to the national legislator to define which fuels would be subject to a single (purposeful redundancy) incidence of ICMS, it was evidently also their role to establish that an equally single rate (i) would be applied to them, per product, throughout the national territory (article 155, § 4, IV, 'a' of the Charter), as well as (ii) specific, calculated on a unit of measurement (article 155, § 4, IV, 'b'). Because any variation that did not strictly observe this "triple" — monophasia + uniformity + specificity — would open the possibility of tax-financial adjustments along the chain.
In the same way, there would no longer be any need to talk about tax supplements and refunds, which allowed states to effectively receive only what was rightfully theirs and taxpayers to immediately reinvest their resources in the economy. Therefore, with single-phase incidence, the obscure tax burden adjustments, which brought so many costs to companies and society in EL Salvador Mobile Number List general, would come to an end. Yes, because, without quixotism, these charges could be reflected directly or indirectly in prices, leaving the bill for all of us to pay. "As I am content with little, but I want a lot, I just want the tax hassles to end. With monophase, everyone will know the charge that is paid for each liter of fuel", dreamed the hopeful tax lawyer.
In fact, as Dom had always said, the next two changes brought by LC nº 192 were simple logical-legal consequences of that first. In other words, if it was up to the national legislator to define which fuels would be subject to a single (purposeful redundancy) incidence of ICMS, it was evidently also their role to establish that an equally single rate (i) would be applied to them, per product, throughout the national territory (article 155, § 4, IV, 'a' of the Charter), as well as (ii) specific, calculated on a unit of measurement (article 155, § 4, IV, 'b'). Because any variation that did not strictly observe this "triple" — monophasia + uniformity + specificity — would open the possibility of tax-financial adjustments along the chain.