Post by account_disabled on Feb 27, 2024 9:37:20 GMT
Law discussions about ICMS crediting on the acquisition of intermediate goods revolve almost exclusively around its definition. Just read the rulings on the subject and the understandings reached within the Treasury Department of each State. It is assessed to what extent an intermediate item participates in the production process and whether it can, depending on its characteristics, qualify as an input for crediting purposes, or whether it better qualifies as a material for use/consumption. Input is a quality of the good or service before its insertion in the production process. Evidently, this quality does not change due to the nature of the demand in which the credit is sought or the tax involved. If essentiality and relevance qualify an intermediate item as an input , all resulting legal consequences apply to it.
This is where the application, in relation to , of the input delimiting criteria set for becomes fully viable, in order to maintain stable, integral and coherent jurisprudence (article 926 of the CPC), within the scope of that court. On the other hand, although within the scope of the Federal Supreme Court there are precedents from the Panel in the line that "the acquisition of intermediate Chinese Europe Phone Number List products applied in the product process that do not physically integrate the final product does not generate the right to ICMS credit, since the acquirer, in this case, appears to be a final consumer", others are to the effect that "the discussion regarding the crediting of ICMS for incorporation of goods into the industrial process as an intermediate product appears to be restricted to the infraconstitutional scope the constitutionality principle of non-cumulativeness.
All of this reaffirms the need for the 1st Section of the STJ to define whether intermediate production materials generate ICMS credits, including considering the understanding already adopted for the purposes of PIS/Cofins crediting.What was left out It is undeniable that cryptoactives are currently used much more as an investment than as a means of payment. For this reason, the standard ignores the typical concerns regarding the protection of the proper functioning of a market similar to the securities market, in which the aim is to protect the investor by imposing rules for good price formation, disincentives to act leaving the interest of the investor in the background, ensuring the disclosure of clear, adequate, sufficient and true information about the companies that issue assets and the entire negotiation process.
This is where the application, in relation to , of the input delimiting criteria set for becomes fully viable, in order to maintain stable, integral and coherent jurisprudence (article 926 of the CPC), within the scope of that court. On the other hand, although within the scope of the Federal Supreme Court there are precedents from the Panel in the line that "the acquisition of intermediate Chinese Europe Phone Number List products applied in the product process that do not physically integrate the final product does not generate the right to ICMS credit, since the acquirer, in this case, appears to be a final consumer", others are to the effect that "the discussion regarding the crediting of ICMS for incorporation of goods into the industrial process as an intermediate product appears to be restricted to the infraconstitutional scope the constitutionality principle of non-cumulativeness.
All of this reaffirms the need for the 1st Section of the STJ to define whether intermediate production materials generate ICMS credits, including considering the understanding already adopted for the purposes of PIS/Cofins crediting.What was left out It is undeniable that cryptoactives are currently used much more as an investment than as a means of payment. For this reason, the standard ignores the typical concerns regarding the protection of the proper functioning of a market similar to the securities market, in which the aim is to protect the investor by imposing rules for good price formation, disincentives to act leaving the interest of the investor in the background, ensuring the disclosure of clear, adequate, sufficient and true information about the companies that issue assets and the entire negotiation process.