Source: https://www.ibet.com.br/2019/01/02/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 18:28:20+00:00

Document:
Legislação brasileira ainda é silente quanto aos aspectos fiscais específicos das criptomoedas e da atividade de mineração. Atualmente, são muitos os debates relacionados às criptomoedas, que têm ganhado profusos entusiastas em virtude do seu potencial revolucionário e disruptivo no complexo mundo tecnológico virtual.
OECD Taxation Working Papers N. 39 – SIMPLIFIED REGISTRATION AND COLLECTION MECHANISMS FOR TAXPAYERS THAT ARE NOT LOCATED IN THE JURISDICTION OF TAXATION. A REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT. This paper reviews and evaluates the efficacy of simplified tax registration and collection mechanisms for securing compliance of taxpayers over which the jurisdiction with taxing rights has limited or no authority to effectively enforce a tax collection or other compliance obligation. Although the experience of jurisdictions in addressing this problem has involved primarily consumption taxes, that experience, and the lessons that can be learned from it, are applicable as well to other tax regimes that confront the same problem. Many jurisdictions have implemented (and are in the process of implementing) simplified registration and collection regimes in the business-to-consumer (B2C) context for taxpayers that are not located in the jurisdiction of taxation. Although the evidence regarding the performance of the simplified regimes adopted by jurisdictions is still quite limited, the best available evidence at present (in the European Union) indicates that simplified regimes can work well in practice and a high level of compliance can be achieved since there is a concentration of the overwhelming proportion of the revenues at stake in a relatively small proportion of large businesses and since the compliance burden has been reduced as far as possible. It also indicates that the adoption of thresholds may be an appropriate solution to avoid imposing a disproportionate administrative burden with respect to the collection of tax from small and micro-businesses in light of the relatively modest amount of revenues at stake and that a good communications strategy is essential to the success of a simplified regime (including appropriate lead time for implementation). In sum, simplified registration and collection regimes represent an effective approach to securing tax compliance when the jurisdiction has limited or no authority effectively to enforce a tax collection or other compliance obligation upon a taxpayer.
OECD SECRETARY-GENERAL REPORT TO G20 LEADERS – Since 2008, the G20 has made the fight against international tax fraud and avoidance a priority. Thanks to the support of Leaders and Finance Ministers, major progress has been achieved, demonstrating that international co-operation in a multilateral framework can support and strengthen national sovereignty. In my last report to you, at your meeting in Hamburg in 2017, I told you that we were about to bring to fruition the G20 mandate for the automatic exchange of financial account information (AEOI) with first exchanges to start in September 2017. It is estimated that by June 2018, jurisdictions around the globe have identified EUR 93 billion in additional revenue (tax, interest, penalties) as a result of voluntary compliance mechanisms and other offshore investigations put in place since 2009. AEOI is now happening in 83 jurisdictions that committed to exchange by 2018. Moreover, details on hundreds of billions of euros of accounts have been exchanged in 2017, the first year of operation of the OECD’s Common Reporting Standard. I reported on the outcome of your request to establish objective criteria to identify jurisdictions that were not implementing the tax transparency standards and the significant impact that this process had on encouraging jurisdictions to make changes. The OECD has now delivered strengthened criteria to be applied at the time of next year’s Summit and can report today that 15 jurisdictions are at risk of being identified. We are working with these jurisdictions and I will report to you at your Summit in 2019 on the progress made, along with a list of any jurisdictions that have not made enough progress. After the delivery of the OECD/G20 Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Package of 15 Actions, the key issue for the international tax community in 2018 remains how to address the tax challenges arising from digitalisation. In March, I delivered an Interim Report to Finance Ministers, providing an economic analysis of the features of the highly digitalised business models. It was agreed that, in spite of divergences on the consequences to draw, countries would seek a consensus based solution in a context where a number of governments feel urged to move to short term interim measures. Since March, the 124 members of the Inclusive Framework for BEPS Implementation, steered by G20 countries, have made significant progress to bridge the gaps in their position. Following the US tax reform, the United States has in particular agreed to engage in the search of a global solution which would address further challenges. Equally, France and Germany have now proposed to explore the feasibility of a global anti-base erosion mechanism. The United Kingdom made a proposal focussed on a reallocation of taxing rights based on active user contribution in some business models. Many other countries are now involved actively in this discussion. The G20 has an opportunity to seize the moment by maintaining the political focus on reaching a global, consensus-based solution. The Task Force will meet in December and the Inclusive Framework then meets in January to take these proposals further. A strong showing of unity and commitment to work together at the highest political level will be a key ingredient in finding the common ground that we are seeking. The Inclusive Framework will hold a second meeting in 2019 just before your next Leaders’ Summit. My hope is that at that Summit you will be able to celebrate an agreement on the what and how of a long-term solution to be delivered in 2020. These discussions are taking place against the back-drop of wide-spread implantation of the BEPS Package. In July last year the OECD/G20 Inclusive Framework on BEPS was up and running and the peer reviews of the minimum standards had begun. The first results from the peer reviews of the OECD/G20 BEPS Project are in and show strong implementation by the members of the BEPS Inclusive Framework. While the BEPS Project addresses double non-taxation, ensuring that international trade and investment does not face double taxation remains a priority. The OECD, in collaboration with the IMF, had produced a first report on tax certainty. In July we delivered an update on that report and look forward to taking this work forward with renewed emphasis. Our work on building capacity in developing countries is on-going, including support for the G20 Compact with Africa and our work through the Platform for Collaboration on Tax. We have continued to deliver a strong program of work in supporting capacity building in developing countries, particularly through the Platform for Collaboration (PCT) on Tax. Buenos Aires, Argentina. December 2018.
Ação direta de inconstitucionalidade. Contribuição Social sobre o Lucro Líquido (CSLL). Artigos 22 e 29, III, da Lei nº 10.684/03. Aumento da base de cálculo do tributo para as empresas prestadoras de serviço. Violação dos princípios da isonomia, da capacidade contributiva, da vedação do confisco ou da anterioridade. Não ocorrência. Improcedência da ação. 1. A alteração da redação do art. 20 da Lei nº 9.249/95 pela Medida Provisória nº 232/04 não é suficiente para gerar o prejuízo da ação, pois o dispositivo que modificava o art. 20 da Lei nº 9.249/95 não foi aprovado pelo Congresso Nacional, deixando de constar no texto final da lei de conversão (Lei nº 11.119/05). O efeito revogador somente se operaria quando da conversão em lei do texto provisório. 2. Descabimento da alegação de inconstitucionalidade do art. 29, inciso III, da Lei nº 10.684/03 por desrespeito ao princípio da anterioridade anual previsto no art. 150, inciso III, alínea b, da Lei Fundamental. A instituição ou a majoração de contribuições sociais submete-se a regramento específico, estampado no art. 195, § 6º, da Constituição Federal, fazendo o dispositivo remissão expressa à vigência do art. 22 da mesma lei após o interregno de noventa dias da publicação do ato normativo. 3. O aumento da base de cálculo da CSLL foi destinado às empresas prestadoras de serviços tributadas com base no lucro presumido ou por estimativa, com exclusão das prestadoras de serviços hospitalares e equiparadas. A norma questionada, sob o pálio da política fiscal, teve o objetivo de sanar discrepância antes estabelecida consistente em uma menor tributação da renda (lucro) das pessoas jurídicas prestadoras de serviço, em detrimento das pessoas físicas desempenhadoras da mesma atividade. 4. A conformação do princípio da isonomia na Constituição Federal, mais ainda na vertente tributária, autoriza a adoção de medidas discriminativas para a promoção da igualdade em sentido material. No caso da Contribuição Social de Lucro Líquido (CSLL), assim como de outras contribuições sociais, a Constituição Federal autoriza a adoção de alíquotas ou bases de cálculo diferenciadas, dentre outros critérios, em razão da atividade econômica desenvolvida pela empresa, notadamente após a Emenda Constitucional nº 20/98, que inseriu o § 9º no art. 195 da CF. 5. Atrelado ao valor da isonomia, o princípio da capacidade contributiva busca, exatamente, justificar a adoção de critérios de diferenciação de incidência, conforme exija a multiplicidade de situações sociais, sempre visando a uma tributação mais justa e equânime. 6. Tendo em conta a totalidade da carga tributária suportada pelo contribuinte, o incremento isolado de uma contribuição não seria suficiente para atestar o efeito confiscatório propalado, porquanto, apesar do maior sacrifício da renda do sujeito passivo do tributo, não se impôs óbice irrazoável ao exercício de sua atividade. 7. Ação que se julga improcedente. ADI 2898 / DF, DJ 03-12-2018.

References: art. 20
 art. 20
 art. 29
 art. 150
 art. 195
 § 6
 art. 22
 § 9
 art. 195