Delimitação de conceitos

Numa altura em que tanto se fala em fraude e evasão fiscal, planeamento fiscal agressivo, planeamento fiscal (não agressivo?), optimização fiscal, gestão fiscal, engenharia fiscal, sei lá que mais, talvez a seguinte figura ajude a alguma clarificação:

Fonte: Merks, P. (2006), "Tax Evasion, Tax Avoidance and Tax Planning", Intertax, Volume 34, Issue 5, pp. 272 - 281.

Assim, talvez se devessem utilizar somente as seguintes expressões:

Planeamento fiscal: actividade legal e legítima que o próprio legislador previu em determinadas normas, como é o caso dos benefícios fiscais.

De acordo com Freitas Pereira (in Fiscalidade, Coimbra Editora, 2005) trata-se de escolher a via fiscalmente menos onerosa, consistente com a gestão normal dos negócios pessoais ou empresariais (intra legem).

Evasão fiscal: não acolhida pelo legislador, sendo normalmente combatida com normas anti-abuso (gerais e específicas) e com o recente decreto-lei sobre planeamento fiscal agressivo.

De acordo com Freitas Pereira (ob. cit., p. 384) a evasão fiscal traduz-se na prática de actos ou negócios jurídicos lícitos mas que a lei fiscal qualifica como não sendo conformes com a substância da realidade económica que lhes está subjacente ou serem anómalos, anormais ou abusivos (extra legem).

Fraude fiscal: comportamentos sancionáveis fiscal e criminalmente normalmente caracterizados pela falsificação, ocultação intencional de factos ou situações com impacto fiscal (contra legem).

TUDO BONS RAPAZES

Este quadro consta no livro "A Guide to Forensic Accounting Investigation", e a conclusão óbvia é a seguinte:

É preciso ter currículo para a prática de crimes na área económica e financeira!

PARTICIPAÇÃO DE PLANEAMENTO FISCAL

Foi publicada no dia 8 de Maio a portaria para efeitos de participação de esquemas de planeamento fiscal.

Estamos ansiosos para conhecer esses esquemas, uma vez que, nos termos do Decreto-Lei n.º 29/2008, de 8 de Maio, essa divulgação será publicada em sítio na Internet.

MUDANÇA DE RESIDÊNCIA OU PLANEAMENTO FISCAL?

Transcreve-se a seguir uma parte de uma notícia recente:

United Business Media plans to move tax residence out of UK
Joanna Faith

United Business Media has become the second UK multinational company in three weeks to reveal plans to move its tax residency to the Republic of Ireland. The announcement by the publisher and events organiser, follows pharmaceutical company Shire's statement earlier in April.

A UBM spokesperson told International Tax Review that the planned move was sparked by the complexity of the UK's tax system.

The set-up of the FTSE 250 company will be identical to Shire's new structure –UK-listed, incorporated in Jersey and tax resident in Ireland.

Deloitte tax partner, Bill Dodwell, said these departures are due to the uncertainty over the taxation of foreign profits in the UK. "The government needs to try and give companies some clarity about what's happening in the [foreign profits] consultation. There are too many bad messages in the proposal at the moment," he said.

Em Portugal, o chamado imposto de saída (exit tax) foi introduzido no Código do IRC a partir de 2006 (Subsecção V-A aditada pelo n.º 2 do artigo 64.º da Lei n.º 60-A/2005, de 30 de Dezembro).

A notícia completa pode ser consultada aqui.

PREÇOS DE TRANSFERÊNCIA: CORRECÇÃO FISCAL

A seguinte notícia ilustra bem quais os valores que podem estar em causa num litígio em sede de preços de transferência:

Honda makes $7.7billion provision for transfer pricing dispute

International Tax Review

Honda, the Japanese motor manufacturer, has set aside $7.7 billion as contingency against a potential tax adjustment. The Tokyo Regional Tax Bureau has launched a transfer pricing inquiry into the company.

The inquiry is focused on the group accounts for Honda in the five years before March 2006. This includes its joint venture to manufacture cars in China.

The company disputes that it owes back taxes in relation to its joint venture but the bureau suspects that Honda channelled profits into the joint venture company to avoid taxes in Japan. The bureau has said that the profits from the Chinese operation were not at arm's length and that there will, therefore, be an adjustment.

In a statement, Honda said the tax authority believes that "too much of this total profit was realised by the Chinese joint venture companies over the five-year period ended March 31 2006".
The company said that it does not recognise any contingent tax liability for these years. It has, however, been obliged to report the provision of ¥80 billion ($7.7 billion) against the impact of an unfavourable adjustment. This has appeared in its Fin 48 report.

"The prices for transactions with the Chinese joint venture companies were intended to comply with the local laws and regulations of both Japan and China and result in the appropriate amount of taxes in both Japan and China," Honda commented.

Honda says that, despite the fact that it has recorded a potential liability in its final statements, it continues to argue that it has no tax exposure in Japan. The tax bureau's inquiry is not yet concluded and Honda says it hopes to convince the inquiry team by means of further factual evidence. The company says it has continued to assert that the allocation of profit between Honda and the Chinese joint venture companies was arm's length. Despite this Honda has not been able to reach an agreement with the bureau on this issue.

MUDANÇA DE AUDITOR: COMUNICAÇÃO

Na Inglaterra já é obrigatório. Veremos quando será em Portugal.

The Companies Act 2006 introduces new requirements on audit firms and on companies to notify changes of auditors to "the appropriate auditing authority". These provisions came into force on 6 April 2008 and we have recently issued guidance on our website: http://www.frc.org.uk/pob/regulation/notification.cfm