| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 668.11 KB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
O presente estudo procura analisar a Lei 26/2020, de 21 de julho, para, a partir dela, enumerar os problemas contidos e verificar se os mesmos redundam numa falha de compatibilização do legislador fiscal aquando da adoção do regime de comunicação obrigatória de mecanismos de planeamento fiscal. O ponto de partida da dissertação é a Diretiva 2018/822 (EU) que consiste no diploma internacional que deu lugar à Lei 26/2020 após transposição para o OJ nacional. Depois de verificados os objetivos e as vantagens e desvantagens dos referidos diplomas, confrontaremos o segundo com o princípio da não autoincriminação e com o regime do segredo profissional dos advogados previsto no EOA, dois dos problemas enumerados e aos quais daremos uma maior atenção. O escopo final será sempre o de perceber se aqueles entraves são meramente aparentes ou, se, de facto, se verifica uma incompatibilidade entre eles e a Lei, de tal forma que a última não deveria vigorar no OJ português nos termos em que a mesma se encontra. Embora guardemos, ainda, um espaço proveitoso para uma comparação entre a transposição feita por Portugal e aquela realizada pelo nosso país vizinho, Espanha, assim como um local próprio para abordar a temática de acordo com a jurisprudência nacional e internacional, não nos comprometeremos a encontrar uma solução definitiva para aqueles inconvenientes, mas tão só a fazer uma apreciação crítica sobre os mesmos. Não obstante isso, tentaremos dar um pequeno contributo para uma futura alteração e, quem sabe, correção. Será sempre crucial ter presente de que se trata de uma questão deveras recente no mundo jurídico.
The current study seeks to analyse the Law 26/2020, of 21 July, in order to enumerate the problems contained and check if those same problems result in a compatibility failure of the tax legislator when adopting the regime of mandatory communication of tax planning mechanisms. With this in mind, the starting point of this dissertation is the Directive 2018/822 (EU), which consists in the international diploma that gave place to its transposition into the national legal system through the Law 26/2020. After studying the goals and the advantages and disadvantages of the mentioned diplomas, we will confront the second one with the non-self-incrimination principle and with the professional confidentiality regime for lawyers, consecrated in the EOA, two of the problems listed and to which we will pay greater attention. This said, our final aim will always be to understand if those obstacles are merely apparent or, if, in fact, there is an incompatibility between them and the Law, in such way that the latter should not be in force in the Portuguese legal system. Although we still save a convenient space to compare the transposition carried out by Portugal and that carried out by our neighbour country Spain, as well as a proper place to approach the theme in accordance with national and international jurisprudence, we will not undertake to find a definitive solution to those inconveniences, but only to make a critical assessment of them. Nevertheless, we will try to make a small contribution to a future change and, who knows, a future correction. It will always be crucial to be aware that the matter is quite recent in the legal world.
The current study seeks to analyse the Law 26/2020, of 21 July, in order to enumerate the problems contained and check if those same problems result in a compatibility failure of the tax legislator when adopting the regime of mandatory communication of tax planning mechanisms. With this in mind, the starting point of this dissertation is the Directive 2018/822 (EU), which consists in the international diploma that gave place to its transposition into the national legal system through the Law 26/2020. After studying the goals and the advantages and disadvantages of the mentioned diplomas, we will confront the second one with the non-self-incrimination principle and with the professional confidentiality regime for lawyers, consecrated in the EOA, two of the problems listed and to which we will pay greater attention. This said, our final aim will always be to understand if those obstacles are merely apparent or, if, in fact, there is an incompatibility between them and the Law, in such way that the latter should not be in force in the Portuguese legal system. Although we still save a convenient space to compare the transposition carried out by Portugal and that carried out by our neighbour country Spain, as well as a proper place to approach the theme in accordance with national and international jurisprudence, we will not undertake to find a definitive solution to those inconveniences, but only to make a critical assessment of them. Nevertheless, we will try to make a small contribution to a future change and, who knows, a future correction. It will always be crucial to be aware that the matter is quite recent in the legal world.
Description
Keywords
Planeamento fiscal Diretiva DAC 6 Transposição Princípio da não autoincriminação Advogado Segredo profissional Deveres de colaboração Tax planning Directive Transposition Non-self-incrimination principle Lawyer Professional secret Collaboration duties