| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 556.06 KB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Entrou em vigor no dia 4 de maio, a Lei nº 32/2019 que transpõe parcialmente para a ordem jurídica nacional a Diretiva (UE) 2016/1164, que estipula regras contra as práticas de elisão fiscal, introduzindo alterações materiais e procedimentais à anterior cláusula geral antiabuso. Deste modo, considerando que em regra, a aplicação da cláusula geral antiabuso se reveste de particular singularidade, e que a mesma tem habitualmente implícito a existência de esquemas complexos de planeamento fiscal, passou a ser imposto que a impugnação judicial da liquidação seja precedida da apresentação de reclamação graciosa. Não obstante, este novo aditamento deixou algumas questões sem resposta, nomeadamente a de saber qual a razão de ser desta nova imposição procedimental. O presente trabalho visa, assim, através do confronto com o princípio da impugnação unitária, bem como com os casos em que a reclamação graciosa é previamente necessária, procurar um motivo legitimador desta mudança.
Law 32/2019, partially implements EU Directive 2016/1164 into domestic law, entered into force on 4th May 2020. It sets out rules aiming to combat tax avoidance practices, introducing, in that connection, material and procedural changes to the previously established general anti-abuse clause. Considering that, as a rule, the application of the general anti-abuse clause is rare, usually implying the existence of complex tax planning schemes, the challenge of liquidation before the judiciary is to be preceded by the filing of a complaint. It should be noted, though, that this new legal requirement leaves some questions unanswered, such as, the reason behind the new procedural imposition. It is thus the aim of this paper to attempt to identify a justifiable reasoning to said legal change by examining and comparing the principle of unitary impugnation and cases in which the complaint is deemed a requirement.
Law 32/2019, partially implements EU Directive 2016/1164 into domestic law, entered into force on 4th May 2020. It sets out rules aiming to combat tax avoidance practices, introducing, in that connection, material and procedural changes to the previously established general anti-abuse clause. Considering that, as a rule, the application of the general anti-abuse clause is rare, usually implying the existence of complex tax planning schemes, the challenge of liquidation before the judiciary is to be preceded by the filing of a complaint. It should be noted, though, that this new legal requirement leaves some questions unanswered, such as, the reason behind the new procedural imposition. It is thus the aim of this paper to attempt to identify a justifiable reasoning to said legal change by examining and comparing the principle of unitary impugnation and cases in which the complaint is deemed a requirement.
Description
Keywords
Cláusula geral antiabuso Impugnação unitária Reclamação administrativa Anti-abuse clause Administrative complaint