A carregar...
Publicação
O sistema tributário das mais e menos valias : uma viagem até ao justo valor
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 662.21 KB | Adobe PDF |
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
O tema em desenvolvimento no presente trabalho acaba por ser de especial interesse quando debatemos várias questões em sede do IRC. O facto de conseguir fomentar alguma controvérsia, nomeadamente na questão das mais-valias e menos-valias latentes, bem como na discussão do conceito do Justo Valor, torna toda esta questão fundamental quando abordamos a tributação das empresas.
O Código do Imposto sobre o Rendimento das Pessoas Coletivas (doravante CIRC) apresenta diversos métodos de tributação das mais valias geradas pela venda de participações sociais. Estes métodos apresentam-se como bastante distintos entre si, diferindo no cumprimento de requisitos, podendo assim, consoante esse preenchimento, existir um tratamento diferenciado para situações de tributação de mais valias resultantes da venda ou detenção de participações sociais.
Desde logo, a primeira ideia que poderá surgir é a de que esta diferenciação de métodos poderá originar pouca harmonização fiscal e uma situação de desigualdade fiscal no tratamento de situações bastante semelhantes do ponto de vista prático.
Podemos identificar três regimes de tributação das mais e menos valias das participações sociais, como o modelo do artigo 51º-C do CIRC, que iremos conjugar com a Diretiva Mães-Filhas, o modelo da regra geral do artigo 46º do CIRC e, como terceiro modelo, aquele que iremos procurar pormenorizar com maior destaque, o do artigo 18º/9/a) do CIRC.
Como primeiro modelo deveremos observar a regra geral presente no art. 46º CIRC, em que o legislador optou por calcular as mais ou menos realizadas através de uma fórmula matemática. Por outro lado, temos o art. 51º-C do CIRC, que acaba por tipificar um regime de isenção das mais valias das participações sociais, estabelecendo requisitos bastante rígidos, tendo por base os pressupostos do art. 51º do CIRC, inspirado na dita Diretiva Mães-filhas, como se pode observar na letra do mesmo artigo.
Estes dois modelos apresentam-se bastante diferenciados, uma vez que um está assente na lógica de tributar, enquanto que o outro isenta o sujeito passivo de tributação, caso se verifiquem determinados e fechados requisitos. No entanto, percebemos que ambos têm uma lógica semelhante quando falamos em mais ou menos valias realizadas (alienação efetiva do ativo, do instrumento de capital próprio). Desta forma, estão excluídas destes regimes as mais valias latentes, as que são meramente potenciais, ou seja, que não efetivamente riqueza, mas sim meramente potenciais.
A lógica subjacente a estes tem por base o princípio da realização, em que existe uma inscrição contabilística dos ativos, proveitos ou ganhos quando ocorre a sua realização, na sequência de um ato de transmissão por venda ou troca. Aqui, podemos observar que apenas com a efetiva transmissão do ativo é que conseguimos ter o valor real do mesmo, não passando de meras estimativas valorimétricas até que esta ocorra.
Indo até ao último regime que pretendemos abordar neste trabalho, teremos de observar o art. 46º/1/b) do CIRC que nos apresenta um novo conceito quando alude à “exceção dos reconhecidos pelo Justo Valor”, sendo este o terceiro modelo de tributação das mais valias resultantes de partes sociais, o modelo do art. 18º/9 do CIRC.
Analisando o que nos diz esta alínea do art. 46º, convém salientar o conceito de “Justo Valor”, sendo um conceito inverso ao da realização, partindo da ideia de que o valor não é algo subjetivo e volátil, mas sim uma representação objetiva e monetária de uma realidade. Assim, não será necessário que exista uma realização de um ativo para que possamos registar uma mais ou menos valia, tanto a nível contabilístico como a nível tributário.
Olhando para o caso das sociedades cotadas em mercados regulados, temos um preço efetivo das ações, é possível cotar essas ações, cotar o “fair value”, garantindo mais certeza nessa mensuração. Com uma avaliação mais real, consistente e atualizada dos ativos das sociedades, conseguimos aproximar o plano fiscal do contabilístico.
Esta situação poderá também criar um problema de fundo, uma vez que o valor desses ativos acaba por ser volátil e, nesse caso, poderá ter sido positivo o ano passado e, este ano, ser negativo, sendo que o sujeito passivo terá de suportar os custos fiscais dessas variações em situação desfavorável, sem capacidade de ter liquidez proveniente desse mesmo ativo. Com isto, importa ainda salientar que o presente trabalho, além de ser de explicitação destes três regimes, terá também uma análise quanto ao conceito do Justo Valor e à forma como poderá, eventualmente, existir uma grande discrepância no nosso sistema tributário português quando abordamos a tributação das mais ou menos valias de participações sociais, as diferenças de tratamento e de resultados que estes podem ter entre si.
The theme addressed in this present work is of particular interest when discussing various issues within Corporate Income Tax (CIT). The fact that it can generate controversy, particularly in the matter of latent capital gains and losses, as well as in the discussion of the concept of Fair Value, makes this whole issue crucial when addressing the taxation of companies. The Corporate Income Tax Code (hereinafter referred to as "CITC") presents several methods for taxing the capital gains generated by the sale of equity investments. These methods vary significantly from each other in terms of compliance requirements, potentially resulting in differentiated treatment depending on their fulfillment, thereby affecting the taxation of capital gains resulting from the sale or holding of equity investments. At first glance, the differentiation of methods may raise concerns about limited tax harmonization and fiscal inequality in the treatment of fairly similar situations from a practical standpoint. Three taxation regimes for capital gains and losses on equity investments can be identified: the model provided in Article 51-C of the CITC, the model of the general rule in Article 46 of the CITC, and, as a third model, the one we will discuss in greater detail, provided in Article 18/9/a) of the CITC. As the first model, we should observe the general rule outlined in Article 46 of the CITC, where the legislator chose to calculate the realized gains or losses through a mathematical formula. On the other hand, we have Article 51-C of the CITC, which establishes an exemption regime for capital gains on equity investments, setting forth rather stringent requirements based on the assumptions of Article 51 of the CITC, inspired by the Parent-Subsidiary Directive, as can be seen in the wording of the same article. These two models are quite distinct, as one is based on the logic of taxation, while the other exempts the taxpayer from taxation under certain stringent conditions. However, we understand that both follow a similar logic when discussing realized gains or losses (effective disposal of the asset, of the equity instrument). Thus, latent capital gains, those that are merely potential and do not effectively represent wealth, are excluded from these regimes. The underlying logic behind these is based on the realization principle, where there is an accounting entry of assets, income, or gains when they are realized, following a transaction through sale or exchange. Here, we can observe that only with the actual disposal of the asset can we determine its real value, remaining mere valuation estimates until this occurs. Moving on to the last regime we intend to address in this work, we must observe Article 46/1/b) of the CITC, which presents a new concept when referring to "exception recognized by fair value", being the third model for taxing capital gains resulting from equity investments, provided in Article 18/9 of the CITC. Looking at what this subparagraph of Article 46 says, it is worth noting the concept of "fair value", which is an inverse concept to realization, based on the idea that value is not subjective and volatile but rather an objective and monetary representation of reality. Thus, it is not necessary for an asset to be realized for us to record a gain or loss, both at the accounting and tax levels. Considering the case of companies listed on regulated markets, there is an actual price for shares, enabling the quotation of these shares, quoting the "fair value", ensuring more certainty in this measurement. With a more realistic, consistent, and updated assessment of company assets, we can align the fiscal plan with the accounting one. This situation may also create a fundamental problem, as the value of these assets may be volatile and, in that case, may have been positive last year and negative this year, meaning that the taxpayer will have to bear the fiscal costs of these variations in an unfavorable situation, without the ability to obtain liquidity from the same asset. Therefore, it is important to emphasize that this work, in addition to explicating these three regimes, will also analyze and critique the concept of fair value and how there may be a significant discrepancy in our Portuguese tax system when addressing the taxation of capital gains or losses on equity investments, the differences in treatment and results that these may have among themselves.
The theme addressed in this present work is of particular interest when discussing various issues within Corporate Income Tax (CIT). The fact that it can generate controversy, particularly in the matter of latent capital gains and losses, as well as in the discussion of the concept of Fair Value, makes this whole issue crucial when addressing the taxation of companies. The Corporate Income Tax Code (hereinafter referred to as "CITC") presents several methods for taxing the capital gains generated by the sale of equity investments. These methods vary significantly from each other in terms of compliance requirements, potentially resulting in differentiated treatment depending on their fulfillment, thereby affecting the taxation of capital gains resulting from the sale or holding of equity investments. At first glance, the differentiation of methods may raise concerns about limited tax harmonization and fiscal inequality in the treatment of fairly similar situations from a practical standpoint. Three taxation regimes for capital gains and losses on equity investments can be identified: the model provided in Article 51-C of the CITC, the model of the general rule in Article 46 of the CITC, and, as a third model, the one we will discuss in greater detail, provided in Article 18/9/a) of the CITC. As the first model, we should observe the general rule outlined in Article 46 of the CITC, where the legislator chose to calculate the realized gains or losses through a mathematical formula. On the other hand, we have Article 51-C of the CITC, which establishes an exemption regime for capital gains on equity investments, setting forth rather stringent requirements based on the assumptions of Article 51 of the CITC, inspired by the Parent-Subsidiary Directive, as can be seen in the wording of the same article. These two models are quite distinct, as one is based on the logic of taxation, while the other exempts the taxpayer from taxation under certain stringent conditions. However, we understand that both follow a similar logic when discussing realized gains or losses (effective disposal of the asset, of the equity instrument). Thus, latent capital gains, those that are merely potential and do not effectively represent wealth, are excluded from these regimes. The underlying logic behind these is based on the realization principle, where there is an accounting entry of assets, income, or gains when they are realized, following a transaction through sale or exchange. Here, we can observe that only with the actual disposal of the asset can we determine its real value, remaining mere valuation estimates until this occurs. Moving on to the last regime we intend to address in this work, we must observe Article 46/1/b) of the CITC, which presents a new concept when referring to "exception recognized by fair value", being the third model for taxing capital gains resulting from equity investments, provided in Article 18/9 of the CITC. Looking at what this subparagraph of Article 46 says, it is worth noting the concept of "fair value", which is an inverse concept to realization, based on the idea that value is not subjective and volatile but rather an objective and monetary representation of reality. Thus, it is not necessary for an asset to be realized for us to record a gain or loss, both at the accounting and tax levels. Considering the case of companies listed on regulated markets, there is an actual price for shares, enabling the quotation of these shares, quoting the "fair value", ensuring more certainty in this measurement. With a more realistic, consistent, and updated assessment of company assets, we can align the fiscal plan with the accounting one. This situation may also create a fundamental problem, as the value of these assets may be volatile and, in that case, may have been positive last year and negative this year, meaning that the taxpayer will have to bear the fiscal costs of these variations in an unfavorable situation, without the ability to obtain liquidity from the same asset. Therefore, it is important to emphasize that this work, in addition to explicating these three regimes, will also analyze and critique the concept of fair value and how there may be a significant discrepancy in our Portuguese tax system when addressing the taxation of capital gains or losses on equity investments, the differences in treatment and results that these may have among themselves.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Direito fiscal Tributação Imposto de mais-valias Teses de mestrado - 2024 Tax law Taxation Taxation of capital gains and losses