| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.15 MB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Para garantir a arrecadação do IVA e combater a evasão e a fraude fiscal nas operações facilitadas pelas plataformas digitais a nível europeu, foram adotadas regras que atribuem o papel de sujeitos passivos de forma presumida e primária às interfaces eletrônicas e normas de responsabilidade solidária, juntamente com o devedor original do imposto. Ambas se mantêm vigentes e coexistem no ordenamento de cada Estado e, dada a sua importância, surgiram questionamentos sobre a dificuldade de interpretação das normas à nível de segurança jurídica, proporcionalidade, neutralidade, efetividade e, sobretudo, à responsabilidade solidária. Por tais razões, este trabalho analisou a compatibilidade da regra de responsabilidade solidária portuguesa (artigo 80-A do Código do IVA) com o ordenamento jurídico comunitário, bem como buscou traçar possíveis parâmetros interpretativos, à luz da jurisprudência do TJUE (Tribunal de Justiça da União Europeia). O trabalho compreendeu que a primeira hipótese é proporcional e está de acordo com a jurisprudência do TJUE e com o direito comunitário, já que não estabelece uma responsabilização objetiva, possibilita o afastamento da incidência da norma (atendimento da notificação e o cumprimento do teste de conhecimento), depende da constatação da boa-fé da interface ao exigir uma conduta ao seu alcance. Contudo, este não é o caso da segunda hipótese, pois impõe uma responsabilidade objetiva solidária pelo mero descumprimento do dever de fornecer certos registros, sem a possibilidade de afastamento da sua incidência. Constatou-se que as normas de responsabilidade solidária podem desempenhar um papel secundário na arrecadação e na conformidade, sobretudo nas situações não previstas pelas regras de responsabilidade primária. Apesar disso, um cenário de múltiplas regras aplicáveis (de responsabilidade principal, acessória e solidária) aumenta a complexidade e a incerteza do sistema e de um ônus significativo às plataformas. Razão pela qual a redação de normas claras, em atenção ao direito comunitário, se torna fundamental.
To ensure the collection of VAT and to deal with tax evasion and fraud in transactions facilitated by digital platforms at the European level, rules have been adopted that assign electronic interfaces a presumed and primary role as taxable persons, as well as rules of joint and several liability, alongside the original taxpayer. Both remain in force and coexist within the legal framework of each State. Given their importance, questions have arisen regarding the difficulty of interpreting these rules in terms of legal certainty, proportionality, neutrality, and effectiveness, particularly regarding joint and several liability. For these reasons, this study analyzed the compatibility of the Portuguese joint and several liability rule (Article 80-A of the VAT Code) with the EU law and sought to outline possible interpretative parameters considering the case law of the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union). The study concluded that the first hypothesis of the article is proportional and complies with CJEU jurisprudence and EU law, as it does not establish objective liability, allows the rule's application to be avoided (by complying with notifications and fulfilling the knowledge test), and depends on the interface's good faith and actions within its control. However, this is not the case with the second hypothesis, as it imposes an objective joint and several liability solely for failing to provide certain records, without the possibility of avoiding its application. It was found that joint and several liability rules can play a secondary role in tax collection and compliance, especially in situations not covered by primary liability rules. Nevertheless, a scenario with multiple applicable rules (primary, accessory, and joint liability) increases the complexity and uncertainty of the system, imposing a significant burden on platforms. For this reason, drafting clear rules in compliance with EU law is essential.
To ensure the collection of VAT and to deal with tax evasion and fraud in transactions facilitated by digital platforms at the European level, rules have been adopted that assign electronic interfaces a presumed and primary role as taxable persons, as well as rules of joint and several liability, alongside the original taxpayer. Both remain in force and coexist within the legal framework of each State. Given their importance, questions have arisen regarding the difficulty of interpreting these rules in terms of legal certainty, proportionality, neutrality, and effectiveness, particularly regarding joint and several liability. For these reasons, this study analyzed the compatibility of the Portuguese joint and several liability rule (Article 80-A of the VAT Code) with the EU law and sought to outline possible interpretative parameters considering the case law of the CJEU (Court of Justice of the European Union). The study concluded that the first hypothesis of the article is proportional and complies with CJEU jurisprudence and EU law, as it does not establish objective liability, allows the rule's application to be avoided (by complying with notifications and fulfilling the knowledge test), and depends on the interface's good faith and actions within its control. However, this is not the case with the second hypothesis, as it imposes an objective joint and several liability solely for failing to provide certain records, without the possibility of avoiding its application. It was found that joint and several liability rules can play a secondary role in tax collection and compliance, especially in situations not covered by primary liability rules. Nevertheless, a scenario with multiple applicable rules (primary, accessory, and joint liability) increases the complexity and uncertainty of the system, imposing a significant burden on platforms. For this reason, drafting clear rules in compliance with EU law is essential.
Description
Keywords
Plataformas digitais IVA Responsabilidade Fraude fiscal Teses de mestrado - 2025 Digital platforms VAT Liability Fiscal fraud