Post by nurnobisorker65 on Feb 11, 2024 1:21:20 GMT -8
Not producing effects on other laws, such as tax law. We can find other judgments on this topic in Carf. In Ruling 1201-002.073, the class dismissed, by casting vote, the taxpayer's voluntary appeal based on the same grounds used in Ruling 1402.002.182, set out above. The aforementioned decision was also reformed by the CSRF, when Judgment No. 9101-003.648 was handed down, reported by Counselor Fernando Brasil. The central basis of the rapporteur's vote was that Law No. 10,672/03, by introducing §13 of article 27 of the Pelé Law, established that the sports entity that is equivalent to a business company for the purposes of supervision and control in the provisions of that law — notably for tax, fiscal, social security, financial, accounting and administrative purposes, regardless of the form in.
which it was constituted —, constructed a legal fiction and, by establishing such fiction, also expressly regulated the scope of its legal regime. Therefore, the equivalence of football clubs to business companies would only be valid for monitoring and controlling the provisions of the Pelé Law. In the decision handed down through Ruling 9202-010.589, the tax allegation was analyzed that the Belgium Email List publication of article 13 of Law No. 11.345/06 (Timemania) established the exemption for football clubs constituted as business entities, not being extensive, therefore , to clubs constituted in the form of civil associations. The aforementioned decision concluded that the provision extended the exemption that already existed for other clubs to football clubs organized in the form of a business company.
Finally, the exemption of football clubs was also the subject of analysis within the scope of the 3rd Judgment Section of the Carf, as seen in Judgment No. 3301-010.908. In summary, the decision rejected the club's exemption based on the following grounds: a) the football club is not a social assistance entity; b) football clubs do not have a philanthropic, scientific, cultural or recreational character, nor can they be classified as civil associations providing services; c) the Pelé Law would have determined the economic nature of entities that develop professional sport; d) the exemption provided for in article 13 of Law No. 11,345 would only apply to sports entities managed by a business company.
which it was constituted —, constructed a legal fiction and, by establishing such fiction, also expressly regulated the scope of its legal regime. Therefore, the equivalence of football clubs to business companies would only be valid for monitoring and controlling the provisions of the Pelé Law. In the decision handed down through Ruling 9202-010.589, the tax allegation was analyzed that the Belgium Email List publication of article 13 of Law No. 11.345/06 (Timemania) established the exemption for football clubs constituted as business entities, not being extensive, therefore , to clubs constituted in the form of civil associations. The aforementioned decision concluded that the provision extended the exemption that already existed for other clubs to football clubs organized in the form of a business company.
Finally, the exemption of football clubs was also the subject of analysis within the scope of the 3rd Judgment Section of the Carf, as seen in Judgment No. 3301-010.908. In summary, the decision rejected the club's exemption based on the following grounds: a) the football club is not a social assistance entity; b) football clubs do not have a philanthropic, scientific, cultural or recreational character, nor can they be classified as civil associations providing services; c) the Pelé Law would have determined the economic nature of entities that develop professional sport; d) the exemption provided for in article 13 of Law No. 11,345 would only apply to sports entities managed by a business company.