Post by account_disabled on Mar 4, 2024 9:48:23 GMT
Judge Luciana Raquel Tolentino de Moura, from the 7th Federal Civil Court of the Federal District, determined that a geriatric center is entitled to a reduction in the presumed base of Corporate Income Tax (IRPJ) and Social Contribution on Net Profit (CSLL) of 32%, a percentage applicable to service providers in general, for 8% and 12%, respectively, of hospital service companies. reproduction Reproduction Geriatric center achieved a reduction from 32% to 8% in IRPJ and 12% in CSLL In the case judged, the company claimed that it provided health care, hotel and residential services to the elderly, with day hospitals, hospitalization and health promotion, prevention and surveillance activities. In the decision, the judge concluded that "the only conditions imposed by law for enjoying the benefit are that the provider is organized as a business company and meets the requirements of the National Health Surveillance Agency.
According to Moura, hospital services "must also be considered objectively, from the perspective of the activity carried out by the taxpayer, and not by subjective criteria and even if not necessarily carried out within the hospital establishment". The judge also highlighted that the Superior Court of Justice "established the understanding that legal entities that provide intensive medicine services fall within the concept of 'hospital services', with a percentage of 8% applied to the monthly gross revenue for purposes EL Salvador Mobile Number List basis for calculating Income Tax". In this way, the judge recognized "the business activity carried out by the plaintiff included in the concept of 'hospital services', to be levied at the percentages of 8% and 12% on the monthly gross revenue, for the purposes of calculating the Income Tax and of Social Contribution on Net Profit, respectively.
The tax benefit is guaranteed to companies providing services aimed at promoting health by Law 9,249/1995. However, the Federal Revenue, over the years, published normative instructions with the aim of limiting the scope of the benefit only to clinics with a structured hospital, which resulted in several companies failing to benefit from the benefit to which they are entitled", explained Eduardo Muniz , tax lawyer and partner at the firm Bento Muniz Advocacia. theme present in the trial sessions of the 15th and 18th Chambers has been the exemption from the Public Treasury's duty to collect postal expenses in advance. The decision was based on the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice. Both collegiate bodies have also decided that ITBI is levied on properties registered after divorce.
According to Moura, hospital services "must also be considered objectively, from the perspective of the activity carried out by the taxpayer, and not by subjective criteria and even if not necessarily carried out within the hospital establishment". The judge also highlighted that the Superior Court of Justice "established the understanding that legal entities that provide intensive medicine services fall within the concept of 'hospital services', with a percentage of 8% applied to the monthly gross revenue for purposes EL Salvador Mobile Number List basis for calculating Income Tax". In this way, the judge recognized "the business activity carried out by the plaintiff included in the concept of 'hospital services', to be levied at the percentages of 8% and 12% on the monthly gross revenue, for the purposes of calculating the Income Tax and of Social Contribution on Net Profit, respectively.
The tax benefit is guaranteed to companies providing services aimed at promoting health by Law 9,249/1995. However, the Federal Revenue, over the years, published normative instructions with the aim of limiting the scope of the benefit only to clinics with a structured hospital, which resulted in several companies failing to benefit from the benefit to which they are entitled", explained Eduardo Muniz , tax lawyer and partner at the firm Bento Muniz Advocacia. theme present in the trial sessions of the 15th and 18th Chambers has been the exemption from the Public Treasury's duty to collect postal expenses in advance. The decision was based on the jurisprudence of the Superior Court of Justice. Both collegiate bodies have also decided that ITBI is levied on properties registered after divorce.