Post by account_disabled on Jan 25, 2024 11:55:57 GMT 2
Criteria that do not meet the specificities of each of these. Now, only when there is a “provision of services”, which can only be identified through the presence of the respective “cause” or practical and legal purpose of the service contract, can municipal competence be exercised, in demanding the ISS. Here a fundamental thesis is stated: there is no absolute vis attractiva of the concept of “establishment”, due to its simple location in a given municipality in which some business act is carried out. The incidence of ISS only applies if the requirements of article 114 of the CTN are present, that is, the necessary and sufficient conditions for the effective provision of the service in its domains.
Cases in which service provision takes place in other Buy Phone Number List locations, by logical inference, cannot be attributed to the establishment in which only a “contract sale” took place (as in health plans), where only a “contract sale” took place. service-means” (logistics) or where there was a simple “collection” (receipt of material). This arises from the prohibition rule for any action that goes beyond territorial limits, prohibiting any possibility of charging for events carried out in a space subject to other taxing entities. Therefore, it follows that articles 3 and 4 of LC 116/2003 impose the ISS due according to the occurrence of the services provided (material and temporal criteria), with the criterion for resolving conflicts of competence being that of the municipality where the service is located.
establishment providing those services, to be identified by the presence of objective criteria. Pursuant to article 4 of Complementary Law 116/2003, a “providing establishment” is the “place where the taxpayer carries out the activity of providing services, permanently or temporarily, which constitutes an economic or professional unit”. These criteria must be proven, as evidence of the legal cause of the service provision contract. For better understanding, it is important to remember that the caput of article 3 establishes three rules for identifying the competent municipality: the location of the providing establishment (i); the provider’s place of residence (ii) ; or the place of provision of services, for the services expressly listed in items I to XXII (ii).
Cases in which service provision takes place in other Buy Phone Number List locations, by logical inference, cannot be attributed to the establishment in which only a “contract sale” took place (as in health plans), where only a “contract sale” took place. service-means” (logistics) or where there was a simple “collection” (receipt of material). This arises from the prohibition rule for any action that goes beyond territorial limits, prohibiting any possibility of charging for events carried out in a space subject to other taxing entities. Therefore, it follows that articles 3 and 4 of LC 116/2003 impose the ISS due according to the occurrence of the services provided (material and temporal criteria), with the criterion for resolving conflicts of competence being that of the municipality where the service is located.
establishment providing those services, to be identified by the presence of objective criteria. Pursuant to article 4 of Complementary Law 116/2003, a “providing establishment” is the “place where the taxpayer carries out the activity of providing services, permanently or temporarily, which constitutes an economic or professional unit”. These criteria must be proven, as evidence of the legal cause of the service provision contract. For better understanding, it is important to remember that the caput of article 3 establishes three rules for identifying the competent municipality: the location of the providing establishment (i); the provider’s place of residence (ii) ; or the place of provision of services, for the services expressly listed in items I to XXII (ii).