As required under Title IX of the Income Tax Act, all taxpayers who made commercial, industrial, banking, financial, insurance (...) which are required to keep books, should benefit from the system of inflation adjustment. Now, in reference to this scheme I note that under the provisions of Article 184, second paragraph "should be excluded from the assets and liabilities and net assets, accounts and notes receivable from shareholders, directors, affiliates, subsidiaries and other companies related or connected in accordance with the provisions of Article 116 of this Act. " This decreases the amount of equity and consequentially increase the Income Tax to pay. Certainly
exclusion is intended to prevent transfers funds to related companies which have the potentiality to maintain high fictitious capital, so as not to affect the calculation of the adjustment for inflation of assets. That is, the rule seeks to prevent under the guise of loans are ahead dividends to shareholders or related companies distribute profits. Notably, the distribution of dividends or profits are considered an asset to decrease the effects of adjusting for inflation.
fraud Note that the purpose of the provision is not at all objectionable. However, the subject of the dispute was that in many cases the accounts receivable from related companies originated in legitimate trade or lending in free market conditions. Ie that the discussion was not limited exclusively to a practice of interpretation of article LISLR, but a trial involving the validity and application of guiding principles for taxation, such as the principle of substance over form, economic reality and Freedom of evidence.
According to the doctrine, there is no justification for the exclusion of accounts receivable of a commercial nature, from sales or services performed in the ordinary course of business of the taxpayer money, and whose product was intended for production taxable income of the company. Moreover, in the case of non-trade receivables, the exclusion may be ineffective if the loan for a related company was subject to market conditions, ie, the amounts were subject to restitution and earn interest. So the administration should give priority to economic reality of the operation as a function implementations of the standard.
But to the decision of the Administrative Policy Board where Union Securities, abandons the grammatical interpretation of the law and refers to the principle of economic reality as a tool to determine the existence of serious situations. Notes the decision to exclude only the initial equity accounts receivable that does not really arise under normal operations and necessary for the production of taxable income. Add
the Board that the presumption contained in the rule can be rebutted by proof to the contrary, so that the taxpayer can demonstrate that the operations that led to the accounts and notes receivable are directly linked to the process production of income, for any claims or liabilities operation with an affiliate that is related to the normal conduct of business of the taxpayer represents a game that ultimately integrates equity. Undoubtedly, an important precedent that should guide the activity applied and interpreted in tax regulations.