MP that deals with the taxation of drinks is sanctioned with vetoes

MP that deals with the taxation of drinks is sanctioned with vetoes
SANDRA Manfrini - The S. PAULO STATE
January 1, 2016 | 12h 31
Provisional Measure 690, which provides for the levy of Tax (IPI) on hot drinks, was converted into Law 13,241, published in special edition of the Official Gazette circulating on Friday
President Dilma Rousseff signed the Provisional Measure 690, which provides for the Tax on Industrialized Products (IPI) for hot drinks such as wine and spirits. Now converted into Law 13,241, published in special edition of the Official Gazette circulating on Friday, the MP was sanctioned with seven vetoes.
The proposal passed by Congress increases taxes on those hot drinks and removes the exemption of PIS / Pasep and Cofins granted electronics, also increasing taxation to computers, smartphones, routers and tablets.
By law, an excise tax levied on the hot drinks will be calculated on a rate to the value of the product (is called the ad valorem rate). Until then, the IPI was a fixed amount per given quantity produced (rate ad rem).
In practice, you will be charged a percentage value on the value of the product at the output of the industry. The rates will range from 10% to 30% depending on the type of beverage. The percentages are defined by decree already published by the government. In the case of custom industrialization, when a company produces the drink to another, the IPI will be charged either at the output of the company that produced as in the you ordered.
In the case of computer products, the law repeals previous legislation exempting computer products from paying the PIS / Pasep and Cofins contribution in retail sales. The stimulus was part of the Digital Inclusion Program, created to expand domestic production of computer equipment in 2005.
Vetoes. One of the vetoes was made to the sole paragraph of Article 7, which set the maximum rates of the IPI for the products. The government justified the ban saying the devices handle IPI, characterized as regulatory, because of its nature extrafiscal and its selectivity. "It is not appropriate to set in law the maximum rates. In addition, the proposal would ultimately counteract available to the art. 153, § 3, section I of the Constitution," he explains.
Other devices were vetoed because they resulted in revenue of resignation and did not come accompanied by estimates of budget and financial impact and the necessary compensation, which would be a disrespect to the Fiscal Responsibility Law.