Post by account_disabled on Feb 25, 2024 2:32:03 GMT -5
Without going into the controversies surrounding the author's work, it is worth highlighting that this brief excerpt was responsible for provoking a principle commonly called “ Chesterton's fence” .
An imperative that aims to guide decision-making and stipulates, with the objectivity that the topic deserves, that any apparent obstacle did not arise by chance — or, as Chesterton points out, “it was not placed by sleepwalkers who built it during their sleep” .
At some point, “ someone had some reason to think B2B Email List it would be a good thing for someone else. And until we know what that reason was, we cannot judge whether it was reasonable . ”
The logic, therefore, is simple: before undertaking any reform, one must first understand the origin and why the arrangement that is intended to be reformed is as it is.
Otherwise, there is a high risk of not promoting a reform, but a deformation whose effects may be potentially more harmful than those that the change is intended to avoid.
This care, however, does not seem to be waived by the current government in some measures. Notably, with regard to the intention to reform interest on equity, the subject of this article.
For those who are not familiar with the discussion, interest on equity is an institute provided for in article 9, of Law No. 9,249, of December 26, 1995, corresponding to “ interest paid or credited individually to holder, partners or shareholders, to equity remuneration title, calculated on the equity accounts” .
A practice that, on the one hand, is beneficial to the partners, who receive part of the results of the companies in which they participate, on the other, it is beneficial to the companies, as the amounts paid in this regard can be deducted from the calculation of profit taxable.
The complexity of the institute is not trivial, which is why several discussions are held about it. However, the one that has taken the spotlight in recent years seems to us to be the most basic: the federal government's intention to extinguish it.
An imperative that aims to guide decision-making and stipulates, with the objectivity that the topic deserves, that any apparent obstacle did not arise by chance — or, as Chesterton points out, “it was not placed by sleepwalkers who built it during their sleep” .
At some point, “ someone had some reason to think B2B Email List it would be a good thing for someone else. And until we know what that reason was, we cannot judge whether it was reasonable . ”
The logic, therefore, is simple: before undertaking any reform, one must first understand the origin and why the arrangement that is intended to be reformed is as it is.
Otherwise, there is a high risk of not promoting a reform, but a deformation whose effects may be potentially more harmful than those that the change is intended to avoid.
This care, however, does not seem to be waived by the current government in some measures. Notably, with regard to the intention to reform interest on equity, the subject of this article.
For those who are not familiar with the discussion, interest on equity is an institute provided for in article 9, of Law No. 9,249, of December 26, 1995, corresponding to “ interest paid or credited individually to holder, partners or shareholders, to equity remuneration title, calculated on the equity accounts” .
A practice that, on the one hand, is beneficial to the partners, who receive part of the results of the companies in which they participate, on the other, it is beneficial to the companies, as the amounts paid in this regard can be deducted from the calculation of profit taxable.
The complexity of the institute is not trivial, which is why several discussions are held about it. However, the one that has taken the spotlight in recent years seems to us to be the most basic: the federal government's intention to extinguish it.