Post by account_disabled on Feb 27, 2024 5:30:37 GMT -5
Geolocatable "virtual location", §2 of article 1,142 of the Civil Code establishes that, when the location where the business activity is carried out is virtual, the address provided for registration purposes may be, depending on the case, the address of the individual entrepreneur or that of one of the partners of the business company. Interpreting the aforementioned provisions together in light of article 110 of the CTN, we can conclude that the concept of "establishment for ICMS and ISS purposes", as "place where the activity is carried out", can cover "virtual locations". In this context, take as an example an operation involving an NFT ( non-fungible token ) acquired on a metaverse as a platform, something that, in the current context, would be a marketplace with a more developed and interactive gaming experience.
In this case, this may, in theory, refer, depending on its content, to a: 1) merchandise circulation operation and, therefore, subject to ICMS; or provision of a service taxable by ISS. Therefore, the fact that its acquisition (of the NFT) took place "in the metaverse" would not invalidate the incidence. The "metaverse" would be the "virtual location" through which the acquisition of the merchandise Chinese Europe Phone Number List or service enveloped in the NFT occurred. Therefore, starting from the premise that an establishment is the physical or digital location where the activity is carried out (application of §2 of article 1,142 of the Civil Code to the term "place where the activity is carried out" contained in LCs 87/1996 and 116/2003 ), ICMS and ISS will be owed to the Federative Entity in which the individual entrepreneur or one of the partners of the business company is located, when the respectiveaddresses are provided for registration purposes, as the case may be.
For ICMS purposes, it is relevant to identify the location of the legal owner of the merchandise (physical or digital) to which the NFT refers, as this will be qualified as the place where the property of the transacted merchandise is legally located, to delimit the spatial criterion of the NFT. tax. And, in relation to the ISS, when it is not possible to identify the establishment, the ISS will be due at the provider's domicile, with the exception, however, of the hypotheses specifically listed in items I to XXV of article 3 of LC 116/2003, which require case-by-case analysis, depending on the type of service to which the NFT refers. The analysis of the legislation allows us to conclude that there are capable arguments to support that delimiting the location of the occurrence of operations occurring in the Web3 ecosystem in the context of ICMS and ISS would already be possible.
In this case, this may, in theory, refer, depending on its content, to a: 1) merchandise circulation operation and, therefore, subject to ICMS; or provision of a service taxable by ISS. Therefore, the fact that its acquisition (of the NFT) took place "in the metaverse" would not invalidate the incidence. The "metaverse" would be the "virtual location" through which the acquisition of the merchandise Chinese Europe Phone Number List or service enveloped in the NFT occurred. Therefore, starting from the premise that an establishment is the physical or digital location where the activity is carried out (application of §2 of article 1,142 of the Civil Code to the term "place where the activity is carried out" contained in LCs 87/1996 and 116/2003 ), ICMS and ISS will be owed to the Federative Entity in which the individual entrepreneur or one of the partners of the business company is located, when the respectiveaddresses are provided for registration purposes, as the case may be.
For ICMS purposes, it is relevant to identify the location of the legal owner of the merchandise (physical or digital) to which the NFT refers, as this will be qualified as the place where the property of the transacted merchandise is legally located, to delimit the spatial criterion of the NFT. tax. And, in relation to the ISS, when it is not possible to identify the establishment, the ISS will be due at the provider's domicile, with the exception, however, of the hypotheses specifically listed in items I to XXV of article 3 of LC 116/2003, which require case-by-case analysis, depending on the type of service to which the NFT refers. The analysis of the legislation allows us to conclude that there are capable arguments to support that delimiting the location of the occurrence of operations occurring in the Web3 ecosystem in the context of ICMS and ISS would already be possible.