MESA DE DEBATES DO IBDT DE 29/11/2018

Texto sem revisão dos participantes

A presente transcrição apenas visa ampliar o acesso à Mesa de

Debates.

O INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE DIREITO TRIBUTÁRIO não

recomenda que a transcrição seja utilizada como fonte de referência

bibliográfica, dada a natureza informal dos debates, a possível

emissão de opiniões preliminares não conclusivas e a falta de revisão.

Integrantes da Mesa:

Dr. Luís Eduardo Schoueri

Dr. Fernando Aurélio Zilveti

Dr. Salvador Cândido Brandão

Dr. José Maria de Arruda de Andrade

Dr. Francesco Cannas

Dr. Fernando Luís Bernardes de Oliveira

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: Bom dia. Vamos dar início a nossa Mesa de Debates. O Prof. Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira se encontra em Porto Alegre, no evento do Instituto de Estudos Tributários e, portanto,

pediu que eu presidisse. E, da minha parte, eu já aviso que, por conta de compromissos na faculdade de Direito, eu vou ficar a primeira parte,

primeira meia hora, e depois o Fernando Zilveti vai assumir a presidência dos trabalhos e continuarão até o horário normal. Isso feito, vamos começar com o Pequeno Expediente, e eu começo com notícia boa.

Informar sobre lançamento de livro sempre é notícia boa. E devo dizer que amanhã, no dia 30 de novembro, dois livros serão lançados no ESCH Café, que fica aqui na Lorena, 1.899. Os livros são do Fernando Facury

Scaff, foi a tese de titularidade do Prof. Fernando em Direito Financeiro, chama-se Orçamento Republicano e Liberdade Igual. E no mesmo dia

será lançada a tese de doutorado, tese de doutorado do Lucas Bevilacqua, chama-se Incentivos fiscais às Exportações, dia 30 de novembro. Já na próxima semana, no dia 4 de dezembro, a Dra. Martha Toríbio Leão vai

lançar o seu livro: O Direito Fundamental de Economizar Tributos, o

lançamento vai ser na Livraria da Vila, lá na Alameda Lorena, 1.731, Jardim Paulista, São Paulo. Portanto, boas notícias para começar o dia.

Pergunto: no Pequeno Expediente temos alguma notícia? Brandão.

Sr. Salvador Cândido Brandão: Na verdade, a notícia é mais para os que estão nos assistindo aí pela rede, no sentido de que nós estamos com a abertura dos três cursos principais que nós temos: O Direito Tributário

Internacional, o Direito Tributário Brasileiro e o Mestrado, cujas inscrições já se encerraram, mas sempre na sobra poderá haver novas

inscrições. A matrícula termina dia 6 de dezembro, agora, né, a formalização. É isso aí.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: É. A especialização em Direito Tributário Brasileiro vai passar a ser agora em dois anos. Era um ano,

nós mudamos para dois anos, vai ser um ano e meio de aulas e seis meses para entregar a monografia. A ideia, realmente, é assim, maior carga de leitura, por isso nós esticamos o tempo para que o aluno possa fazer o

curso como deve ser feito. Internacional se mantém em um ano, e o mestrado profissional como uma via bastante interessante; eu tenho...

esse semestre eu venho dando aula no mestrado profissional e posso falar com muita alegria do que eu vi, da qualidade dos alunos que nós temos lá. É um curso que vale muito a pena. José Maria.

Sr. José Maria de Arruda de Andrade: Ontem foi a Audiência Pública

da Procuradoria-Geral da Fazenda Nacional, na Fiesp, sobre o projeto do Cadastro Fiscal Positivo da PGFN, então eu tive a oportunidade de

representar o IBDT nessa oportunidade e fiz algumas sugestões, enfim, no âmbito do debate.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: Quer falar sobre isso?

Sr. José Maria de Arruda de Andrade: Posso falar, fazer um breve resumo. Basicamente, louvável a iniciativa da Procuradoria, porque eles

fizeram uma Audiência Pública para ouvir os comentários sobre o tema, e eles só deram algumas pistas do que eles pretendem com o projeto de

lei. Então, eles fizeram uma consulta pública antes do projeto para depois entregar uma minuta para uma próxima consulta pública. Então esse é o primeiro ponto interessante. Algo... as pontuações feitas pelo

procurador-geral da Fazenda Nacional, Fabrício da Soller, e pelo procurador responsável pela dívida ativa, que é o Rodrigo

Neuenschwander, foram bem interessantes porque deixaram claro que eles estão tentando fazer um programa de conformidade, mas realmente premial, não esses ‘nos conformes’ que vem com um discurso moral do

bem contra o mal, mas que, na verdade, não entrega benefícios, né? E basicamente, pelo IBDT, ali, o que eu frisei bastante, é se eles tinham realmente um compromisso de respeitar e permitir que alguém possa

estar no cadastro de forma positiva mesmo tendo discussões em dívida ativa no Judiciário, com exigibilidade suspensa. Quer dizer, ou seja, se a

pessoa tiver mil processos de execução fiscal, mas todas elas garantidas etc., como é isso é um dever e um direito do contribuinte, se ainda assim,

se ele poderá fazer parte do Cadastro Positivo. Porque o programa de

conformidade da Receita Federal, eles mesmos estavam lá representados, eles deixam bem claro que, para eles, o bom contribuinte--

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: O da Fazenda isso aí?

Sr. José Maria de Arruda de Andrade: É o da... Esse é o da

Procuradoria. O da Receita Federal, eles deixam bem claro que o bom contribuinte é aquele que não tem discussão no Judiciário, né? Então... E aí eu fiz esse questionamento também, em nome do IBDT, como

conviver com o Ministério da Fazenda tendo dois cadastros, duas classificações de ranking de bons e maus contribuintes, sendo que um só

tem um horizonte da arrecadação até a inscrição de dívida ativa e o outro... Então, outras tantas considerações, mas em geral é isso. Então, após teremos aí um projeto de lei, novamente vou ter oportunidade.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: Obrigado, José Maria. Que bom

que você representou o IBDT, bastante importante participar. Faz parte dos nossos objetivos do IBDT, também, participar nesse tipo de atividade.

Mais algum tema para o Pequeno Expediente? Muito bem, então vamos

começar a nossa reunião. Essa semana nós tivemos, dando aula para o nosso curso de Tributação Internacional, o Prof. Francesco Cannas, da Universidade de Turim. E, por iniciativa do Michell, o Prof. Francesco foi

convidado a participar também aqui... do Victor Polizelli e do Michell, convidado a participar também da nossa Mesa de Debates. E por isso eu

comecei a Sessão perguntando se poderíamos fazê-la em inglês, porque o Prof. Francesco Cannas escreveu a sua tese de doutorado sobre o imposto do valor agregado, o IVA, e a questão da tributação de bens digitais. Nós

sabemos que esse é um tema importantíssimo, nós estamos... Eu dizia... Vamos começar em inglês?

I was talking -- I was just telling Prof. Francesco that this is a very

important thing for us since we are considering now the introduction of the VAT in Brazil. And what some people are afraid of is that maybe we are introducing a tax which is not viable for the new economy. I mean,

maybe we are again copying a past model. We have a professor here Jorge Costa. He used to say that in Brazil always whenever we introduce a tax in Europe, they already have a new tax. So, we always copy the last

model. This--

Orador não Identificado: [pronunciamento fora do microfone].

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: --has always happens with us with cars. For instance, we introduce here a new car, when we see the

new car it's the old car from Europe, it's new here. But it is true for cars and for taxes. So, my question is, is VAT still a modern tax or considering the digital economy, should we consider a new model?

We were discussing this, and he said, "Well, they are not prepared to talk about this." And I said, "Well, you -- come on you wrote a doctoral thesis on this. You're certainly prepared to talk about this and we would be very

glad to hear -- to have your input on this. Please be sure -- here you're

not supposed to make a conference. You bring your ideas, be ready to

discuss and see whatever happens. The only thing which you must be prepared is maybe you'll say something, and we will disagree. And this is

part of our tradition. We've been doing this for 1600 times. So, we're not changing now. Everyone is free to disagree to discuss because this is the only way for us to learn something. So, with this being said, Francesco.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: So, Prof. Schoueri, thank you very much. Just

let me spend no more than 10 seconds to thank you all for this invitation and also for your great welcome. I really had an amazing time here,

wonderful country, wonderful city, amazing class, amazing students. It's really for me not only a pleasure but a honor to be here with you today. And I also thank you very much having involved me in this debate. I'm

very proud of it. Well, also my thesis probably which was defended almost two years ago, it's already outdated because in reality as you know this digital economy is changing very quickly.

Well, just a couple of thoughts, first of all, when we analyze the digital

economy, we tend to spill direct taxation from indirect taxation. Okay, we take this for granted. Is it a correct approach? Yes and no. Of course, the

VAT has its own particularities. It's an indirect tax and we have to analyze it alone. But the real question is not whether VAT is suitable for digital economy. The real question is our tax system as a whole is suitable for

digital economy.

Okay. Of course, VAT needs special analysis, but you cannot really isolate it from the rest of the tax system. And then there is also another point

before going to technicalities we have to decide how to approach digital economy from the political standpoint. This is absoultely the first point, the first thing to do. There are three possible approaches. Okay. The first

approach, a very liberaltarian one. We can say that the internet doesn't really belong to anyone. It should go untaxed, the liberaltarian approach.

It makes sense to me, it doesn't honestly. But of course, I mean, we have to admit that there are also some good arguments for this. So, everything that is basically digitally cannot really belong to a state because the

internet is something which is beyond state. It's something virtual. It's something that belongs to everyone. There is no citizenship on the internet.

So, let's go for freedom. Okay. The second possible approach, it's a

dedicated set of rules. Internet has its own particularities. Okay. Doing business on the internet is not like doing business in the material world,

okay. So, we need as a dedicated set of rules which is truly on the internet. So, we have in this case, for example, I mean, we have sub options let's say to adapt our existing tax systems but on new basis to

create completely new taxes which are levied only on internet. Okay.

And then we have the third approach and I want to immediately tell you it's the one I prefer which is to say basically that every single business on

the internet has a counterpart in the material world. Okay. It's also called the status quo approach, and this is what the OECD recommended. If

you read BEPS Action #1, Page 52, this is very explicit. But the whole

BEPS project in reality is about this and I strongly agree with this. Okay. If you think about businesses on the internet, they all have a counterpart.

Okay. An e-book is a book, guys. I mean, we can -- of course there are some different characteristics but it's still a book. Okay. Cloud computing is storage. Okay. Cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrency is a currency. Okay.

So, and I think that because every business has its own counterpart in the material world, what we have to do is to take our existing taxes and try to adapt them to the digital economy to stretch them. But it's very

important that we try to keep them as close as possible. So, of course, I agree with some minimum adaptation, but the idea is that if something

is a book in the digital world, it has to be a book also if it's online. So, there is no real reason to me to change the rules. Okay.

And then the other big question, is VAT an old tax? Well, good question. I think that of course somehow, we have to collect revenues. So, we need

some sort of tax, okay. My personal opinion is that in this globalized economy for of course for the tax systems is becoming harder and harder

to collect taxes because of course taxpayers are very mobile, we can go wherever they want in the world. It's very easy for them. My impression is that we have to focus on the taxes that are easier to be collected. And

the taxes that are easier to be collected are the taxes that are clearly on the territory. Okay. And there are basically two, I think. One is immovable

property and the other is the tax on consumption.

So, we can debate whether our VAT Administration in Europe and Brazil is suitable in the digital economy. The question, the real question is what it is all, is the legal framework which is older or is the tax administration

which is old and therefore not able to collect the tax effectively. That's the real point, okay. I honestly think, and probably we'll have a debate on this because you basically said -- you're sure that it's already

(indiscernible) VAT.

Orador não Identificado: [pronunciamento fora do microfone].

Sr. Francesco Cannas: No, no. I think that of course it needs to be changed. Some changes are needed. But I don't really see any other

possibility at the moment to tax something in the globalized economy which reflects the ability to pay principal. We have to think -- we have always bear in mind that even if we did not globalize the world, and of

course we must be open to the world and we must be willing to interact with other people with other systems. But still we live in a national

dimension. We live in a national dimension. I want to be open to the world, but I am Italian. I have my own constitution, and this constitution has very strong principles that regulate taxation. Okay. You have the

ability to pay. We have the legality principle. I think that the tax on consumption somehow is structured, this is another point, has to be

implemented because it's very, very much in line with our tax and legal system. Of course, because the more I consume the more I have an economic force and therefore I have the ability to pay. So, I think the two

tax consumption even in the digital work is something absoultely

suitable. It's something absolutely desirable.

Is our system suitable? No, it needs to be refreshed. I think that the foundation, the basis is not that bad. We need to adapt it to the new

reality. In the case of Italy and this is only a domestic issue, what we really need to change is the tax administration. They are not really able to collect taxes. The first thing that we need really to improve the

exchange of information. The exchange of information is the real key I think to solve the problems of the digital economy in the now day world

because the problem is that of course the tax administration does not see what's going on in other countries even at the VAT level, okay. What we're really need to do is to implement a very good exchange of information

even outside of which poses also other issues. If you ask me what is the main problem of the VAT, European VAT nowaday with regard to digital economy, I would say the real problem of VAT is the qualification of items.

Okay.

I told you two minutes before that every business has a counterpart. Okay. Which is true. I honestly.. Also the OECD say that, but I mean I

cannot really think about a business which is completely new. Uber is a taxi services provider. Okay. It's absoultely a taxi service provider. It's a new way to do old things.

Orador não Identificado: [pronunciamento fora do microfone].

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Okay. I know there are some (indiscernible) I mean there are no real new concepts. We are doing the same thing in a very different way.

Sr. Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Disagree.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Disagree. That is very good to disagree. I know

many people disagree with that. So, what I think is the solution, if you look at the last cases of the European Court of Justice in this field, with

two major cases. The case of cryptocurrency and the case of E-books. Okay. Very interesting cases. The problem -- what is the problem? The problem is of course that, you know the European Court of Justice is a

court that decides cases referred to by national courts. So, the process to decide is very long, okay, because you need some time at domestic level. And then the question is referred to the European level. Then it comes

back, and the national court makes the decision. So, the real problem is that digital economy is very fast, and our judicial systems is very slow.

Okay. And then it's quite slow in Europe. In Italy it's incredibly slow. So, in reality the problem is that we are trying to decide things with a very slow system. Okay. Something with regards very fast decisions that have

to be taken.

What happened with cryptocurrencies? With cryptocurrencies at the end of the day, the European Court of Justice after two years decided that the

cryptocurrency is a currency. And I personally think that this is the natural solution for it. Of course, if you think it in theory, there are also

good ground to say that the cryptocurrency because it's not -- it ensured

by state it has to be something different. You can say that the cryptocurrency in the real world is not like a real or a dollar or a Euro.

The cryptocurrency is like a apple because there is someone who (indiscernible) it which is like the farmer which takes the apple from the tree and then it starts to circulate. Okay. But in reality, that's a currency.

Okay. Even if it's not ensured by a state and the best solution in practice is to have to consider it with currency.

E-books. This was amazing. This was really, really amazing. You know

one of the main purposes the European Union is to promote culture. And what happened is basically we ended up in a system where books were taxed at a reduced rate while the E-books were considered as something

different, were considered a software and therefore they could not go for the reduced rate. This was brought before the court because to court there is a big issue. Even for the final consumer in the reality prices very

little because E-books are very cheap at the moment. But still it's a problem.

The advocate general of the Court explicitly admitted that the reduced

rate should be the solution. Of course, the legal framework could not allow for the solution. Okay. The legal framework was against it. So, they had to decide. They were forced to decide to against it. Only now, the

European Commission changed the legal framework. So, now we're going to have to reduced rate also for E-books.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: Sorry. We don’t know the case.

It was decided it's not the same.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: It's not the same.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: So, your thesis that you could simply transport Uber to taxi is not confirmed the European Court.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: No.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: Exactly. It's not. Exactly.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Exactly. Absolutely. What I think we should do

honestly, it's to establish some source of mechanism to make this possible. I call it rematerialization. I think that what we need is a legal source that allows our tax system to rematerialize the digital economy

items. Okay. This can be I mean, now I talk for Europe of course we have different legal systems. In Europe, this could be either an article in the

VAT directive or even what could be enough it's a recommendation of the Commission to the implemented to the domestic level, etc. I think what we have to do in this moment is to reconcile digital economy with material

economy. Okay. If something is a taxi service in reality, in the material economy, there is no real reason to treat it differently if it's done by an app. Okay. There is no real legal grounds to do that unless we want to

adopt a politician approach and say that digital economy has to go for a different solution. But it's political issues. It's not a legal issue.

Okay. We have to be very, very careful. When we talk about digtal

economy in general I mean, it's quite common to confuse all the different fields. The political field is one thing, legal field is one thing. Practice, I

mean, material think. Efficiency of the tax administration is something. Of course, they are all interconnected. Okay. So, this is more or less my very general idea. I know it's very -- I mean, many people disagree with it

of course. And I'm very happy to have your feedback.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: Thank you. I'm very happy to know that also the European Court would agree. So, it makes-- brings

as a good company.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: It does.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: Fernando I know you have a question, but since I'm leaving would you allow me to make a question--

Sr. Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Go on. You always do the same thing. You make very difficult questions and then you leave.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: It's because it's a question which

I really don't know. When I said that I didn't know whether VAT would be able to live in this new world is because as you said this digital economy

is not territorial. That means you don't really know where the suppliers are. You don’t know -- because I mean, you don't know -- you know you have a product. You don't know where it comes from and we are talking

about a system which implies credits and debits, which implies destination principle. Can you really think on crediting and debiting and

controlling and having a VAT and so on? The tax which was paid in the previous phase on a digital not international say more than internationally --

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Global. Universal.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: -- intangible world, can you

think on credits and debits. How would you manage this without having of course a global tax administration? I mean, you have a local tax

administration and you have international transactions or even national. And you don't know, and you cannot really know. You don't -- as a business person, you cannot know whether your supplier is your

neighbor or is in a different country. You don't know. So, how can you think on chain on a digital economy. So, just please explain to me, please.

Sr. Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: I want to add another question in the same

line. So, we are talking about imposta sul valore aggiunto. There is no stage simply digital. So, in the digital economy you have an important issue. The economy projected by (indiscernible) was totally old fashioned.

So, you don't have stage, not even vertical neither horizontal. So, if you have no stage that simply disappear in the digital economy, how do you

imagine imposta sul valore aggiunto? How can you add value without stages)?

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: Just to say there shouldn't be

no conception tax. The question is whether the consumption tax --

Sr. Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Yes.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: -- should be a VAT.

Sr. Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Yes, exactly. So, the point is exactly this.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: I think that a very good idea for that comes from a policy paper released by the tax administration of New Zealand in 2014.

Basically, what happens is that New Zealand had a very let's say easy, efficient GST system. At a certain point they asked how we can tax the

software that New Zealand consumer downloaded here in New Zealand from abroad. And this is exactly posing all these questions, okay. There is no other value. It's very difficult.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: The difference is that you said

from abroad and what I said you don't know whether it's from abroad or from a neighbor. We don't know.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: What is the solution? First all, exchange of

information. Through the exchange of information, you should be able to know whether it's from abroad or not. It's very difficult but please consider is this a practical problem or is it a legal problem.

Sr. Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Both.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Both. I think it's more a practical problem

because what you're saying is not really from a legal standpoint would be wrong. What you're saying is that it would be difficult in practice. fully

agree with you. The solution, one of the different solutions for this point is --

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: I'm just interrupting you.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Yeah, please, please, please.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: You know that I'm leaving but you're talking about a --

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Please.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: -- exchange of information but every single transaction because it's one thing to note, exchange of information, what your bank account on December 31st, I can imagine

is, you're considering that every single transaction you have an exchange of information with the whole world to know because you don't know where the things are happening. I mean, you have your taxpayers there.

They are supplying services on the web. You don't know where the consumers are. So, we don't even know where to send this information.

So, sorry it's more than every practical. It's --

Sr. Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: I give you --

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: -- a (Indiscernible).

Sr. Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: I'll give you a practical example. So, my

cousin in pregnant. She's expecting a baby, a daughter, and she has an image, 3D image of the future baby to be born in January. Her sister lives

in (Indiscernible) and give me an image of your future daughter. Okay. She sends the image by email and in (indiscernible) the sister printed by digital printer the image of the baby. So, she has a doll. What kind of tax

should be collected by the Italian --?

Orador não Identificado: (Indiscernible).

Sr. Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: -- admiration.

Francesco Cannas: Did she paid for this doll of course. But did you pay for this doll.

Sr. Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: She just printed. She has a 3D printer.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Mm-hmm. And here in Brazil?

Sr. Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: No, in (Indiscernible). She received the

image by email.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Mm-hmm.

Sr. Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: A perfect image with all details of the baby and then just pushed the enter button and there is a doll--

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Yeah, to who did she --

Sr. Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: All --

Sr. Francesco Cannas: -- pay for this doll.

Sr. Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Nobody. Just she acquired the printer and

she acquired the toner. So, that the --

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Okay.

Sr. Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: The 3D --

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Why should she tax this there is no real consumption?

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: She doesn't know whether she

paid -- she used her cryptocurrency and she doesn't know who she paid. Actually, she saw this model in the internet. She finds it nice. So, she

used her PayPal and she paid it.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: She paid the --

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: She doesn't know whom.

Sr. Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: She paid for it. Oh, okay. Ask another neighbor if she was --

Sr. Francesco Cannas: The point is to whom she paid.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Okay.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: She doesn't know. I'm sorry. We

are talking about digital economy.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: No, but someone delivered the doll.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: No, no, no. I'm sorry.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Yeah, but see --

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: She printed the doll.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: No, but did she print for herself?

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: Yes, she printed for herself.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: So, there is no --

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: No, no, no.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: -- consumption here.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: She wanted to have a doll. She

looked for it in the internet.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Yeah.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: She found a nice model. For one dollar she could have a model. So, she used her PayPal and she paid this

one dollar.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Yes.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: And she had the model and now she has the doll,

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Yeah, no, no, no.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: Now, you have a transaction.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: No, no, no.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Or even if she printed the doll

in the mall. She would go there and there is a printer. If I say, "Please print my nephew in --

Sr. Francesco Cannas: No, no, I see but. You see--

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: In the best mall.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Thank you very much. Now, you say that this is

exactly the problem. Okay. We are basically sometimes thinking about this but if we really focus on most of this transaction. But in this case, I don't know that there is really no consumption.

Sr. Presidente Luís Eduardo Schoueri: No--

Sr. Francesco Cannas: There is no consumption because I printed the

doll for myself of course there is no tax. I will pay the tax for the toner. I will pay the tax for the materials that I used to print the doll but in reality,

this transaction itself is not really a transaction. It's really not a

consumption.

[troca de presidência]

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Let's come back two centuries. Okay. We have a very famous entrepreneur, an Italian guy called

Francesco Matarazzo. In the 19th century he migrated to Brazil, very poor. (Indiscernible) in Europe and started a pork farm in São Paulo in the state of São Paulo. He decided to create pork and he had an idea. I

need to kill the pork and I don't know how to keep this pork in the condition to sell the pork. And then he created a freezer by the fat of the

pork. So, he call here “banha”, the fat of the pork.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Il lardo

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Il lardo, exactly.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Amazing, very good.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: So, then there was the first fridge in Brazil made by the fat of the pork. And then he started creating

every single product coming from the pork, the oil, the (indiscernible) the soap, every single product. So, it's a very interesting example of how to

make an industry vertically and horizontally from the pork. And he's an example of industry success in Brazil.

So, there was no consumption between among all the phases he created. He create everything and there is no tax to be collected from the fat to the

soap, the soap to the oil, from the fat to the oil, no tax except of the consumption tax when he decided to sell. Then they said okay, "For this kind of economy we need to create taxation among the transport of this

product from one unit to the other and this other unit to the consumer." These taxes were created for this purpose to capture it -- to take this

richness and not to really give some neutrality to the economy. This same happened with Von Siemens another industry man, very vertical oriented. And the taxation for him was negative because the phases were

taxed. So, he needed to protect his industry not the physical administration, not the taxpayer.

So, we would defend that the VAT in digital economy first of all is designed

to protect the consumer. This is fake -- fake news. So, IBS, they are going to call the IBS in Brazil a VAT. So, it's -- when you are sure that the tax is not beloved by the taxpayer just change the name so the IVA in Brazil

will be name IBS. So, it's a total old-fashioned tax and is unable to keep these phases of the economy and another problem we observe in the European literature. What happened with IVA in Europe is called market

tax. To keep the exchange of goods and services in the market natural. But this doesn't happen not even in the market. There is a huge problem

happening in the market forgetting the digital economy. They have problems of of credits. They have problems of tax benefits. They have problems of tax competition. There are no tax benefits in Europe, fake.

There are no tax benefits. Poland, Hungary the newcomers.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Yes.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: So, you have a huge problem

in IVA and you just say that there is no problem let's see what happened in digital economy. My first question, are you going to establish a IVA in

the end of the day it's a sales tax or a tax based more similar to (indiscernible) taxes based on the revenues?

Sr. Francesco Cannas: So, I have to say I fully agree with your analysis. So, first point, point number one is VAT a real neutral tax, no. It's creating

problems. Of course, VAT is aiming towards netrality. VAT is trying to be neutral. But of course, it's not a tax. It's not a perfect system. It creates

some issues. For example, one of the main points is that in Europe we have different rates. If you consider the use rate, reduced rate, normal rate, rates that the state -- you can up to five rates.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Mm-hmm.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: -- in a single country. In the case of Italy at this

point. A tax like this one cannot be totally neutral. I fully agree with you. Okay. So, there are issues. The point is that of course is somehow we

have to take this model. So, of course, I think this is better than nothing. What we have to do is of course we have to make an effort to keep it as natural as possible. Okay. But at the end of the day what we have to

think is what is my tax -- what is the real purpose of the tax? The real purpose of the tax is to tax consumption which is a very good indicator

of the ability to pay. Okay. The VAT in itself. So, the fact that it's structure (Indiscernible) is just a mechanism. It's not the goal per say. It's just how you to do it. What you have to concentrate on is the goal, the purpose.

For example, just to come back to this paper of New Zealand, what is the solution, of the solutions recommended by New Zealand for software that I download from abroad is to establish basically a parallel sales tax. Okay.

It's to establish a parallel state tax. So, what they say is, okay, you want to sell software in New Zealand. You have two possibilities basically.

Either you enter your access the system. So, you register for VAT purposes and you start with this credit system deduction etc. or you simply go online on a platform which is made available by the tax

administration. You register there of course in a very easy way and there you pay a sales tax on what you sell, or you purchase in accordingly. You see if from the point of view of the consumer or the tax (indiscernible)

This is a sales tax.

So, what is the solution or recommendation. I think this is something very interesting to inject some elements of sales taxation into the VAT

system. Okay. So, to a certain extent we have to admit that even if it's distorted, even if it's other kind of problems, sales tax has an advantage that they disregard all the previous steps of the production. Of course,

this would contribute to a further fragmentation of the system. I fully agree on this. We would on the one hand, we would make one step in the

opposite direction of netrality. If you consider the mechanism and if you consider works. On the other hand, we would state -- we would do one

step ahead with regard to taxation of consumption which is the real

purpose of the system. So, I think what we have to do is to accept that of course reality is becoming more complex and therefore also the tax

system has to become more complex. Okay.

It's very difficult in an account -- many people advocate for the solution of Australia. I was also in Singapore for a while and they have a very, very simple GST system. One rate, very narrow based. Of course, Europe is

different reality. It's a different situation. Okay. We need more revenue. We are welfare state. We have the fund public education, public hospital

-- everything should be free forever. So, we need the -- I think that of course when you think about the taxes, you have to think about the reality of the account in general. Our account is they needs a bigger

budget. Okay. So, somehow, we have to catch all these transactions. We cannot (indiscernible) -- my answer to your objection. I fully agree in the analyses I would not see as a tragedy or as something bad. The

introduction of some elements of safe taxation in our indirect tax system for this very reason because VAT added value is just a way, is just a

mechanism. It's not a goal per se. The goal is to tax consumption.

So, if we can find -- we can manage to mix somehow these two different mechanisms in an efficient way. These different mechanisms to catch the

revenue, I think it's going to be very positive. Although, I know that of course it's not a purely neutral solution because such double system, of course would create some issues would incetives or make less profitable.

I fully know it. But I think that due to the complexity of our reality, that's the only solution at the moment.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Perfect. And some other points to debate. We are in a new world without consumption and we are talking

about consumption tax. You mentioned Uber. So, Uber is not a service as model of service we used to be using or you used to use, or we learned

a service. Uber is a share. You're sharing transportation. We used to rent a home, rent an apartment, Airbnb is another conception. You're not consumer service. You are sharing apartments. It's difficult to talk about

this for (indiscernible) right politicians. But it's effect. I don't know. I know that many problems -- many people from the right politicians will not like

what I'm saying because it's invasion easy. Nobody is going got invade your home. We are talking about sharing homes. So, the idea, the main idea started in California by students. So, let's make money sharing

apartments. I don't know -- I really don't believe that these four guys, the founders of Airbnb are communists. In fact, they –

Sr. Francesco Cannas: They are not.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: -- they are not communists.

They are making a lot of money. So, if being communist is to start up a huge company like Airbnb, I would like to be a communist, but I'm not. So, this is a new economy. It's a new economy. You can like, you can

dislike. It's up to you. But you have difference concepts. You share cars. So, in Europe you know you can pass your credit card and take a car and

then José Maria take the same car. You take the same car. Gileno takes

a car. Normally, she leaves some bottles of wine in the car. After Gileno drove the car, I drove the car and received the bottles of wine. We are

sharing cars and bottles of wine of course. We are drinking. So, you have to be prepared for this economy of sharing. You're sharing goods. You're sharing services. Nobody is the owner of these cars department. You don't

need to be the owner. So, we are going to vacation in a few weeks for Christmas and Airbnb are up in the idea of the people to use this shared economy. And you cannot convince the tax authority that you are not

renting an apartment. You are not having a service from a hotel. It is not a hotel. You are just sharing, and you are paying the hostess for sharing

the apartment. So, in such economy there -- you have no broker because -- some years ago I decide to rent my apartment, I have to hire a broker. Say, "Look you have to pay me six percent even if the candidate in the

last day decides not to rent anymore." So, you have a broker. A broker in this digital economy are over are jobless. So, in this digital economy you

have say --

Sr. Francesco Cannas: (Indiscernible)

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Pardon.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Yeah, I also think so.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: No.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: I will finish --

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: No, the point is --

Sr. Francesco Cannas: (Indiscernible)

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: -- the Airbnb is not a broker.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: (Indiscernible)

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: The Airbnb is not a broker and is not considered a broker by the tax administration.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: That's the problem I think because --

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: What Airbnb --

Sr. Francesco Cannas: That's rematerialization.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Yeah. What is the role of Airbnb? What is the role of Ifood? They have a platform. They just make possible the matching interests of people. And Uber is the same. So, what

is the role of Uber? It's not a taxi administration. Uber is not a manager of taxis, taxi drivers. They don't have nothing to do with this. You pay the

driver and you have no invoice of Uber or not even the driver. Because you're sharing transportation.

Sra. Mara Caramico: (Indiscernible)

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: No, no you're not receiving an

invoice from Uber.

Sra. Mara Caramico: No, no, from Uber, no.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Uber --

Sra. Mara Caramico: From the taxis, yes.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: So, but the taxi -- if the taxi driver is registered because it's not supposed to be registered, you can --

I want an invoice. Okay. I am a service provider. You can -- we had a big discussion in Brazil at the moment. In fact, you cannot in practice, 99

percent of the Uber drivers have no registration, physical registration. But okay. The point is the concept being done is that in cryptocurrency is even worse because you cannot chase the real proper -- the real owner

of this economy. It's very disruptive. Okay. You want to say --let's see what the taxpayer is. So, behind all this new economy it's not to have persons, owners, property, service, sales. So, when we are talking about

the consumer tax, you have to be prepared for this because it's -- this is -- the reason of base erosion. So, there is no tax evasion. They're not --

nobody's thinking about invasion. So, the real economy is changing. And some people, okay. They can make tax planning, using this kind of new economy. But at the end of the day my concern is we are dealing with

IVA. IVA forget about it. It does not exist. Sorry for that Mara. We are (indiscernible) not exist anymore because it's a judge of the IVA.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Don't worry, I think we're going to exist first. Let

me just mention a joke you mentioned about they are not communists. You know in Italy we have for many years during the cold war the biggest communist party of all the west. Then when the Soviet Union collapsed

most of these people basically changed immediately they became top managers -- a lot of money. We call them communistic Rolex. And when you ask them a bout their past they always say, "My friend communist is

against poverty not against money. So, what we're against, what was want is to fight is poverty not the money. So, we are perfectly okay with

our mind. But joke apart. I think that you touched a very important issue and one of my articles which is a chapter of my doctorate is exactly about this. I think that you highlighted exactly what it talked about with

rematerialization.

So, the point is that I think the real problem in our system now for this kind of business is the concept of taxable person. You can be a taxable

person only when you do business on a regular basis. So, what is the problem here with Uber. The problem here with Uber is that of course the driver will always tell you this is my car. I do it just sometimes. Okay. So,

this is the real issue. But if we concentrate on the purpose of VAT which is to tax the final consumer to add value, but the final consumption. What happens if I use an Uber car? I call -- I mean, if I use a normal taxi, I call

a number. There is a company which is managing the taxi in the city (In Italy is a cooperativa. Usually. Then then car arrives. I pay something to

the driver at the end of the service and then the driver gives a part of his

income to the cooperativa. This is exactly as same that's happening with

Uber.

I take my mobile and instead of calling I use a App. A car arrives, I pay the car and at the end of the day of the week, the car, the driver gives

something to Uber rather to the cooperativa. From a consumption standpoint, that exactly the same, exactly the same, Airbnb the same.

You basically said in the past I need a broker, Airbnb is nothing more than, nothing less than your broker at this moment. What happens is that you are basically giving your house to an online broker. Okay. We

have to be very careful I think because one thing is how this gig economy company portray their business. They pretend that it's a very innovative. It's something completely different but in reality, the economic

(indiscernible) is absolutely the same. And that's why I think that we need sort of reconciliation.

This is what we call gig economy. In the case of gig economy, the real

problem I think of our VAT system is the concept of taxable person. Okay. Of course, do we want to incentive this or not. I think, I mean, this is of course, up to each person to think. But the real point that we have to

change here if you want to catch this kind of economy is the concept of taxable person. So, we have to decide if we want to tax this kind of an

economy because from the consumer's standpoint it's exactly the same. Of course, I mean, if you are used to traveling to sleep at Hilton or Sheraton, you will not use Airbnb. But for most of the tourists, Airbnb or

two-star hotels is perfectly the same and absoultely interchangeable. So, there is no real reason why this shared economy should be out. At the

end of the day, if I am renting my apartment and I'm carrying out a business activity. I'm preparing (indiscernible) I am advertising it on the internet. So, why and the person who is coming is basically consuming -

- he's expressed his ability to pay. So, why should this stay outside of the VAT. I think that if you analyze it from an economic standpoint in reality -- exactly as I said before this is not new businesses. These are new way

to do very old things. All these businesses have a counterpart in the real world that always existed. So, this is the real point.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Before I give the floor for

Gileno, I just make you an invitation. In this corner of the street there is a guy sells pineapple and watermelon on a table. Very typical of São Paulo. The big ice block on the table. He cuts the pineapple. You know

this guy. You sure you know. You already consumed this pineapple and watermelon. Okay. It's fresh. It's safe to eat. I hope. I used to eat -- I put

the pineapple in a zip pack and so it's a very old model consumer base for typical Brazilian foods except for one thing. He accepts Bitcoin. You can pay using Bitcoin.

So, my point is I agree with you, it's not a new kind of consumer. But in

a very technical way you normally acquire food by paying cash, paying money. Bitcoin is not currency in Brazil. Can be in Japan, it can be in

other countries. I don't even in Italy is considered currency.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: You can -- tax return. You have to convert it to

Euro.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Okay. Okay. But it's not a currency --

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Legally, no.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Legally no. Okay. Exactly in

Brazil. This is my question. Perfect. So, if you don't currency, the idea to pay for merchandise or a service and then create the base of -- if you have the ability to pay and create the base for collection is to pay using

currency or other goods being paid. But cryptocurrency is not considered in Brazil. Not even as an asset, as considered by the England revenue.

So, you are paying for a guy or something that nobody knows exactly

what it is in Brazil legally speaking. He accepted and there is no way, no way to collect consumer tax in this transaction. Even if you put this guy in jail -- look to be released you have to pay your taxes. There is no way

to pay taxes using cryptocurrency because the tax administration does not accept cryptocurrencies tax.

So, this is a fact or it's practical. It's happening in front of our Institute and we don't have an answer for this. But probably Gileno will bring us some new inputs.

Sr. Gileno Gurjão Barreto: In adicion what about Prof. Fernando is

telling us. You told us that cryptocurrency is a currency. So, it should be treated by the tax system like a currency. But in this case, I think we

have some subjacent issues that is the economy and -- to be a currency, an economic science point of view that thing that you are using to exchange must be an exchange mean, unity of account and a reserve of

value. So, if you receive today - except on those country that legally are accept like a currency - but if you move to cryptocurrency for example from a Brazilian standpoint, we don't have -- the unity of account we have

an exchange means you can create obviously. We have -- it is a form. It is a way to value reservation but it's not a unity of an account because

it's not a spread out in the economy in such an amount that this exchange rate is -- a little stable. It is not stable. So, it cannot be considered economical like a unity of accounts.

So, it is not a currency from any kind of point of view. Brazil has a specific

law that is called the forced course of currency law. Here we are not allowed to make contract in another currency except that one that is

recognized by the constitution like the Brazilian currency. So, how do you see this situation because if we want to treat like a currency -- from the economical system a point of view, the currency is the same of capital. If

something is currency this is capital. If it is capital, I cannot tax but if it is a security like it is today. We can tax the gains in the trade. We can tax everything. But we cannot tax the capital and it is currency in my opinion

and from the Brazilian laws; standpoint actually is the currency is capital. If the Brazilian had a 100 reais is it capital. It is unit of account.

I can trade. I can reserve values, so I cannot tax this because it's the main

capital of the economy. How can you see this situation, this kind of

bipolarity of the cryptocurrency?

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Bipolarity é legal.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: I like the very much this expression I will try to use it in another conference and another article of bipolarity. I fully agree

with you, but I think the real problem is to decide what cryptocurrency is. Okay. I don't really see any barrier in considering it as a currency. Of

course, in the tax return you will have to add the same value Euro or in Real or whatever. But just let me come back to the example of the fruit seller in front of the Institute.

So, the point is that you describe the normal transaction with

cryptocurrency. So, I can go to the fruit seller and pay in Real or I can go to the seller give him this bottle Okay. From a VAT standpoint, if I give him this bottle what we are doing is a bargain. So, we are exchanging two

things. But from a VAT standpoint, this is a absolutely relative translation because in the tax return what happens when there is a

bargain is that he puts the value of the food, I put the value of the bottle and the transaction is absolutely a taxable transaction.

So, the question is why it is not supposed to be taxable if instead of giving him the bottle I'm giving him a cryptocurrency. We're doing a bargain.

That's nothing more, nothing less that would always happen in the history of humanity. We are doing a bargain. The only difference is that

instead of giving him something material, I'm giving him a cryptocurrency which has the value that we decide -- we can decide that this is worth I don't know 10 Reais, just an example of course. Okay. We can decide that

thing digital that we call Bitcoins zero point something it's worth 10 Reais and there is no real difference.

So, I think that this an -- all these are exactly examples that we need in

this moment is not really to rethink completely the system is to adapt the concept on which the system is based to the new reality. But in reality, all these transactions if you think about them always happen. What you

described in the fruit seller as I see it is something that is always happened in the history of humanity. We are just bargaining.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Okay. Let's go further in your

example. So, assuming that is a bargain, I'm exchanging a banana and a pineapple with cryptocurrency. But exchanging this to values will not trigger consumer tax because I'm not paying -- pardon me?

Sra. Mara Caramico: Why not?

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: I also think we are.

Sra. Mara Caramico: You just changed the model --

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: You're exchanging things with

the same value.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: In the European perspective you are --

Sra. Mara Caramico: No, yes. But if you pay --

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: You're not paying, you're

exchanging.

Sra. Mara Caramico: -- if you're paying something --

Orador não Identificado: (Indiscernible)

Sra. Mara Caramico: -- yes, no.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: If you exchange something. If it's not a currency, it's not a payment. It's not a payment because it's not

currency. If it were currency, okay, it will be payment, but it's not currency. It's something else.

Sra. Mara Caramico: Why don't you agree that it's a payment if you have

in Brazil for instance --

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: If I change the --

Sra. Mara Caramico: -- da ação em pagamento that you ---

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: -- No, no. It's not --

Sra. Mara Caramico: You are allowed to --

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: It's not a ação de pagamento. I'm exchanging this pen with this iPhone. Assuming is the same value.

It's a pure exchange. There is no tax being triggered --

Sra. Mara Caramico: No.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: -- in this model.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Just wait a second. If we do it as a taxable person in the course of our business it triggers, at least from a European

perspective, it triggers VAT, absoultely. Because if a company gives you, I mean, we can exchange goods.

Sra. Mara Caramico: (Indiscernible)

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Sorry, sorry. I don't want to interrupt you. Sorry. Sorry

Sr. Michell Przepiorka: I will say the same because if you always -- if

you sell pens. So, it's your business.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: I'm not selling pens. I'm --

Sr. Michell Przepiorka: No, but it's a personal transaction, okay. Exchange it. There is no trigger event. But if It's sales---

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: No, the point is --

Sra. Mara Caramico: (Indiscernible).

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: No, the point -- no --

Sra. Mara Caramico: (Indiscernible) --

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: The point is how I'm saying

there is no tax in this because the owner of the cryptocurrency is not the guy standing in the front of the fruit seller. He is not selling fruits because

he's not receiving money. The guy who pays using the cryptocurrency, this cryptocurrency does not -- the cryptocurrency is not his. So, he's not the owner of the cryptocurrency because the cryptocurrency has not

owner. Cryptocurrency has no owner at all. That's the point. Nobody knows.

Sra. Mara Caramico: It's a way of paying.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: You have your own wallet.

Sra. Mara Caramico: Yeah, yeah.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: When you have your own amount of

cryptocurrency.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: No, I have --

Sr. Francesco Cannas: I think you can say is the owner.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Ask someone here in the audience that can show you that he's an owner of cryptocurrency.

Sr. Michell Przepiorka: I mean, at least possessor--

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Possessor? Where?

Sr. Michell Przepiorka: Of the cryptocurrency.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Show your cryptocurrency.

Sr. Michell Przepiorka: (Indiscernible)

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: The ownership of the cryptocurrency is something absolutely disruptive. So, I made this question to my students and no one showed me the ownership of

cryptocurrency. You have no ownership. If you have no ownership but you use this way of exchanging, how does the tax authority will collect this?

Sr. Francesco Cannas: I think that of course --

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: (Indiscernible) --

Sr. Francesco Cannas: -- we do not have to again jump from one field to another. Okay. You said that there is no ownership. Okay. It may be that from a private law the diritto privato perspective there are some issues

and for sure there are. But from a tax standpoint for the purpose of the VAT itself from an economic point of view, I think it's absolutely the same.

So, I gave my own online wallet with my own cryptocurrency.

So, then if we say it's very easy to steal cryptocurrency, that's another point. That's another story. I think that it should work exactly like a

barter trade. I'm giving you something which is digital but it's nothing

more, nothing less than this bartered. It has value and you just report the value in your tax return which I think we should -- this is exactly a

further example of the reconciliation between legal -- between real world and digital world that we need. I think this is a very good example, a further example.

But I think that this just proves to us that we need to reconcile from an

economic from standpoint is perfectly the same because I don't really the point while this should not be taxed. It's exactly a barter trade. I mean, if

it's done in the course of the business, if it's done by a taxable person. I really don't see any reason to keep it out. This is exactly -- I lighthing the problem... I was saying I don't really see the Italian Tax Administration

taxing this transaction, but it is not a legal problem. The problem is the efficiency of the Italian Tax Administration. I really don't see any Italian Tax Inspector dealing with such complex issues. But this is a problem of

how (indiscernible) tax inspectors probably.

From a legal -- you say that there is problem from a legal standpoint. I think it's something different. From a legal standpoint, I think the

sitution is quite clear here.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Yeah, you -- we need to work with theory and practice.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Sure, sure.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Another colleague of yours

visited us and he told us a very interesting story in Rome. In Italy you have the same problem of tax evasion. The tax administration --

Sr. Francesco Cannas: We are record men. We are the best.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Yeah, my friend told me a very interesting story. Okay. The Tax Administration in Rome was very upset

about the tax evasion and they decided to put a tax collector in front of the restaurants, so. To leave the restaurant you have to show the check.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: The check.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Yeah. So, it's interesting

because you have thousands, millions of restaurants. One of the bad things to do visiting Italy is to eat. So, I can't imagine the tax administration. So, suddenly they decide to replace this cantinas, trattoria (indiscernible). Thousands of (indiscernible) running around Rome with all this noisy like flies and they deliver the same products.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Foodora.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Exactly. And who collects the taxes? How do we collect the same taxes?

Sr. Francesco Cannas: The very tax administration that put the tax inspector in front of the restaurant I think that is exactly the problem

and Italy for sure it's a very good example of this. Most of the time what

we have it's a problem with tax evasion which is a cultural problem. It's a practical problem. We cannot really blame the legal framework. We have

to blame something else which is probably our culture first of all. Okay. Again, the Foodora I don't know what all these new jobs -- it's just like where in the past people you were bringing you a pizza home. Nothing

more, nothing less. The only different is that are using a app.

So, once again, I think we are doing an example of something which is exactly unchanged in substance. So, the point is that I am paying to have

a pizza at home. Okay. I have two choices. I can go to a pizzeria, buy a pizza. I will pay 10 Euros to the restaurant, but I can have it at home for 12 euros. Ten euros go to the restaurant, 2 euros goes to the Rappi. I don't really see any legal issue. Of course, VAT to be charged on the pizza and on the service itself because these two people, the up and the

restaurant are just doing their business activity. I mean, I don't really -- I think this is exactly what you're focusing on the problem. It's a problem -- if it's a problem of tax evasion, we have to blame something else than

the legal framework.

The law itself, I mean, we have to be very careful when we say the law is not working. It isn't the law that's not working or it's something else. It's

our society. It's our tax administration.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: The change -- it's pushed us to change, the way of collecting. So --

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Yeah.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: A suggestion for this. So,

forget about IVA. There is no stage. You have to transform the IVA in another tax and to tax the Foodora. Because the Foodora is the company who is collecting all money from this system and this happened in Brazil

with iFood. So, iFood is collecting all the money for the restaurants. So, it's more a financial product. What happened with iFood, Foodora in São

Paulo?

This product here is our iPhone and it collect all the money from the restaurants and just distributes the money for the bikers and for the restaurants. So, here's the collector. So, if I tax him, I will be more

effective. But what they say, I said I'm not the tax payer, I'm just the collector. They are not a service provider. They are not brokers. Sorry to

say this, they're not brokers. They are a platform and as a platform they have access to the money in all transactions.

So, if you tax them, you're anticipating collection. You know exactly who is making the translation. So, you know everything about this and you

just use the consumer tax, or a sales tax collected very easily and transparent. But this is not anymore a IVA.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: I honestly see it in a different way. I see it’s a IVA.

Because what happens if I go to a pizzeria, I play 10 euros for a pizza but then what happens they charge the VAT. And then at the end of the

quarter they just make a tax return with this IVA. With Foodora we are

just adding on a further step. So, I pay to Foodora and then Foodora pays to the restaurant as part of what I pay to Foodora.

So, I don't really see honestly any good reason to say that the pizzeria should do the same tax return and Foodora has to do its own tax return with IVA. I don’t really see the reason why Foodora should be treated

differently than a broker in case of pizza we can talk about a broker maybe it sounds a bit strange. But I really don’t see any real difference.

So, instead of giving the money to the restaurant who does the tax return and puts this VAT and pay this VAT, I give the money to Foodora and then Foodora gives it to the restaurant. They are just adding one step. I

think both of them should be -- just do their tax return and put IVA. If they evade IVA or if they try to say that because we are not bla bla bla --- well, that's another story.

That's what they are trying to do. But from a legal standpoint, I don't really see any inefficiency of the system here honestly. Of course, they

are trying to say they are something different but in practice they are. I mean, this is only my opinion. This is something that of course they are trying to do. They are trying to say no we are not doing this, we are not

doing this. But in practice that's exactly what they're doing. They are managing the last part of the delivery of the goods which is the pizza in

this case.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Mara, você quer falar? Está ansiosa.

Sra. Mara Caramico: For me it's just a problem of practicability of the system because you can create a tax substitute in this case. You tribute

the iFood for instance about all the people and we have the tax collected, and you avoid evasion in this case. You can do it because he's collecting

all the money. So, you have the one who contributed.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: No, you are right. One of the points of creation of the sostituto d'imposta in Italy.

Sra. Mara Caramico: Sim.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Sostituto d'imposta is very

criticized the doctrine because this guy changed the tax. We don't have value added tax anymore.

Sra. Mara Caramico: Mm-hmm.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Due to the practicability you

created a tax, a sales tax collected from the last point of the change or the first point of the chain.

Sra. Mara Caramico: First point.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: So, at the end of the day, it's not a value added tax. It's either a sales tax or a tax over gross revenue

because they're not taking into consideration any kind of transaction or

a chain transaction. There is no chain anymore and this happened in

Brazil as well. So, we have sostituto d'imposta in Brazil for the past 20 years, at least 20, 25 years we have sostituto d'imposta. And at the end of

the day who is paying tax for this? Apple Industry. Not me or you. You can do it as you do it in the U.S. The Apple store collects sales tax. So,

IVA is dying. What you have in fact is a ghost. So, you see IVA where is no IVA. You are seeing IVA but there is no IVA. It's something else in Europe and in Brazil, and you keep saying IVA, IVA, IVA --- because it's

the tax you know as IVA. But value added tax and that there's no value being added to the tax in the stage of this chain. But you keep the name. It's better to think about it and say okay, I agree with you that the

transactions will keep being the same. I like pizza. I like pasta and I like to eat pineapple in the corner.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: And you invited me by the way.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: I invited you. I will give you

advice.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: I will not forget it.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: When you eat pineapple or ananas you have to put your tie very safe, open you legs and eat like this.

Otherwise you will be washed by the ananas.

Okay. Anything else? Any questions? Any doubts? Any considerations? Michell, you have some --

Sr. Michell Przepiorka: (Indiscernible)

Sr. Gileno Gurjão Barreto: I'm satisfied. Michelle would like to have more explanations. Actually, I think this is -- the main point is I can legally

and for a fiction I say that bitcoin or cryptocurrency is a currency. So, the currency is the main expression of the capital -- I must not tax capital

-- I can but I must not tax capital. So, we changed all the figures of the tax systems. One thing is taxing the exchange. The other thing is I have a bunch of currency and I try to tax this bunch of currency because if it

is currency I can't -- I can put it as in capital in a company or something like this will change all the figures. It is not a bargain anymore. It is a

currency.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: No, but, yes. Okay. But, you know, each country is its own currency with legal tender. So, if we decide that the cryptocurrency is like a pineapple or a bottle, we're treating it a certain

way. If we decide that the cryptocurrency is a currency, I really don't see any difference with other currencies. So, what happens if in Brazil I want to invest in Swiss Francs? Can I put the Swiss Francs as such in a

company? No, I probably have to convert it into local currency. I don't know. You should treat it in the very same way. I don't really see the

difference. Because of course, yes, you say the cryptocurrency is not owned by anyone. It's not owned by a central bank, but I don't really see the difference. What if I have $1,000,000 of Swiss Francs and they want

to invest in Brazil? I should do the very same thing from a VAT

perspective. I don't really see any good reason to treat it different than

Swiss Francs.

Sr. Gileno Gurjão Barreto: If it is a security, it is not a currency. So, it is a security. If it's a security, so we -- you have all the currency in the

financial currency.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: But --

Sr. Gileno Gurjão Barreto: Is considered a financial operation. If it is a currency, you're not going to have financial operation anymore. You just --

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Yeah.

Sr. Gileno Gurjão Barreto: -- have conversion.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Yeah, that --

Sr. Gileno Gurjão Barreto: So, change the legal system or the legal -- the law's applicable (indiscernible) operation. If it is currencies, it's same as capital. So, taxation is one way. If it is not currency and if it's a

security. It's another type of taxation.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Yeah, no. Of course, in my paper I also consider that possibility to treat it as a security but in reality, it has different

characteristics. I think that you can say either say it's a good, a digital good or a digital security. To say it's a security I think it wouldn't work because it does not have the characteristics of a security. Yes, I will share

with you. It will be a pleasure. Honestly, it really is not because security -- I mean, when I say security, I mean bonds. I mean shares, other things.

But it's something completely different than a cryptocurrency. Security is not something I use to pay. Okay. It's not something you use to pay. Security is something that I keep having some passive income. So, it's

something which is not the characteristic of a cryptocurrency. I think that if you have imagined about how to treat the cryptocurrency the best to think about the Swiss Franc. How do I treat the Swiss Franc in my

legal system, which is not the currency which has legal tender in Italy? But of course, you can invest. You can put this into the company. Some

way you have to convert in Euros for something and I think you should follow the very same way of taxing it.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Okay. Thank you very much. We have to stop our debate. Thankfully, it's a tradition in our Institute.

Francesco, mille grazie per essere venuto a questo istituto, che sempre

um piaccere debatere direito tributário con lei, con il vostre colleghi italiani. Noi, en São Paulo, siamo un po ‘italiani, un po ‘tedeschi, un po

‘spagnoli, um po ‘di tutto...

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Non, siete molti italiani...

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Siamo...

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Me piaccere essere tedeschi...

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Siamo una mescla, siamo

l’ONU qui a São Paulo, japanese, chinese, tutti quanti. E la bela cosa é qui, en questo istituto, la cosa più importante avere il debate, il debate

serio, il debate scientifico, il debate con nostre coleghi senza nessuno problemi de sbagliare, perché parliamo cosi, como stiamo parlando oggi, libere. E la libertà è cosa più importante nella scienza e questo veniamo

fare enquanto l’istituto starà qui a disposizione di lei, di venire quando lei vuole parlare con noi. Grazie...

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Grazie. Si me permete, di concordo con lei. Qui

sono molto, non solo contento di essere qui, veramente orgoglioso di essere qui, perché veramente il vostro istituto è un culto di diferimento, e conosciuto in tutto il mondo, e [ininteligível] o professor Schoueri come

mio professor, anche molti vostre coleghi como accompagna, Pedro, Romero Tavares, sono veramente, veramente tutti... siete eccellente, posso dire che opinioni che c’è en Europa di vostro instituto veramente é

molto alta, como è sono molto onorata di essere qui. Gli ringrazio moltissimo per l’invita, spero veramente che la nostra università possano

cooperare sempre di più, che voi [ininteligível] venire a reitoria, noi possiamo vir qui per veramente criare questi momenti sei è molto importante per tutti, poi siamo tutti crescere meglio debatendo cosi e

[ininteligível]. Grazie veramente per l’ospitalità e grazie per tutti. Speriamo di arrìverdeci presto en Brazile o en Italia.

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: A presto.

Sr. Francesco Cannas: Grazie.

[aplausos]

Sr. Presidente Fernando Aurélio Zilveti: Uma boa tarde para todos e

até a semana. Tchau.