Post by account_disabled on Feb 27, 2024 7:15:53 GMT
Given the countless speculations regarding a tax reform and its likely occurrence in 2023, there is a lot of talk about the tax impacts of the new government and all eyes are focused on the Executive and Legislative Powers. However, the Judiciary promoted a recent event in which magistrates and experts were able to debate important tax issues: the 1st Tax Law Conference of the Federal Justice Council. The idea of the CJF Law Days is to outline interpretative positions on current norms, adapting them to legislative, doctrinal and jurisprudential innovations. The matters are debated by specific committees, made up of magistrates, prosecutors and lawyers. In the end, the interpretations are consolidated into statements which, in turn, are submitted to a vote in a plenary session and can be approved or rejected.
Despite not having a binding effect, the statements certainly exert an important argumentative force, which does not go unnoticed by the judges in their decisions. In this 1st Tax Law Conference, some approved statements only consolidate peaceful understandings and do not generate further discussions. This is the case that "the principle of ability to pay is not limited Chinese Europe Phone Number List to taxes". In the event, a vote was not even necessary to approve this statement. The same can be said about the lack of need for a full guarantee of execution to oppose embargoes on execution, when the executed party does not have sufficient assets. The relevance of the topic cannot be denied, but this interpretation is already widely known and, in any case, always depends on an analysis of factual issues in the specific case.
Other statements deal with controversial issues, but which still depend on specific regulation, by the Legislative Branch or by the PGFN (Attorney General of the National Treasury), so that they, in fact, produce any concrete effect. This is the case of tax arbitration and procedural legal transactions on tax debts not included in active debt [2] . The fact is that, when it could really make a difference, the 1st Tax Law Conference missed a great opportunity by not approving the following statement: "It is admissible, as long as it does not cause harm to the parties, the conversion of embargoes on tax enforcement already opposed into one of the knowledge actions provided for in article 38 of Law No.act, there is no practical sense for such a prohibition, which only contributes to the existence of more cases before the Judiciary and a completely unnecessary procedural complexity.
Despite not having a binding effect, the statements certainly exert an important argumentative force, which does not go unnoticed by the judges in their decisions. In this 1st Tax Law Conference, some approved statements only consolidate peaceful understandings and do not generate further discussions. This is the case that "the principle of ability to pay is not limited Chinese Europe Phone Number List to taxes". In the event, a vote was not even necessary to approve this statement. The same can be said about the lack of need for a full guarantee of execution to oppose embargoes on execution, when the executed party does not have sufficient assets. The relevance of the topic cannot be denied, but this interpretation is already widely known and, in any case, always depends on an analysis of factual issues in the specific case.
Other statements deal with controversial issues, but which still depend on specific regulation, by the Legislative Branch or by the PGFN (Attorney General of the National Treasury), so that they, in fact, produce any concrete effect. This is the case of tax arbitration and procedural legal transactions on tax debts not included in active debt [2] . The fact is that, when it could really make a difference, the 1st Tax Law Conference missed a great opportunity by not approving the following statement: "It is admissible, as long as it does not cause harm to the parties, the conversion of embargoes on tax enforcement already opposed into one of the knowledge actions provided for in article 38 of Law No.act, there is no practical sense for such a prohibition, which only contributes to the existence of more cases before the Judiciary and a completely unnecessary procedural complexity.