Post by account_disabled on Feb 27, 2024 7:07:03 GMT
Article an old acquaintance of taxpayers when it comes to offsetting credits arising from judicial theses. More than 20 years have passed since the provision was inserted into the code to prohibit the possibility of offsetting taxes subject to judicial discussion before the final judgment. What seemed until recently like an insurmountable barrier clause, in the face of numerous decisions that validated it, had its structure shaken by the decision handed down by the Federal Supreme Court (STF) in ADI nÂș 4,296 and the recent cancellation by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ ) of its Summary 212 that highlight the obsolescence of this article, revealing the need for its repeal. First of all, it is necessary to contextualize. Article 170-A was inserted into the.
According to the explanatory memorandum, the main objective of inclusion was to avoid loss of revenue based on preliminary decisions that would eventually be reformed. It was also believed that the measure would protect the market from possible inequalities by making it impossible for a single company to obtain an injunction for compensation, while other taxpayers, in the same Chinese Europe Phone Number List economic situation, would not. In that period, the prohibition on compensation before the final judgment had a reason to exist, as the civil process was still in its infancy in terms of tools capable of guaranteeing an effective standardization of jurisprudence, which allowed for a multiplicity of disparate decisions, as it was based on procedural relationships of an eminently subjective nature.
However, with the edition of the legislature initiated a series of reforms that outlined fundamental principles in procedural matters that guaranteed the speedy processing of appeals in higher courts, as well as the binding applicability of higher court decisions to controversies. pending in lower courts. It appears that the legal context for the creation of article 170-A is no longer the same. This is because, currently, there is a set of rules and instruments of civil procedure that guarantee the predictability of judicial decisions involving certain matters, based on the system of binding precedents, and the rapid materialization of the outcome of the trial. With the change of scenario, the list of criticisms of the prohibition made to article 170-A is long and ranges from its unconstitutionality to its interpretation according to the current complex of constitutional and infra-constitutional norms in force.
According to the explanatory memorandum, the main objective of inclusion was to avoid loss of revenue based on preliminary decisions that would eventually be reformed. It was also believed that the measure would protect the market from possible inequalities by making it impossible for a single company to obtain an injunction for compensation, while other taxpayers, in the same Chinese Europe Phone Number List economic situation, would not. In that period, the prohibition on compensation before the final judgment had a reason to exist, as the civil process was still in its infancy in terms of tools capable of guaranteeing an effective standardization of jurisprudence, which allowed for a multiplicity of disparate decisions, as it was based on procedural relationships of an eminently subjective nature.
However, with the edition of the legislature initiated a series of reforms that outlined fundamental principles in procedural matters that guaranteed the speedy processing of appeals in higher courts, as well as the binding applicability of higher court decisions to controversies. pending in lower courts. It appears that the legal context for the creation of article 170-A is no longer the same. This is because, currently, there is a set of rules and instruments of civil procedure that guarantee the predictability of judicial decisions involving certain matters, based on the system of binding precedents, and the rapid materialization of the outcome of the trial. With the change of scenario, the list of criticisms of the prohibition made to article 170-A is long and ranges from its unconstitutionality to its interpretation according to the current complex of constitutional and infra-constitutional norms in force.