Post by account_disabled on Feb 27, 2024 4:20:27 GMT -5
The need to issue the court order only for payments due by the Federal, State, District and Municipal Public Treasury, as a result of a court ruling. This allows us to conclude that, if the federal tax debt was not constituted through a sentence, it is subject to administrative restitution through the system of articlely, we would arrive at a scenario in which: 1) in the event that the taxpayer chooses to instrumentalize the repetition of the federal tax debt through legal action, the recovery of the tax debt will be restricted to the via court order or compensation; 2) in turn, if the taxpayer does not file a lawsuit to guarantee the refund of the undue debt and uses the administrative refund, he is not subject to the tortuous route of precatório, given that article 100 of the CF/1988 applies only to cases in which payments from the Public Treasury result from legal action.
The foregoing shows that the asset replacement instruments available to the taxpayer in the event of an undue payment of tax are not to be confused with the means of establishing the tax debt and the selection of one (judicial) or another administrative route, certainly, is influenced by the prospect of payment diluted over time by court order or immediate, without the Chinese Europe Phone Number List need to issue the court order. [1] Article 66. In cases of undue or overpayment of taxes, federal contributions, including social security contributions, and property income, even when resulting from reform, annulment, revocation or termination of a condemnatory decision, the taxpayer may offset this amount in the payment of the amount corresponding to a subsequent period. §2 The taxpayer may choose to request a refund.
Although this discussion remained dormant, the STF rekindled the debate when it declared §2 of article 7 of the Writ of Mandamus Law unconstitutional, in the judgment of ADI nº 4,296. The provision provided, among other prohibitions, for the impossibility of granting an injunction aimed at offsetting tax credits. By reading the grounds of the decision, it can be seen that the STF chose to privilege the judge's general power of caution, to the detriment of a generic prohibition, given that substantive law legislation would already contain rules capable of guiding the judge, citing as an example article 170-A of the CTN itself. The STJ, as a way of reconciling its jurisprudence with the STF's decision, needed to cancel its Precedent No. 212, which prohibited the compensation of taxes through precautionary action, injunctive or anticipatory measures.
The foregoing shows that the asset replacement instruments available to the taxpayer in the event of an undue payment of tax are not to be confused with the means of establishing the tax debt and the selection of one (judicial) or another administrative route, certainly, is influenced by the prospect of payment diluted over time by court order or immediate, without the Chinese Europe Phone Number List need to issue the court order. [1] Article 66. In cases of undue or overpayment of taxes, federal contributions, including social security contributions, and property income, even when resulting from reform, annulment, revocation or termination of a condemnatory decision, the taxpayer may offset this amount in the payment of the amount corresponding to a subsequent period. §2 The taxpayer may choose to request a refund.
Although this discussion remained dormant, the STF rekindled the debate when it declared §2 of article 7 of the Writ of Mandamus Law unconstitutional, in the judgment of ADI nº 4,296. The provision provided, among other prohibitions, for the impossibility of granting an injunction aimed at offsetting tax credits. By reading the grounds of the decision, it can be seen that the STF chose to privilege the judge's general power of caution, to the detriment of a generic prohibition, given that substantive law legislation would already contain rules capable of guiding the judge, citing as an example article 170-A of the CTN itself. The STJ, as a way of reconciling its jurisprudence with the STF's decision, needed to cancel its Precedent No. 212, which prohibited the compensation of taxes through precautionary action, injunctive or anticipatory measures.