Post by account_disabled on Mar 4, 2024 4:33:53 GMT -6
By reading the draft laws prepared by the Commission of Jurists [1] it is possible to glimpse some trends for tax litigation. More than examining the content of the propositions themselves, the proposals reveal symptoms of problems experienced by those affected by the tax conflict and, based on them (proposals and propositions), we will develop a series of articles presenting the anticipated perspectives. The objective of this text is not to critically analyze the normative proposals presented in each of the nine bills [2] focused on the subject of the tax process, but to look at the indicative set of possible scenarios that will unfold in tax litigation.
Even though the bills are thematic and, normatively, individualized, there is a common thread that unites them: the idea of reducing judicialization and consensual resolution of tax disputes. These objectives are present in all of them, whether those relating to changes to the CTN, which propose tax compliance programs and facilitating taxpayer self-regulation, whether those dedicated to mediation and arbitration, or those dealing with tax consultation, by disciplining the binding the response to all taxpayers EL Salvador Mobile Number List, even if not consultants, who fall into the same factual and legal situations. It would be possible to affirm that the centripetal force of the bills permeates three topics: (1) the system of precedents, (2) the consensus substituting the conflict in the relations between Tax Authorities and taxpayers and (3) the adoption of administrative [3] mechanisms of collection of tax credit.
It is worth highlighting that this tripod has already been consolidated in the legal system before being included in the bills, although in scattered normative acts of certain taxing entities, therefore, not equipped with the systematization as presented in those resulting from the work of the commission, and in generally in the Civil Procedure Code of 2015 (CPC/2015). Regarding the first theme, the CPC/2015 promoted the definitive acquisition of precedents to be observed by the Judiciary, such as article 927, to guarantee the stability and uniformity of the law. This objective was already announced in the legal system since the reform of the Judiciary consolidated in Constitutional Amendment 45/2004, limited to decisions of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), with the integration into the legal system of the binding summary, the judgment with general repercussion of the matter, the binding of the decision in constitutionality control in direct action, and recurring changes that were promoted in the CPC/1973.
Even though the bills are thematic and, normatively, individualized, there is a common thread that unites them: the idea of reducing judicialization and consensual resolution of tax disputes. These objectives are present in all of them, whether those relating to changes to the CTN, which propose tax compliance programs and facilitating taxpayer self-regulation, whether those dedicated to mediation and arbitration, or those dealing with tax consultation, by disciplining the binding the response to all taxpayers EL Salvador Mobile Number List, even if not consultants, who fall into the same factual and legal situations. It would be possible to affirm that the centripetal force of the bills permeates three topics: (1) the system of precedents, (2) the consensus substituting the conflict in the relations between Tax Authorities and taxpayers and (3) the adoption of administrative [3] mechanisms of collection of tax credit.
It is worth highlighting that this tripod has already been consolidated in the legal system before being included in the bills, although in scattered normative acts of certain taxing entities, therefore, not equipped with the systematization as presented in those resulting from the work of the commission, and in generally in the Civil Procedure Code of 2015 (CPC/2015). Regarding the first theme, the CPC/2015 promoted the definitive acquisition of precedents to be observed by the Judiciary, such as article 927, to guarantee the stability and uniformity of the law. This objective was already announced in the legal system since the reform of the Judiciary consolidated in Constitutional Amendment 45/2004, limited to decisions of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), with the integration into the legal system of the binding summary, the judgment with general repercussion of the matter, the binding of the decision in constitutionality control in direct action, and recurring changes that were promoted in the CPC/1973.