Post by account_disabled on Mar 4, 2024 2:36:08 GMT -5
Which, in addition to the reference to compensation, states that "the taxpayer is allowed to choose to request a refund". As can be seen, financial compensation for federal tax debts can be achieved via compensation or refund, and the taxpayer has the right to choose to use administrative refunds even in cases where the debts are due to a final and unappealable court ruling, given that the standard does not contain any conditions. In the same sense is the content of article 74 of Law 9,430/1996, which also ensures as an alternative the administrative refund of undue tax payments, even if fixed in a final and unappealable judicial decision, providing that the " taxable subject who establishes credit, including judicial ones with final res judicata, relating to a tax or contribution administered by the Federal Revenue Secretariat, subject to refund or reimbursement, may use it to offset its own debts relating to any taxes and contributions administered by it.
How to equate the constitutional rule — article 100 with the wording of Constitutional Amendment 62/2009 — which establishes that the payment of the undue tax debt recognized in court is consecrated via court order and the provisions of Federal Laws 8,383/1991 and 9,430/1996 that authorize administrative restitution of the tax unduly paid without the need to formalize the EL Salvador Mobile Number List court order? Despite the scenario of jurisprudential instability on the subject [2] , it seems to us that the text of article 100 itself is the key to the response to this controversy. Now, the aforementioned provision provides for 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 article 66, §2 of Law 8,383/1991 and article 74 of Law 9,430/1996, therefore, without the subject to article 100 of the Federal Constitution. Interestingly, 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.
How to equate the constitutional rule — article 100 with the wording of Constitutional Amendment 62/2009 — which establishes that the payment of the undue tax debt recognized in court is consecrated via court order and the provisions of Federal Laws 8,383/1991 and 9,430/1996 that authorize administrative restitution of the tax unduly paid without the need to formalize the EL Salvador Mobile Number List court order? Despite the scenario of jurisprudential instability on the subject [2] , it seems to us that the text of article 100 itself is the key to the response to this controversy. Now, the aforementioned provision provides for 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 article 66, §2 of Law 8,383/1991 and article 74 of Law 9,430/1996, therefore, without the subject to article 100 of the Federal Constitution. Interestingly, 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.