Post by account_disabled on Feb 27, 2024 0:04:57 GMT -5
As everyone knows, Brazil supports a highly complex tax system. A tangle of rules that emerge day in and day out, overlapping each other, in which, to regulate the application of certain laws, even more rules are produced — in a system that seems concerned exclusively with revenue. Apart from this, there is the normative production of the courts, judicial and administrative, which, having the mission of applying the Law, produce different interpretations, often conflicting, incapable of generating the necessary legal certainty so that private agents can develop their business. Every day, companies are fined for failing to comply with some rule, ordinance, normative instruction, or filling out a declaration incorrectly — even though they employ many people and spend dozens of hours to comply with these obligations.
Upon being notified of one of these assessments, the taxpayer, in his desire to regularize his situation — or at least minimize the damage that may result from it may give in to the urge to, hastily, sign an installment plan for that debt with the tax administration. It turns out that this may not be the best solution. Proceeding with a tax installment in a hurry, without analyzing Chinese Europe Phone Number List whether that debt meets the minimum requirements required by law, just to obtain certificates of tax regularity, or prevent possible restrictions, can generate negative consequences for the company. And this analysis is, or should be, carried out by a professional in the legal field, who works with tax legislation — and not just by someone in the financial or accounting field, who sometimes lacks knowledge of the legal consequences.
In the case of a debt that comes within the scope of a summons for payment or offering of goods as collateral, such as a summons in tax execution, the installment payment has the effect of interrupting the prescription, as it denounces the debtor's knowledge of that debt, carrying out the hypothesis of item IV of the sole paragraph of article of the . In fact, the mere request for installments — even if it is not granted — interrupts the prescription, as decided by the 1st Section of the STJ, when editing summary 653: "the request for tax installments, even if rejected, interrupts the prescription period, as characterizes extrajudicial confession of debt" . This is also the effect when the debt is not yet subject to judicial collection, as item IV of article 174 of the CTN states that the prescription is interrupted by any act of the debtor that results in recognition of the debt, even if this act is extrajudicial.
Upon being notified of one of these assessments, the taxpayer, in his desire to regularize his situation — or at least minimize the damage that may result from it may give in to the urge to, hastily, sign an installment plan for that debt with the tax administration. It turns out that this may not be the best solution. Proceeding with a tax installment in a hurry, without analyzing Chinese Europe Phone Number List whether that debt meets the minimum requirements required by law, just to obtain certificates of tax regularity, or prevent possible restrictions, can generate negative consequences for the company. And this analysis is, or should be, carried out by a professional in the legal field, who works with tax legislation — and not just by someone in the financial or accounting field, who sometimes lacks knowledge of the legal consequences.
In the case of a debt that comes within the scope of a summons for payment or offering of goods as collateral, such as a summons in tax execution, the installment payment has the effect of interrupting the prescription, as it denounces the debtor's knowledge of that debt, carrying out the hypothesis of item IV of the sole paragraph of article of the . In fact, the mere request for installments — even if it is not granted — interrupts the prescription, as decided by the 1st Section of the STJ, when editing summary 653: "the request for tax installments, even if rejected, interrupts the prescription period, as characterizes extrajudicial confession of debt" . This is also the effect when the debt is not yet subject to judicial collection, as item IV of article 174 of the CTN states that the prescription is interrupted by any act of the debtor that results in recognition of the debt, even if this act is extrajudicial.