|
Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 4:55:30 GMT -5
Favorable to taxpayers in a certain matter, but an extraordinary appeal was filed by the National Treasury in order to avoid the final judgment of the sentence, if someone were to determine credits based on this pronouncement, the risk of having your compensation considered fraudulent, since the credit, in addition to not being crystal clear — so much so that there was a need to file a lawsuit to recognize it — the discussion on this right remains sub judice , and it is necessary to wait for the position of the STF. In another example, the STJ, in REsp 1.230.957/RS, affected as a repetitive appeal, established a precedent that no social security contribution is levied on the amount paid by the company as indemnified notice. Despite there having been no modulation of this decision, article 6, sole Belgium Phone Number Data paragraph, I, of IN RFB nº 925/09, in a completely opposite sense, maintains the tax incidence intact until jurisdiction 05/2016, subjecting the taxpayer to the imposition of the fine of 150% if you have obtained credit, spontaneously, beyond this established limit, for violating express legislation. Furthermore, there are credits that, although not expressly provided for in the legislation, result from the interpretation of the applicable rules, so that, if on the one hand they are not authorized, on the other they are not prohibited. Nothing prevents the taxpayer from choosing to hold the discussion surrounding the tax thesis before the Public Administration to the detriment of the Judiciary — as long as it is not constitutional in nature —, especially because Carf is a judicial body with autonomy to decide, and can accept there.
|
|