Post by firoj2525 on Mar 8, 2024 20:03:57 GMT -8
The duties relating to the material relationship and, therefore, the charges arising from the delay persist. From a tax point of view, there is a potential negative impact on taxpayers. This is because there may be a mismatch between the legal tax debt update index (indicated in the CDA) and that provided by the depositor financial institution. An example is São Paulo's ICMS tax debts that are updated by Selic (article 565, §1º, RICMS), while Banco do Brasil (depository in tax executions that take place in the state) remunerates the judicial deposit at the Reference Rate (in true, with the same remuneration as savings), according to the BB website.
This means that the taxpayer who suspends the enforceability of the credit executed by the State Treasury of São Paulo through the deposit (article 151 of the CTN), in order to embargo the execution, may have to bear the difference between the update that would be made by Selic and that EL Salvador Mobile Number List operated based on savings, relating to the period after the deposit. Operators in the tax area must therefore carefully observe this point, as, in theory, the São Paulo Treasury can now continue to move the execution to recover the difference between the amount deposited (updated by the bank) and the amount corrected by the Selic, if the embargoes are not accepted.
What the Espírito Santo legislation embodies in the Fiscal Cooperation Project is an innovative mechanism for preventing conflicts between taxpayers and the Tax Authorities, a mechanism that conspires in favor of the much-desired consensuality manifested in the civil procedural codification of 2015 [3] . All of this stems from the growing perception among taxing entities that, in many cases, issuing assessments without the taxpayer having a prior opportunity for regularization can result in greater harm to the public interest itself. This is an important awareness about the breadth of the idea of efficiency of the public sector, which is also evidenced by the implementation of administrative procedures that are based on the presumption of good faith on the part of the administrator.
This means that the taxpayer who suspends the enforceability of the credit executed by the State Treasury of São Paulo through the deposit (article 151 of the CTN), in order to embargo the execution, may have to bear the difference between the update that would be made by Selic and that EL Salvador Mobile Number List operated based on savings, relating to the period after the deposit. Operators in the tax area must therefore carefully observe this point, as, in theory, the São Paulo Treasury can now continue to move the execution to recover the difference between the amount deposited (updated by the bank) and the amount corrected by the Selic, if the embargoes are not accepted.
What the Espírito Santo legislation embodies in the Fiscal Cooperation Project is an innovative mechanism for preventing conflicts between taxpayers and the Tax Authorities, a mechanism that conspires in favor of the much-desired consensuality manifested in the civil procedural codification of 2015 [3] . All of this stems from the growing perception among taxing entities that, in many cases, issuing assessments without the taxpayer having a prior opportunity for regularization can result in greater harm to the public interest itself. This is an important awareness about the breadth of the idea of efficiency of the public sector, which is also evidenced by the implementation of administrative procedures that are based on the presumption of good faith on the part of the administrator.