Post by SHIHAB on Jan 11, 2024 6:01:00 GMT 1
The decision generates debates about its repercussions and impacts for taxpayers, especially for those directly affected by the decision: companies that had final and unappealable rulings in which the Social Contribution on Net Profit had been incidentally declared unconstitutional . However, the controversy is not restricted to these taxpayers alone — that is, it includes major market players [1] — concerned about the financial repercussions of the decision that understood that the CSLL must be collected since 2007, when the ADI was judged nº 15/DF, in which the constitutionality of the tax in question was declared.
Tax experts are also concerned (and I would add, WhatsApp Number List constitutionalists) about the impacts on other taxes. At stake: res judicata. The repercussion was so great that two court ministers spoke publicly: Minister Barroso, responsible for the victorious vote on the issue, gave an interview to the court channels on the matter; Minister Gilmar also wrote in Globo . What they said? The Supreme Court was not responsible for creating any legal uncertainty.
The taxpayers who decided not to pay the contribution would have been irresponsible. Minister Barroso even called the companies' non-payment of CSLL a "bet" , implying that the business community had bet big and lost. 2. Is believing in res judicata a gamble? Here's a parenthesis: placing bets on the Judiciary? Now, as it is difficult to know how the Judiciary will respond to any demand, there seems to be no doubt that not only businesspeople took a gamble; everyone bets every day. After all, in a country where Precedent 7 of the STJ (to give just one example) can be applied to revoke-revise (or not) evidence according to teleological judgments — including monocratically —, the bet assumes a degree of drama: the defendant can be unanimously acquitted in court and then be condemned in a monocratic trial at the STJ — even if the lower court has disallowed the REsp.
Tax experts are also concerned (and I would add, WhatsApp Number List constitutionalists) about the impacts on other taxes. At stake: res judicata. The repercussion was so great that two court ministers spoke publicly: Minister Barroso, responsible for the victorious vote on the issue, gave an interview to the court channels on the matter; Minister Gilmar also wrote in Globo . What they said? The Supreme Court was not responsible for creating any legal uncertainty.
The taxpayers who decided not to pay the contribution would have been irresponsible. Minister Barroso even called the companies' non-payment of CSLL a "bet" , implying that the business community had bet big and lost. 2. Is believing in res judicata a gamble? Here's a parenthesis: placing bets on the Judiciary? Now, as it is difficult to know how the Judiciary will respond to any demand, there seems to be no doubt that not only businesspeople took a gamble; everyone bets every day. After all, in a country where Precedent 7 of the STJ (to give just one example) can be applied to revoke-revise (or not) evidence according to teleological judgments — including monocratically —, the bet assumes a degree of drama: the defendant can be unanimously acquitted in court and then be condemned in a monocratic trial at the STJ — even if the lower court has disallowed the REsp.