Post by account_disabled on Mar 6, 2024 1:49:53 GMT -5
I have been saying and writing for years that tax planning is the attitude of continually studying legislation, its constitutionality, legality and operability and deciding to adopt measures aimed at practicing or refraining from carrying out acts aimed at annulling, reducing or postponing the corresponding financial burden [] , in this sense it is time to think about tax planning using court orders. After all, the Federal Supreme Court, which has already taken the necessary decision to transform expired court orders from states and municipalities into an essential planning element.
It was minister Eros Grau in who guaranteed a small furniture industry the right to use expired food court orders to pay their ICMS, an understanding that we imagined could release a skeleton of billions of reais BTC Number Data for tax planning operations and promote a meeting of accounts between the states and their creditors. Valor Econômico newspaper covered the topic accurately.
Minister Eros Grau's decision would be the last step in the evolution of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence towards making states and municipalities compulsorily settle their debts with court orders. The court already accepted tax compensation for non-food court orders, but until the decision it only authorized the payment of food payments if the creditor had a serious illness, that is, needed the money urgently.
But the difficulties continued... The state farms and in particular the Fazenda do Estado de São Paulo where we advocate, through their attorneys' offices, ignore the STF's decision and use, roguely, the text of Constitutional Amendment , of , which established a moratorium on the payment of judicial debts. The text divided non-food court orders into ten years and subjected states and municipalities to income sequestration and tax compensation if they did not pay the installments. But the text said nothing about food court orders, which was enough for the states and even some bodies of the Judiciary to understand that there was no sanction for non-compliance with food payments. This irresponsible position of the State of São Paulo, maintains a debt of between R$ and R$ billion with food, but keeps non-food installments up to date, with payments that exceed R$ billion per year.
It was minister Eros Grau in who guaranteed a small furniture industry the right to use expired food court orders to pay their ICMS, an understanding that we imagined could release a skeleton of billions of reais BTC Number Data for tax planning operations and promote a meeting of accounts between the states and their creditors. Valor Econômico newspaper covered the topic accurately.
Minister Eros Grau's decision would be the last step in the evolution of the Supreme Court's jurisprudence towards making states and municipalities compulsorily settle their debts with court orders. The court already accepted tax compensation for non-food court orders, but until the decision it only authorized the payment of food payments if the creditor had a serious illness, that is, needed the money urgently.
But the difficulties continued... The state farms and in particular the Fazenda do Estado de São Paulo where we advocate, through their attorneys' offices, ignore the STF's decision and use, roguely, the text of Constitutional Amendment , of , which established a moratorium on the payment of judicial debts. The text divided non-food court orders into ten years and subjected states and municipalities to income sequestration and tax compensation if they did not pay the installments. But the text said nothing about food court orders, which was enough for the states and even some bodies of the Judiciary to understand that there was no sanction for non-compliance with food payments. This irresponsible position of the State of São Paulo, maintains a debt of between R$ and R$ billion with food, but keeps non-food installments up to date, with payments that exceed R$ billion per year.