Post by firoj1919 on Feb 22, 2024 7:14:33 GMT -5
Let us continue to explore the "macrotheme" of res judicata in tax matters in its various nuances, not without first warning that the thread that leads us is the idea of instrumentality ( "the process is not an end in itself" ), an attitude of evident pragmatic contours. Over time, tax enforcement came to be seen as a syncretic process, as well defined in an article by Luis Claudio Cantanhêde, published in this column [1] . Simply put, if in the past the conflict within the executive process revolved solely around expropriation measures aimed at realizing the tax credit, practice shows us that, today, the most varied discussions have migrated to this area. As an example, we can mention the defenses raised by the taxpayer in attack on the enforceability of the tax credit or those relating to the co-responsibility of third parties, in addition to those involving the offering of guarantees, the latter being the concrete hypothesis to be worked on as the central object of this article.
This scenario invites us to reflect on the following question: do decisions derived from the melting pot of topics into which tax enforcement has become constitute "interlocutory decisions on the merits", liable to suffer the incidence of res judicata? The CPC provided in its article 502 that the material res judicata makes the decision on the merits immutable and indisputable — excluding the term "sentence" as it appeared in the CPC/1973 [2] . In the Oman Mobile Number List words of Paulo Cesar Conrado [3] , emphasis was placed on the decision-making content, disregarding the vehicle through which such content is produced (prestige to the substance of the decision-making act). To article 502 is added the content of article 356, II c/c article 355, I, provisions that prescribe that the merits can be partially resolved when there is no need to produce other evidence [4] .
The first question that arises is: what is the semantic content of the expression "decision on the merits" contained in article 356, II of the CPC when faced with tax enforcement? In other words: it would be possible to admit that "merit", in this category, means satisfaction of the tax credit (via expropriation of the debtor's assets), so that interlocutory decisions involving the offer of guarantees, because intended to ensure the defaulted tax credit , would they be understood within the semantic meaning of the aforementioned article 502? This is our focal point. Let us take as an example, to clarify the situation, a decision that rejects the debtor's offer to secure the tax credit via an insurance policy, doing so based on the need to obey the legal order provided for in article 11 of the LEF and without any reference to the data concrete aspects of the case [5] .
This scenario invites us to reflect on the following question: do decisions derived from the melting pot of topics into which tax enforcement has become constitute "interlocutory decisions on the merits", liable to suffer the incidence of res judicata? The CPC provided in its article 502 that the material res judicata makes the decision on the merits immutable and indisputable — excluding the term "sentence" as it appeared in the CPC/1973 [2] . In the Oman Mobile Number List words of Paulo Cesar Conrado [3] , emphasis was placed on the decision-making content, disregarding the vehicle through which such content is produced (prestige to the substance of the decision-making act). To article 502 is added the content of article 356, II c/c article 355, I, provisions that prescribe that the merits can be partially resolved when there is no need to produce other evidence [4] .
The first question that arises is: what is the semantic content of the expression "decision on the merits" contained in article 356, II of the CPC when faced with tax enforcement? In other words: it would be possible to admit that "merit", in this category, means satisfaction of the tax credit (via expropriation of the debtor's assets), so that interlocutory decisions involving the offer of guarantees, because intended to ensure the defaulted tax credit , would they be understood within the semantic meaning of the aforementioned article 502? This is our focal point. Let us take as an example, to clarify the situation, a decision that rejects the debtor's offer to secure the tax credit via an insurance policy, doing so based on the need to obey the legal order provided for in article 11 of the LEF and without any reference to the data concrete aspects of the case [5] .