In a judgement of extreme importance, as it is replicable for other large number of cases yet to be defined in this administrative court, the Superior Chamber of CARF once again decided in favor of the taxpayers, considering the illegality of applying two fines for the same triggering event, as intended by the IRS in many cases.<\/p>\n
In this specific case, fines were judged for not paying the advance payment based on an estimate of the Corporate Income Tax (\u201cIRPJ\u201d) and the Social Contribution on Profits (\u201cCSLL\u201d), combined with the fine for the ex officio assessment of the tax actually not paid.<\/p>\n
The trial dealt with principles always defended by taxpayers, but rarely observed by judges, especially in administrative courts such as CARF. The basis for the decision was the principle of \u201cconsummation\u201d, according to which a fine for a more serious infraction must absorb the fine for a less serious infraction, as well as it was used the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.<\/p>\n
There is still no clear definition of the matter by CARF, as there are still several precedents adopting both sides of the topic. However, this recent position of the Superior Chamber, undoubtedly gives strength to the side of the taxpayers.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In a judgement of extreme importance, as it is replicable for other large number of cases yet to be defined in this administrative court, the Superior Chamber of CARF once again decided in favor of the taxpayers, considering the illegality of applying two fines for the same triggering event, as intended by the IRS in […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1286","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n