Post by firoj1616 on Feb 15, 2024 4:39:53 GMT -6
A recent decision by the Federal Supreme Court deemed unconstitutional the requirement for a prior deposit of 30% of the amount entered in infraction notices and the imposition of a fine to allow appeal to the Federal Revenue Taxpayers Council. This decision, although still limited to taxpayers who sought judicial assistance in that process, has a much greater scope than one might think. It turns out that it establishes the understanding of the Supreme Court, which must be repeated in the thousands of similar actions that deal with the subject, and will force the tax administration to remove this legal provision, providing the taxpayer with fair and necessary access to the administrative judging body without restrictions of order monetary.
Furthermore, an indirect consequence will be the suspension of ongoing tax enforcement processes, so that the process can be judged again by the administration, or the annulment of tax credits under execution, due to procedural defects. This is because the taxpayer will be able, in these cases, to demonstrate that he failed to appeal due to an insurmountable barrier to the exercise of Canada Email List defense, that is, the obligation to deposit, even before the tax authorities were certain of the amount they would demand, since this a complex administrative act, which follows several stages in which due process and the laws in force must be strictly followed. It begins with the assessment, which is the act of the tax authority that demands the tax and imposes penalties, in accordance with the provisions of article 142 of the National Tax Code.
Next the taxpayer must be given the opportunity to contest the act, fully exercising their constitutional right to full defense, which begins the administrative tax process, which goes through two stages: the first, with the judgment carried out by a single judge, an agent of the public authorities, who may or may not consider the assessment valid. The taxpayer may, at his/her discretion, appeal the decision of this judge, filing an appeal to the second instance judging body, which is necessarily a collegial body, composed of representatives of taxpayers and the tax authorities. The obligation to make a prior deposit goes against the full exercise of the right of defense, as it prevents, or hinders, the taxpayer's access to precisely that body in which they could find a more impartial treatment of their complaints than in those in which only public agents decide. This requirement is premised on the mistaken perception that acting in this way would ensure procedural speed and make the process of definitive constitution of the tax credit more agile.
Furthermore, an indirect consequence will be the suspension of ongoing tax enforcement processes, so that the process can be judged again by the administration, or the annulment of tax credits under execution, due to procedural defects. This is because the taxpayer will be able, in these cases, to demonstrate that he failed to appeal due to an insurmountable barrier to the exercise of Canada Email List defense, that is, the obligation to deposit, even before the tax authorities were certain of the amount they would demand, since this a complex administrative act, which follows several stages in which due process and the laws in force must be strictly followed. It begins with the assessment, which is the act of the tax authority that demands the tax and imposes penalties, in accordance with the provisions of article 142 of the National Tax Code.
Next the taxpayer must be given the opportunity to contest the act, fully exercising their constitutional right to full defense, which begins the administrative tax process, which goes through two stages: the first, with the judgment carried out by a single judge, an agent of the public authorities, who may or may not consider the assessment valid. The taxpayer may, at his/her discretion, appeal the decision of this judge, filing an appeal to the second instance judging body, which is necessarily a collegial body, composed of representatives of taxpayers and the tax authorities. The obligation to make a prior deposit goes against the full exercise of the right of defense, as it prevents, or hinders, the taxpayer's access to precisely that body in which they could find a more impartial treatment of their complaints than in those in which only public agents decide. This requirement is premised on the mistaken perception that acting in this way would ensure procedural speed and make the process of definitive constitution of the tax credit more agile.