The Ministry of Economy attributed binding effect to 29 precedents of the Administrative Council of Tax Appeals (Carf). The measure, provided for in Ordinance No. 129, obliges the federal tax administration - which includes the Federal Revenue Service and the National Treasury Attorney General's Office (PGFN) - to follow the body's understandings, even if favorable to taxpayers.
The precedents pacify the administrative court's understanding of certain tax matters. They are edited after several trials in the same direction. They are only mandatory for the board members. However, with the binding effect, this obligation is extended to inspectors and attorneys.
Of the body's 128 precedents, 107 are binding. In June 2018, binding effect had already been granted to 65 statements. The status can avoid the application of tax assessments that would be overturned in Carf.
Of the 29 that have now gained binding effect, 16 are favorable to taxpayers, according to lawyer Carlos Navarro, a partner at Viseu Advogados. For him, the bond is commendable. "The binding effect is good for everyone," he says.
In addition to taxpayers not receiving assessments, adds the lawyer, Carf has fewer cases on the agenda and the judges of the first administrative instance - from the regional trial precincts (DRJs) - do not need to analyze issues that will be overturned in the body.
Even with Carf's summaries, there are still cases in which inspectors do not follow the body's understanding, according to lawyer Felipe Kneipp Salomon, from Levy & Salomão Advogados. The binding effect is important, he says, because not all taxpayers take the matter to administrative litigation.
The ordinance, adds the lawyer, brings matters that could have already become binding in 2018. One of them is Precedent No. the addition of the late payment fine, before the start of the tax procedure. "This issue is already peaceful," says Salomon.
In a note to Valor, the PGFN states that it already promotes its link to the precedents of Carf, regardless of the attribution of binding effectiveness by the minister. Since the PGFN Ordinance No 502, of May 12, 2016, it adds in the text, the body does not present challenges or appeals on a topic on which there is a statement by Carf - the measure is prohibited by the Judging Body's Internal Regulations.
Source: Beatriz Olivon via Valor Econômico.