Post by account_disabled on Mar 4, 2024 7:00:12 GMT -5
That before proposing the executive process, the Public Treasury must use dialogue in an attempt to resolve any conflict, under penalty of rejection of the initial — § 3 of article 6 [9 ] of the project. Furthermore, the project of the "new" tax enforcement law incorporated prescriptions from Ordinance PGFN 33/2018 by stipulating the possibility of submitting a request for review of debt registered in active debt (PRDI [10] ) before filing tax enforcement, a measure which relegates to the tax administration the mission of resolving the conflict and preventing its flow to the Judiciary, ensuring the maintenance of the taxpayer's fiscal regularity. It appears, therefore, that the expropriation of the taxpayer's assets by the Judiciary Power appears to be petty, as a "last alternative.
The objective of reducing the need for intervention by the Judiciary Power seems clear to us, but not to eliminate it, especially because it is constitutionally impossible in light of section XXXV of article 5. In this scenario, we consider these trends to be established : since the precedents aim to equalize all taxpayers on equal terms, we identify the first of them, namely, the "collectivization " of discussions EL Salvador Mobile Number List requiring "technologization " mechanisms [11] for application what remains consolidated in the judgment of precedents; The second is the " consensuality" of the relationship between the Tax Authorities and taxpayers with the least interference from the Judiciary, especially in the environment of expropriation of assets, making up the third trend, that of the " administratization" of collection.
Of these three, the one that will certainly call for careful analysis is not the one that imposes the force of precedents or the increasing replacement of conflict by consensus, which, in a certain way, are already "acculturated" by legal operators, but that of the significant displacement of the charge of the tax credit from the Judiciary for administration. This trend conveys the "message" that the administrative collection environments that exist today must be incorporated into taxpayers' routines, so that they can make greater use of the defense instruments they contain. In turn, this same warning must be absorbed by the Tax Authorities themselves, ensuring that the means created by them are effective, making this path palatable for the taxpayer.
The objective of reducing the need for intervention by the Judiciary Power seems clear to us, but not to eliminate it, especially because it is constitutionally impossible in light of section XXXV of article 5. In this scenario, we consider these trends to be established : since the precedents aim to equalize all taxpayers on equal terms, we identify the first of them, namely, the "collectivization " of discussions EL Salvador Mobile Number List requiring "technologization " mechanisms [11] for application what remains consolidated in the judgment of precedents; The second is the " consensuality" of the relationship between the Tax Authorities and taxpayers with the least interference from the Judiciary, especially in the environment of expropriation of assets, making up the third trend, that of the " administratization" of collection.
Of these three, the one that will certainly call for careful analysis is not the one that imposes the force of precedents or the increasing replacement of conflict by consensus, which, in a certain way, are already "acculturated" by legal operators, but that of the significant displacement of the charge of the tax credit from the Judiciary for administration. This trend conveys the "message" that the administrative collection environments that exist today must be incorporated into taxpayers' routines, so that they can make greater use of the defense instruments they contain. In turn, this same warning must be absorbed by the Tax Authorities themselves, ensuring that the means created by them are effective, making this path palatable for the taxpayer.