Post by firoj1616 on Feb 15, 2024 6:43:31 GMT -5
There was a lack of evidence in the Public Prosecutor's Office's complaint about the alleged scheme of selling legislation by Federal Revenue officials to Fiat Automóveis. Therefore, only a single IRS employee should be investigated by the Public Prosecutor's Office for maintaining, in addition to the inspection service, a tax consultancy company for businesspeople. The decision is from the 3rd Panel of the Federal Regional Court of the 1st Region. According to the rapporteur of the case, federal judge Saulo Casali Bahia, there are no elements of conviction in the investigations, so nothing is proven. In his understanding, also accompanied by federal judges Tourinho Neto and Cândido Ribeiro, administrative improbity action requires concrete evidence that points to the crime, which did not occur in this case. The supposed 'sale of legislation' is related to the publication of the Federal Revenue's normative act, dated February.
With the act, which would have been made to order, Fiat would be free from paying social contributions on net profit. The operation, according to the MP, would have been guided by a law firm hired by the company and by independent consultants made up of Federal Revenue employees, which is prohibited by law. For TRF-1, both the act published by the Revenue and Provisional New Zealand Email List Measure 1,897 grant general tax benefits, therefore covering a large number of companies. The final judgment in favor of Fiat guaranteed tax advantages to the company even before the act was published. The provisional measure under discussion already provided for the benefits questioned by the MP and the normative act, according to the rapporteur, would have simply explained the topic better.
Thus, for the TRF-1, the normative act was nothing more than a functional duty of the Federal Revenue Secretary at the time.This conceptual distinction, in fact, was observed during the preparation of the original project of Law 4,357/64, when the then President of the Republic, Castello Branco, vetoed the term “dividend” contained in paragraph “a” of article 32, on the grounds that restricting “the distribution of dividends” would affect the normal life of companies, which were “driving centers for the development of the national economy”. Therefore, the provision did not prohibit a company indebted to the Union from distributing dividends to its shareholders or quotaholders, there being an obstacle only in relation to the possible payment of bonuses and profit sharing. The second issue that deserves further reflection lies in the meaning of the expression “unguaranteed debt.
With the act, which would have been made to order, Fiat would be free from paying social contributions on net profit. The operation, according to the MP, would have been guided by a law firm hired by the company and by independent consultants made up of Federal Revenue employees, which is prohibited by law. For TRF-1, both the act published by the Revenue and Provisional New Zealand Email List Measure 1,897 grant general tax benefits, therefore covering a large number of companies. The final judgment in favor of Fiat guaranteed tax advantages to the company even before the act was published. The provisional measure under discussion already provided for the benefits questioned by the MP and the normative act, according to the rapporteur, would have simply explained the topic better.
Thus, for the TRF-1, the normative act was nothing more than a functional duty of the Federal Revenue Secretary at the time.This conceptual distinction, in fact, was observed during the preparation of the original project of Law 4,357/64, when the then President of the Republic, Castello Branco, vetoed the term “dividend” contained in paragraph “a” of article 32, on the grounds that restricting “the distribution of dividends” would affect the normal life of companies, which were “driving centers for the development of the national economy”. Therefore, the provision did not prohibit a company indebted to the Union from distributing dividends to its shareholders or quotaholders, there being an obstacle only in relation to the possible payment of bonuses and profit sharing. The second issue that deserves further reflection lies in the meaning of the expression “unguaranteed debt.