Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 0:37:42 GMT -8
The substitute does not pay with his own money, but rather that of the person being replaced, from the person who recovers what he spent" , which gives rise to a factual scenario in which the repercussion is economic, plausible, possible, but legally unprovable. There are countless cases in which taxpayers, even with the right recognized by the Supreme Court, on the occasion of the RE 593.849 judgment, in mid-2017, no longer had access to the right to credit, precisely due to the difficulty of proving the absence of economic transfe.
The recent judgment, however, brings a different perspective to what the court had been implementing until then. Minister Assusete Magalhães ruled out the need to comply with the aforementioned article 166, due to the fact that it was not an undue payment, but merely an exercise, by the substituted party, of crediting the difference between ministers Og Fernandes and Mauro Campbell Belgium Phone Number Data Marques. The decision serves as an important milestone, not as a simple acceptance of the thesis based on general repercussion, but as a paradigm shift, removing the need to highlight the transmission of the financial burden imposed on taxpayers to achieve the desired credits.
The controversy was presented before the Superior Court of Justice through Controversy No. 430, in REsp 1.989.421/MG, with minister Francisco Falcão as rapporteur, and by description "Need to comply with the provisions of article 166 of the CTN in situations in which the refund/compensation of amounts paid in excess as ICMS in the forward tax substitution regime is requested when the effective calculation basis of the operation is lower than the assumed one" . The state of Rio Grande do Sul even requested a new suspension of the judgment of the special appeal until the controversy was decided, which was unanimously ignored.
The recent judgment, however, brings a different perspective to what the court had been implementing until then. Minister Assusete Magalhães ruled out the need to comply with the aforementioned article 166, due to the fact that it was not an undue payment, but merely an exercise, by the substituted party, of crediting the difference between ministers Og Fernandes and Mauro Campbell Belgium Phone Number Data Marques. The decision serves as an important milestone, not as a simple acceptance of the thesis based on general repercussion, but as a paradigm shift, removing the need to highlight the transmission of the financial burden imposed on taxpayers to achieve the desired credits.
The controversy was presented before the Superior Court of Justice through Controversy No. 430, in REsp 1.989.421/MG, with minister Francisco Falcão as rapporteur, and by description "Need to comply with the provisions of article 166 of the CTN in situations in which the refund/compensation of amounts paid in excess as ICMS in the forward tax substitution regime is requested when the effective calculation basis of the operation is lower than the assumed one" . The state of Rio Grande do Sul even requested a new suspension of the judgment of the special appeal until the controversy was decided, which was unanimously ignored.