Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 21:38:46 GMT -6
Furthermore the STJ had already defined through Precedent No. that the statute of limitations may be interrupted with proof of effective attachment or with the effective summons of the judgment debtor. Therefore it can be said that in the STJ's view the initial milestone for the period for suspending the process begins from the date of the Public Treasury's knowledge regarding the debtor's non-location or non-existence of seizable assets.
Consequently once the suspension period has elapsed the statute of limitations begins automatically.
For the interruption to be characterized CG Leads the debtor must be summoned or an effective asset constriction must occur with a mere petition in court requesting the restrictive acts not being sufficient and it is up to the Public Treasury to prove any interruption or suspension at the first opportunity to express itself in the case.
The issue was also brought to the consideration of the STF in the judgment of Extraordinary Appeal No. Theme of general repercussion recently judged on February .
The Supreme Court was encouraged to comment on the possibility of the the requirement for a complementary law to regulate the institute of tax prescription under the terms of article III b of the Constitution having expressed in the following sense:
“Art. of Law No. LEF Tax Execution Law the period of one year of suspension of tax execution being procedural in nature. After the expiration of this period the tax limitation period of five years automatically begins to count.”
In this sense the suspension of execution for a period of one year provided for in the LEF is merely procedural in nature. To this extent after the end of the filing period the prescription period automatically begins which is five years as provided for in article of the CTN received by the Constitution with the status of a complementary law.
Thus the Federal Supreme Court upon understanding that the LEF established in fact only a new initial term concluded that the aforementioned provision was constitutional so that it would be possible for ordinary law to establish a new time frame for counting the statute of limitations as there was no it is an affront to the imperativeness of provision in a complementary law since the institute is already provided for in the National Tax Code.
Consequently once the suspension period has elapsed the statute of limitations begins automatically.
For the interruption to be characterized CG Leads the debtor must be summoned or an effective asset constriction must occur with a mere petition in court requesting the restrictive acts not being sufficient and it is up to the Public Treasury to prove any interruption or suspension at the first opportunity to express itself in the case.
The issue was also brought to the consideration of the STF in the judgment of Extraordinary Appeal No. Theme of general repercussion recently judged on February .
The Supreme Court was encouraged to comment on the possibility of the the requirement for a complementary law to regulate the institute of tax prescription under the terms of article III b of the Constitution having expressed in the following sense:
“Art. of Law No. LEF Tax Execution Law the period of one year of suspension of tax execution being procedural in nature. After the expiration of this period the tax limitation period of five years automatically begins to count.”
In this sense the suspension of execution for a period of one year provided for in the LEF is merely procedural in nature. To this extent after the end of the filing period the prescription period automatically begins which is five years as provided for in article of the CTN received by the Constitution with the status of a complementary law.
Thus the Federal Supreme Court upon understanding that the LEF established in fact only a new initial term concluded that the aforementioned provision was constitutional so that it would be possible for ordinary law to establish a new time frame for counting the statute of limitations as there was no it is an affront to the imperativeness of provision in a complementary law since the institute is already provided for in the National Tax Code.