When the issue was raised only from the tribune

firoj3131

The Treasury, which saw itself as a loser during the session, or even only afterwards, in declaratory statements, modulation was granted in all these cases, because the mere need for restitution would be a "damage". Without going into the merits, here, of the question of whether there was any doubt about the essentiality of electrical energy, or the need for a complementary law to outline tax sunset deadlines, for example, the fact is that equal complacency has not been seen, in situations in which the new understanding, whose temporal limitation is considered, harms the taxpayer who was guided by previous criteria and the replaced decision.

In these cases, in fact, there is an aggravating factor: the taxpayer often relies on jurisprudence that already exists, which is peaceful, affirming the invalidity of the tax, and when the issue reaches the STF, it changes this understanding, starting to affirm that the tax is due. The change, which sometimes occurs in the jurisprudence of the Greater Court itself, takes taxpayers by surprise, and EX Mobile Phone Numbers punishes those who had even stopped paying the tax a long time ago. This was what happened, for example, with regard to the revocation of the Cofins exemption for professional societies, the invalidity of which had been recognized by the STJ (Summary 276/STJ), with the STF repeatedly stating that the issue was not its responsibility to examine , as it is merely infraconstitutional.




With the change in understanding, the revocation was declared valid, and due contribution from all those who had been coming for years without collecting it, for trusting in jurisprudence. Currently, the question is being raised before the court as to whether the decision that affirmed the validity of the employer's contribution on the third of vacation (RE 1,072,485) should be modulated. Many taxpayers had been, for years, without paying the tax, trusting in a peaceful jurisprudence formed in this regard. Until the Major Court affirms the validity of the charge, without any exception or exceptional observation regarding those who, based on the previous understanding, had not been collecting it.