Entrepreneurs reacted strongly to the state government, which vetoed Draft Supplemental Law 8.4/2020, which establishes that in the event of equality of decisions of the TAT (Administrative Tributary Court) of Santa Catarina, the decision will be in favor of the taxpayer.

President urges all leaders to have Governor’s veto overturned by state MPs – Photo: Video reproduction/ND

“The business sector considers this decision an unexpected step backwards, as the project was unanimously approved by state deputies,” said Fiesc (Santa Catarina Federation of Industry) President Mario César de Aguiar.

“The new law puts Santa Catarina in line with federal law, where Congress has already positioned itself in the same way,” he added.

Aguiar asked that the industrial sector remain mobilized to correct this mistake. “The law reflects the long-term joint work of the society and the Assembly. In the event of a tie, the discussion of tax issues will be dominated by the interpretation that is most favorable to the taxpayer,” he said.

President Fiesc emphasized that the government should recognize and appreciate the importance of business activity, especially industry, in creating jobs, taxes and improving the quality of life of the population. Aguiar said he was convinced that the deputies would overthrow the veto.

Facisc wants Moses’ veto overturned – Photo: Facisc

Facisc (Federation of Business Associations of Santa Catarina) was another organization that expressed dissatisfaction with the government’s veto. The organization’s president, Sergio Rodriguez Alves, said: “We support the supplementary law. This is a matter of tax justice,” he defended.

Rodriguez says Gov. Carlos Moises’ veto was expected. “Facisc didn’t expect anything else, as allegations of a formal flaw in the project initiative, an imbalance between taxpayer and taxpayer, hurt the treasury.”

The president of the organization pointed out that, as a rule, the processes that are submitted for dispute resolution are questions of a dubious nature that do not always deserve to be favorable to the tax authorities, they are those that cause interpretations for both parties, and it is unfair that the taxpayer always loses.

“This is the reason for tax fairness. If there is already equality, then this is because there is no solution, and the taxpayer, to the extent of his ability to prove that there was no misconduct.

Understand what’s in the bill

Rep. Milton Hobus’s (PSD) proposal, approved unanimously by Alesk about a month ago, in practice favors taxpayers in decisions that end in draws.

MP Milton Hobus is the author of a motion that would invalidate the mining vote — Photo: Milton Hobus/Disclosure/ND

Today, anyone questioning tax collection in Santa Catarina uses the TAT, which is made up of 50% civil servants and 50% civil society representatives such as organizations and associations.

However, in case of equality of votes, the last word is given by the president of this collegium, who is also appointed by the state. As a result, most sentences are against the citizen.

The deputy regretted the governor’s decision and said that he would talk to the deputies. “This issue is already being discussed at the federal level, and a majority of Federal Supreme Court justices are in favor of ending this crucial vote. I refer to the principle of defendant protection, which, in short, means that you cannot decide on a conviction without forming a majority, ”commented Hobus.

Veto recommended by prosecutors, government says

The requested state government advised that a veto of the proposal was recommended, in the opinion of the Attorney General’s Office and legal advice from the Secretary of the Treasury, as unconstitutional in passing legislation on a matter within the exclusive purview of the executive branch.

According to the government, “the result of the proposed change will be exactly the opposite of what was expected, since the final decision, always in favor of the taxpayer, can actually harm the State Treasury, that is, all taxpayers,” he justified. .

“This is due to the fact that, according to the proposal, the state, in the event of an equality of votes, will not be able to seek a review in the court of a decision that is against it. A taxpayer (individual or company), on the contrary, can always go to court,” he added.

The government argued that by prohibiting the state from accessing the judiciary, the PLC violated the so-called principle of “no access” to the judiciary, as well as the principle of the presumption of legitimacy of administrative acts.