THREE ARGUMENTS TO DEFEND THE GUARANTEE OF JUDGMENT IN EMBARGOES ON TAX ENFORCEMENT: CRITICISTS TO THE STJ'S POSITIONING

Abstract

This research aims to demonstrate that the positioning of the STJ, demanding the guarantee of judgment for the processing of embargoes, goes against the valuation load of the constitutional rules brought with the CPC of 2015, the positioning of the Binding Precedent 28 of the STF and the principle of specialty. Using bibliographic research and the STJ's jurisprudence as a methodological option, the study begins by demonstrating that the legislator's option for the defense system in tax enforcement does not arise from the particularities of the relationship between the tax authorities and the taxpayer. Next, it is shown that the positioning based on the STJ by the systematic of repetitive appeals, under the aegis of the CPC of 1973, is not consistent with the constitutional principles foreseen in the CPC of 2015. In the end, it is concluded that the guarantee requirement of the court is in opposition to the position of the Supreme Court's Binding Precedent 28, since the same legal consequences of the annulment action must apply to embargoes on tax enforcement.

Keywords

• tax enforcement embargoes
• annulment action
• binding legal precedent 28
• neoprocessualism
• principle of specialty