Post by account_disabled on Mar 13, 2024 19:38:08 GMT -8
The diagnosis covering these approximately four years brings as an estimate the presentation of new legal actions by the Public Treasury in the period with only extinctions taking place based on article II of the CPC debt satisfaction in the same elapsed time that is only . of the executions evaluated had their debt fully satisfied.
In this scenario it is clear that the public administration finds it difficult to timely receive the amounts it deems due and the decree of intercurrent prescription has been presented as an effective tool even in defending the public interest far beyond the executed part at the same time as it disadvantages the expense of amounts in legal processes that have been ongoing for years with the Judiciary making it impossible to satisfactorily respond to the growing number of legal demands that are presented.
Furthermore it is clear that legal proceedings CG Leads should not last forever due to the cogent application of the Principle of Legal Security with the prescription of credit being the necessary measure. With this institute the right to claim granted to the Public Treasury to continue with the collection of the tax credit is lost by demonstrating the impossibility of carrying out the due collection in a period longer than the statute of limitations for the right being claimed.
Specifically under the terms of article of the entity has five years to carry out the respective collection after which the possibility of the credit will be considered as prescribed.
Thus the question and topic under analysis arises: how is this period counted and when will the effective intercurrent prescription of credits be decreed?
In accordance with the LEF forecast and current jurisprudence in general terms the intercurrent prescription occurs as follows: after the order determining the summons if the debtor or assets subject to seizure are not located the judge will suspend the tax execution for a period of one year. After this period has elapsed without seizable assets having yet been located the judge will order the case to be archived at which point the statute of limitations period will begin. Finally after the five-year period has elapsed the judge may decree ex officio the interim prescription .
Despite appearing to be easy to understand the different interpretations of the text and jurisprudence ended up specializing and endorsing the current understanding regarding the application of this institute.
In this scenario it is clear that the public administration finds it difficult to timely receive the amounts it deems due and the decree of intercurrent prescription has been presented as an effective tool even in defending the public interest far beyond the executed part at the same time as it disadvantages the expense of amounts in legal processes that have been ongoing for years with the Judiciary making it impossible to satisfactorily respond to the growing number of legal demands that are presented.
Furthermore it is clear that legal proceedings CG Leads should not last forever due to the cogent application of the Principle of Legal Security with the prescription of credit being the necessary measure. With this institute the right to claim granted to the Public Treasury to continue with the collection of the tax credit is lost by demonstrating the impossibility of carrying out the due collection in a period longer than the statute of limitations for the right being claimed.
Specifically under the terms of article of the entity has five years to carry out the respective collection after which the possibility of the credit will be considered as prescribed.
Thus the question and topic under analysis arises: how is this period counted and when will the effective intercurrent prescription of credits be decreed?
In accordance with the LEF forecast and current jurisprudence in general terms the intercurrent prescription occurs as follows: after the order determining the summons if the debtor or assets subject to seizure are not located the judge will suspend the tax execution for a period of one year. After this period has elapsed without seizable assets having yet been located the judge will order the case to be archived at which point the statute of limitations period will begin. Finally after the five-year period has elapsed the judge may decree ex officio the interim prescription .
Despite appearing to be easy to understand the different interpretations of the text and jurisprudence ended up specializing and endorsing the current understanding regarding the application of this institute.