Post by account_disabled on Mar 11, 2024 5:44:14 GMT
The meeting of accounts between public entities and companies, provided for in Constitutional Amendment , has disciplinary laws in Brazilian states. As of the new law, Public Treasurys were obliged to accept court orders as a form of paying taxpayers' debts. Currently, Rio de Janeiro, Mato Grosso, Mato Grosso do Sul, Ceará, Maranhão, Roraima, Santa Catarina, Alagoas, Rio Grande do Norte, Amazonas and Pará, in addition to the Federal District, already have the law. In São Paulo, there is a bill being processed in the state Legislative Assembly. The information is from Valor Econômico .
Some state laws predate Constitutional Amendment , and were drawn up based on the interpretation of article of the National Tax Code, which would authorize the operation. According to lawyer Frederico Augusto Alves Oliveira Valtuille, president of the precatório commission of the Goiás section of the Brazilian Bar Association, Goiás had a rule that was revoked in "We are working on drafting a new law, based on in what was done in other states", says Valtuille.
In Rio de Janeiro, active debt compensation — of around Austria Phone Numbers List R$ billion — began this year, with the publication of Law ,, of The prosecutor's office received compensation requests from companies until May , and for , debts, court orders were offered. The proposals are under analysis by the body. According to Nilson Furtado, chief active debt attorney at the Rio de Janeiro State Attorney's Office, if all court orders are accepted, the state will pay off a liability of R$ billion in court orders. "It's a very significant reduction for the state," says Furtado.
In São Paulo, whose active debt is approximately R$ billion and needs to pay off R$ billion in court orders, there is still no legislation that allows compensation, just a bill that is being processed in the state's Legislative Assembly.
According to Flávio Brando, president of the precatório commission of the Brazilian Bar Association and president of the public debt commission of the OAB-SP, there are lawyers who try to compensate with precatório in the Judiciary, but the majority of judges have not accepted it, while there is no state law that disciplines it. "Most debtor companies buy court orders with the purpose of using them to guarantee execution", says Brando.
Context
Constitutional Amendment , of November , , known as the Precatório Amendment, changed the rules for the payment of these titles. The rule provides that states and municipalities can choose to pay off their debts in years or reserve a minimum percentage of their current monthly net income for payment, in chronological order. The amendment also forced public treasuries to accept court orders for the payment of taxpayer debts.
Likewise, debtors who have credits receivable from the Union, states or municipalities have no alternative but to settle outstanding debts through compensation. Until then, they could choose to receive the amounts owed, through court orders, and maintain the existing debt. Before these changes, the rules for payment were dictated by Constitutional Amendment , of September According to this rule, food court orders filed by July st of each year had to be paid by the end of the following year and non-food court orders in ten annual installments. The principle regarding the payment of food remains, but it was no longer being complied with by states and municipalities.
Some state laws predate Constitutional Amendment , and were drawn up based on the interpretation of article of the National Tax Code, which would authorize the operation. According to lawyer Frederico Augusto Alves Oliveira Valtuille, president of the precatório commission of the Goiás section of the Brazilian Bar Association, Goiás had a rule that was revoked in "We are working on drafting a new law, based on in what was done in other states", says Valtuille.
In Rio de Janeiro, active debt compensation — of around Austria Phone Numbers List R$ billion — began this year, with the publication of Law ,, of The prosecutor's office received compensation requests from companies until May , and for , debts, court orders were offered. The proposals are under analysis by the body. According to Nilson Furtado, chief active debt attorney at the Rio de Janeiro State Attorney's Office, if all court orders are accepted, the state will pay off a liability of R$ billion in court orders. "It's a very significant reduction for the state," says Furtado.
In São Paulo, whose active debt is approximately R$ billion and needs to pay off R$ billion in court orders, there is still no legislation that allows compensation, just a bill that is being processed in the state's Legislative Assembly.
According to Flávio Brando, president of the precatório commission of the Brazilian Bar Association and president of the public debt commission of the OAB-SP, there are lawyers who try to compensate with precatório in the Judiciary, but the majority of judges have not accepted it, while there is no state law that disciplines it. "Most debtor companies buy court orders with the purpose of using them to guarantee execution", says Brando.
Context
Constitutional Amendment , of November , , known as the Precatório Amendment, changed the rules for the payment of these titles. The rule provides that states and municipalities can choose to pay off their debts in years or reserve a minimum percentage of their current monthly net income for payment, in chronological order. The amendment also forced public treasuries to accept court orders for the payment of taxpayer debts.
Likewise, debtors who have credits receivable from the Union, states or municipalities have no alternative but to settle outstanding debts through compensation. Until then, they could choose to receive the amounts owed, through court orders, and maintain the existing debt. Before these changes, the rules for payment were dictated by Constitutional Amendment , of September According to this rule, food court orders filed by July st of each year had to be paid by the end of the following year and non-food court orders in ten annual installments. The principle regarding the payment of food remains, but it was no longer being complied with by states and municipalities.