| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.15 MB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Os contribuintes têm desde 2011 mais um meio de resolução de litígios alternativo aos tribunais tributário de 1a instância, que pretendia cumprir essencialmente três objetivos: reforçar a tutela dos direitos e interesses legalmente protegidos dos sujeitos passivos; imprimir uma maior celeridade na resolução de litígios que opõem a administração tributária ao sujeito passivo; e reduzir a pendência dos processos nos tribunais administrativos e fiscais. O que é certo é que estamos em 2019 e apesar do sucesso da sua implementação, não foram ainda cumpridos os objetivos na sua totalidade, originando uma urgente intervenção no sistema judicial português nomeadamente no que toca ao problema das pendências existentes nos tribunais tributários. Se a introdução da arbitragem tributária em Portugal, parece ter tido um percurso inspirador e eficaz, será da sua responsabilidade o não cumprimento de tais objetivos? Ou será que não lhes foram dados os instrumentos necessários para a prossecução daquilo a que se propuseram? Serão esses objetivos irreais? Os tribunais do CAAD têm uma média de resolução dos seus litígios de cerca de 4 meses e meio, um valor bastante mais reduzido que nos tribunais tributários, no entanto não se têm verificado grandes reduções no número de pendências, que continuam a ser cada vez mais preocupantes, uma vez que trazem sérias consequências para o desenvolvimento do país e colocam em causa a violação do princípio Constitucional do acesso à tutela jurisdicional efetiva. Até 2018, entraram 4.300 processos nos tribunais arbitrais do CAAD, um valor, manifestamente insuficiente para fazer cumprir o objetivo da redução de pendências uma vez que só no ano de 2017, entraram nos tribunais administrativos e fiscais de 1a instância 14.707 processos. De referir que os tribunais tributários não são competentes para decidir a grande maioria destes processos devido às suas limitações legislativas.
Since 2011, the taxpayers have another mean of dispute resolution alternative to the first instance tax courts, that essentially intended to fulfil three objectives: strengthen the protection of the legally protected rights and interests of taxable persons; speed up the resolution of disputes that oppose the tax administration to the taxable person; and reduce the backlog of proceedings in the administrative and tax courts. We are in 2019 and despite the success of the implementation have not yet been fully met, giving rise to urgent intervention in the Portuguese judicial system, particularly regarding the problem of outstanding issues in the tax courts. If the introduction of tax arbitrage in Portugal seems to have had an inspiring and effective course, is it its responsibility to fail to meet these objectives? Or were they not given the necessary tools to pursue what they set out to do? Are these goals unrealistic? CAAD courts have an average dispute resolution of around four and half months, a number much lower than in the tax courts, however there have been no major reductions in the number of backlogs, which remain increasingly worrying, since they have serious consequences for the country's development and call into question the violation of the constitutional principle of access to effective judicial protection. Until 2018, have entered 4,300 processes in the CAAD arbitration courts, a number manifestly insufficient to enforce the goal of reducing pending issues, since in 2017 alone 14,707 administrative and tax courts entered the lower courts. It should be noted that the tax courts are not competent to decide the vast majority of these cases due to their legislative limitations.
Since 2011, the taxpayers have another mean of dispute resolution alternative to the first instance tax courts, that essentially intended to fulfil three objectives: strengthen the protection of the legally protected rights and interests of taxable persons; speed up the resolution of disputes that oppose the tax administration to the taxable person; and reduce the backlog of proceedings in the administrative and tax courts. We are in 2019 and despite the success of the implementation have not yet been fully met, giving rise to urgent intervention in the Portuguese judicial system, particularly regarding the problem of outstanding issues in the tax courts. If the introduction of tax arbitrage in Portugal seems to have had an inspiring and effective course, is it its responsibility to fail to meet these objectives? Or were they not given the necessary tools to pursue what they set out to do? Are these goals unrealistic? CAAD courts have an average dispute resolution of around four and half months, a number much lower than in the tax courts, however there have been no major reductions in the number of backlogs, which remain increasingly worrying, since they have serious consequences for the country's development and call into question the violation of the constitutional principle of access to effective judicial protection. Until 2018, have entered 4,300 processes in the CAAD arbitration courts, a number manifestly insufficient to enforce the goal of reducing pending issues, since in 2017 alone 14,707 administrative and tax courts entered the lower courts. It should be noted that the tax courts are not competent to decide the vast majority of these cases due to their legislative limitations.
Description
Mestrado em Fiscalidade
Keywords
Arbitragem tributária Decisões arbitrais Meio alternativo de resolução de litígios Pendências Tribunais tributários Alternative means of dispute resolution Arbitration decisions Pendencies Tax arbitration Tax courts