The Federal Court partially approved a request for a preliminary injunction from Sport Club Corinthians Paulista and suspended the liability of tax debts to the Federal Revenue in the amount of more than R $ 487 million, as well as determined that a new opportunity for the club to present a voluntary appeal to the Administrative Council of Tax Appeals (Carf) within 15 days. The decision is made by federal judge Leonardo Safi de Melo, of the 21st Federal Civil Court of São Paulo / SP.

Corinthians claims to have been surprised at the drawing up of four tax assessments, which were intended to collect tax debts related to IRPJ, CSLL, Pis and Cofins, due to the suspension of the exemption that was justified. According to the club, when accessing the progress of administrative procedures, it verified the consignment of them to Carf – second administrative instance, but never was notified of any decision of first instance.

Still in its allegations, the club states that it was informed by the Internal Revenue Service that the subpoenas had been made through the DTe (Electronic Tax Domicile), so that the deadline for submission of appeals had elapsed. He then filed petitions requesting further subpoenas, which were denied.

Therefore, the club understands that there has been an addiction to administrative procedures, due to the nullity of a subpoena within the first administrative instance and filed a writ of mandamus in the Judiciary.

In a first analysis, his request was denied by having Judge Paulo Cezar Duran, who officiated at the 21st Vara at the time, understood that the documentary evidence was insufficient to defer to the injunction. As a result of this, Corinthians filed declaratory appeals of the decision.

Leonardo Safi de Melo explains that declaratory appeals are a type of appeal that has an integrative and non-amending character, and the new decision is part of the embargoed decision in order to result in a single judgment.

The magistrate affirms that the club never chose DTe as a tax domicile for the purpose of receiving its subpoenas at the federal level, "which evidently makes completely null and void its subpoena in this way, also making void all subsequent administrative proceedings." He adds that, until then, the club has always and invariably been notified by personal or postal routes.

"The writ of mandamus, constitutional cradle action, is intended to protect the right and net, whenever someone is suffering, or on the verge of suffering, illegality or abuse of power emanating from authority," explains the judge.

Finally, Leonardo de Melo points out that, in order to grant an injunction, "the right affirmed by the interested party must present itself in a high degree of probability not only in function of his arguments, but also of the demonstration collection that he can gather until the moment invokes him before the Judiciary to obtain the guardianship of urgency; which occurred in the present case. "  (FRC)

Mandate for Security 5005566-23.2018.403.6100 – Full decision via: www.jfsp.jus.br