<\/p>\n
In Theme 1317, the Superior Court of Justice held that, when a taxpayer withdraws tax enforcement objections (embargos \u00e0 execu\u00e7\u00e3o fiscal) in order to join an installment payment program or tax settlement that already includes the payment of attorneys\u2019 fees, it is not possible to charge an additional award of attorneys\u2019 fees. As the case was decided under the repetitive appeals system, the ruling must be followed by the lower courts.<\/p>\n
The withdrawal of tax enforcement objections is often a requirement for joining debt regularization programs. Reporting Justice Gurgel de Faria emphasized that charging attorneys\u2019 fees twice would constitute bis in idem<\/em>, since the amount agreed upon in the installment payment program generally already includes attorneys\u2019 fees. However, if the program does not include attorneys\u2019 fees, the Treasury may seek recovery after the termination of the objections.<\/p>\n The Justice also proposed the modulation of the effects of the ruling: the thesis will apply only to situations arising after March 18, 2025\u2014the date on which the matter began to be processed as a repetitive appeal\u2014or to cases in which there was already a specific challenge regarding the collection of attorneys\u2019 fees on that same date. The rationale is that, until then, case law permitted double recovery, an understanding that originated under the 1973 Code of Civil Procedure, which treated enforcement proceedings and objections as autonomous actions.<\/p>\n With the 2015 Code of Civil Procedure, Article 827 established that, if the objections are not upheld, the judge should merely increase the attorneys\u2019 fees already awarded in the enforcement proceeding, thereby altering the previous logic. The thesis established in Theme 1317 therefore updates the case law and ensures consistency within the legal system, while preserving amounts paid in duplicate prior to the modulation of effects.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In Theme 1317, the Superior Court of Justice held that, when a taxpayer withdraws tax enforcement […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":1556,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1555","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-artigo"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n