By five votes to three, the counselors of the 3rd Panel of the Superior Chamber of the Administrative Council of Tax Appeals (Carf) understood that an error in identifying the taxpayer in the tax assessment resulted in the nullity of the infraction notice due to a formal defect. In the understanding of the panel, the inspection had a plausible reason that led it to make the error, and the assessment should be annulled, but with the possibility of a new assessment.
When there is an error in the tax assessment formation process, there are two possible scenarios: formal defect, which occurs when the defect is caused by non-compliance with formalities essential to the existence of the tax assessment, but which has a reason. Material defect occurs when there is an error in an essential element without a reason. Only if the first hypothesis is characterized, the infraction notice is annulled with the possibility of the tax authorities proceeding with a new assessment.
The case in question, involving Net São Paulo Ltda., is an exception due to its peculiarity. This is because it has already been established in the Superior Court that an error in identifying the taxpayer should result in the nullity of the infraction notice due to a material defect. This understanding is present in judgments 9101-001.705, 9303-011.707 and 9303-011.573.
The taxpayer was fined for receiving transfers of amounts from companies in the same group for the payment of common expenses, an operation that the inspection understood to be characterized as a loan, resulting in the incidence of IOF.
For the taxpayer, the notice of violation is null and void due to a material defect, since it had been the target of incorporation by another company in the group one year before the tax assessment, and the incorporating company, and not the incorporated company, should be fined. The argument was based on article 142 of the National Tax Code (CTN). However, the National Treasury Attorney's Office alleged that at the time of the tax assessment the taxpayer had not changed the CNPJ.
For the rapporteur, counselor Jorge Olmiro Lock Freire, “in the case in question, there was an error in identifying the passive subject, but which, however, cannot be considered as being of a material nature, because if that were the case, it would be stating that the legal fact did not exist”.
In other words, for him, the infraction was committed by the taxpayer, who simply changed his CNPJ, therefore the assessment should be maintained, only making the necessary corrections. The judge considers that the case demonstrates the reason for the error committed and does not prevent the real taxpayer from defending himself. Four counselors supported him.
Councilor Tatiana Midori Migiyama dissented. For her, the error in identifying the taxpayer affects one of the essential elements for tax assessment and, therefore, should be classified as a material defect, resulting in the cancellation of the infraction notice, regardless of whether or not there is a reason. Two other councilors agreed with her.
The process is number 10314.726343/2014-21.