The Application of Judicial Precedents as a Way to Reduce Brazilians Tax Lawsuits
- 1 Pontificial Catholic University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Abstract
This article aims to analyze the thesis that the application of the doctrine of precedent, originated in England, could reduce judicial litigation in Brazil, mainly in tax law procedures, such as tax enforcement. Brazil Law applies Civil Law, which means that the law is based on the principle of legality. However, the Brazilian Judiciary System is costly and has lower effectiveness. To deal with these problems, the National Congress has changed the law, providing mechanisms from the Common Law, mainly by introducing the binding precedents system. Respect for precedent is a requirement of the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code of 2015. However, the theory of precedent was developed in a society culturally very different from the Brazilian, which leads to the need for comparisons such as the exposed here that will justify the differences facing the source procedure that will undoubtedly occur. However, there are doubts if the transformation of the legal system will reduce the impressive figures of judicial cases. Nevertheless, the conclusion is definite. The precedent theory involves techniques that can potentially reduce tax lawsuits, representing a significant number of all legal disputes in Brazil. This conclusion was reached through data analysis, some doctrinal sources, and, mainly, by the author’s reflections. This mix of scientific method verifies the hypothesis: describes and analyses the system and presents a definite conclusion.
- Andrews, N. (2012). O modern processo civil: Formas judiciais e alternativas de resolução de conflitos na Inglaterra (2nd ed. Rev.). at. e ampl. Orientação e revisão da tradução por Teresa Arruda Alvim Wambier. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais.
- Brazil. Constitution of the Federative Republic of Brazil (3rd ed., p. 15). Biblioteca Digital da Camara dos Deputados. Brasília. http://english.tse.jus.br/arquivos/federal-constitution
- Brazil. Justiça em Números 2016 (ano-base 2015). https://www.cnj.jus.br/
- Brazil. Justiça em Números 2017 (ano-base 2016). https://www.cnj.jus.br/
- Brazil. Justiça em Números 2018 (ano-base 2017). https://www.cnj.jus.br/
- Brazil. Notícias do STF (December 12th, 2014). http://www.stf.jus.br
- Brazil. Relatório Estatístico de 2018. http://www.stj.jus.br
- Brazil. Superior Tribunal de Justiça. AgRg no REsp 382.736-SC. Publ. 03/03/2011. http://www.stj.jus.br
- Brazil. Supremo Tribunal Federal. Reclamação 4.335 Acre. Plenário. Justice Teori Zavascki. Voto-vista (pp. 6-21). http://www.stf.jus.br
- Bueno, C. S. (2015). Manual de direito processual civil. São Paulo: Saraiva.
- Canotilho, J. J. G. (1991). Direito Constitucional. Coimbra: Almedina.
- Cross, R. (2006). Statutory Interpretation (3rd ed.). Oxford: LexisNexis.
- Cross, R., & Harris, J. W. (2004). Precedent in English Law. Oxford: Clarendon.
- Da Ros, L. (2015). O custo da Justiça no Brasil: Uma análise comparativa exploratória. Newsletter. Observatório de elites políticas e sociais do Brasil. NUSP/UFPR, v. 2, n. 9.
- Delgado, J. (2011). A imprevisibilidade das decisões judiciais.
- Duxbury, N. (2008). The Nature and Authority of Precedents. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Kravchychyn, J. (2010). Brasil, sozinho, tem mais faculdades de direito que todos os países. http://www.oab.org.br
- Lee, J. (2011). From House of Lords to Supreme Court: Judges, Jurists and the Process of Judging. Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart.
- Manchester, C., & Salter, D. (2011). Manchester and Salter on Exploring the Law: The Dynamics of Precedent and Statutory Interpretation (4th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.