The “Summarization” of Brazilian Tax Law

manipulating the Objective Scope of Judgments through the “Judgment Thesis”

Authors

  • Paulo Arthur Cavalcante Koury Mestrando em Direito Tributário na Universidade de São Paulo

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.46801/2595-6280.55.12.2023.2459

Keywords:

general repercussion, repetitive cases, tax law, thesis

Abstract

This article aims to examine the hypothesis that the manipulation of the scope of precedents through “judgment theses” in repetitive cases before the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) and the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), as well as in lawsuits of concentrated constitutional control in the STF, especially in tax matters, constitutes a violation of the 1988 Federal Constitution. To attain this goal, two examples of the formation and application of “judgment theses” by the High Courts themselves are initially analyzed, demonstrating their treatment as effective statements from which general and abstract norms are reconstructed, with a scope that is entirely distinct from the cases brought before their respective courts. Then, it is shown that there are no infraconstitutional grounds to justify this way of establishing and applying “judgment theses”, neither in the 1973 Code of Civil Procedure nor in the current code. In conclusion, it is found that this method of forming and applying the thesis-setting regime is unconstitutional due to a violation of the principle of separation of powers.

References

ÁVILA, Humberto. Legalidade Tributária Material. Conteúdo, critérios e medida do dever de determinação. São Paulo: JusPodium/Malheiros, 2022.

BACH, Kent. Meaning. In. NADEL, Lynn (org.) Encyclopedia of Cognitive Science, v. 2, 2003.

BARROSO, Luís Roberto. O controle de constitucionalidade no direito brasileiro. 7. Ed. São Paulo: Saraiva, 2016.

BULYGIN, Eugenio. Judicial Decisions and the Creation of Law. In. Essays in Legal Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University, 2015.

BUSTAMANTE, Thomas da Rosa. Teoria do Precedente Judicial. A justificação e a aplicação das regras jurisprudenciais. São Paulo: Noeses, 2012.

CANOTILHO, José Joaquim Gomes. Direito Constitucional e Teoria da Constituição. 4. ed. Coimbra: Almedina, 1987.

DERZI, Misabel Abreu Machado. Modificações da Jurisprudência no Direito Tributário. Proteção da confiança, boa-fé objetiva e irretroatividade como limitações constitucionais ao poder de tributar. São Paulo: Noeses, 2009.

DUXBURY, Neil. The Nature and Authority of Precedent. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 2008.

FAGUNDES, Miguel Seabra. O Controle dos Atos Administrativos pelo Poder Judiciário. 5. ed. Rio de Janeiro: Forense, 1979.

GUASTINI, Riccardo. Filosofia del diritto positivo: lezione a cura di vito velluzzi. Torino: Giappichelli, 2017.

HAGE, Jaap C. Reasoning with Rules – an Essay on Legal Reasoning and its Underlying Logic. Dordrecht, Kluwer, 1997.

KOURY, Paulo Arthur Cavalcante. Competência Regulamentar em Matéria Tributária. Funções e limites dos decretos, instruções normativas e outros atos regulamentares. Belo Horizonte: Fórum, 2019.

______. Forma e Substância no Direito Tributário. São Paulo: IBDT, 2021.

LEAL, Victor Nunes. Passado e futuro na súmula do STF. Revista de Direito Administrativo, v.145, p. 1-20, jul./set. 1981.

MACCORMICK, Neil. Rhetoric and the Rule of Law. A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University, 2005.

MARINONI, Luiz Guilherme. Precedentes Obrigatórios. 7. ed. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2022.

MITIDIERO, Daniel. Precedentes: da persuasão à vinculação. 4. ed. São Paulo: Revista dos Tribunais, 2021.

PECZENIK, Aleksander. On Law and Reason. Heidelberg: Springer, 2009.

SCHAUER, Frederick F. Playing by the Rules – A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision-Making in Law and in Life. Oxford: Clarendon, 1991.

______. Precedent. In. Stanford Law Review, Vol. 39, N. 3, 1987.

Published

2023-12-09

How to Cite

Koury, P. A. C. (2023). The “Summarization” of Brazilian Tax Law: manipulating the Objective Scope of Judgments through the “Judgment Thesis”. Revista Direito Tributário Atual, (55), 328–347. https://doi.org/10.46801/2595-6280.55.12.2023.2459

Issue

Section

Doutrina Nacional (Double Peer Reviewed)