Post by xyz3000 on Feb 12, 2024 9:03:37 GMT
Anyone who is not a party to the process cannot raise a conflict of jurisdiction. The Code of Civil Procedure, article 116, establishes that the conflict can only be raised by the parties, the Public Prosecutor's Office or the judge. The understanding comes from the president of the Superior Court of Justice, minister Edson Vidigal, who extinguished the conflict of jurisdiction raised by Banco do Brasil against Ostriz Master Agro Comercial Impostação e Exportação. The bank wanted to decide which court is competent to resolve the fate of the company's financial resources. Ostriz Master is currently responding to a judicial recovery process being processed at the 11th Civil Court of Goiânia (GO). For the minister, as Banco do Brasil is not a party to the original proceedings, but merely the depository of resources belonging to one of the parties, it cannot give rise to a conflict of jurisdiction.
Part of the doctrine and jurisprudence has accepted the inclusion of divisions in the respective legal article. If this is the current understanding (apart from legal discussions that may arise), it remains to analyze the measures taken by the PGFN when including such companies as co-responsible in enforcement actions. In a spin-off, several companies can be formed. In fact, such legal entities may be Estonia Email List listed as the tax liability of the original company, as long as legal limits are respected. Companies resulting from spin-offs only become responsible for tax debts to the exact extent of their share in the capital of the spin-off company. Due to the lack of legal provisions regarding tax liability in spin-off operations, the PGFN cannot include companies resulting from spin-offs as responsible, indiscriminately, for existing debts.
This was what happened in the judgment of Ordinary Appeal 20010138069, in which the 2nd Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region (São Paulo) established the understanding that the payment of university course fees for the benefit of workers, as it is unnecessary for the development of his activities in the company consisted of salary. However, not all is lost. In the event of the employee using a company-owned vehicle outside of working hours, for private purposes, the TST pacified the issue in favor of the companies, through Jurisprudential Guideline 246, ruling out the salary nature of the benefit, as long as it is not offered as a consideration (“the use, by the employee, in private activities, of a vehicle provided for the company's work does not constitute a utility salary”). In any case, even though the Courts are becoming aware of the social side of the issue and observing the changes in society, there is little care when the company adopts policies to grant benefits to its employees.
Part of the doctrine and jurisprudence has accepted the inclusion of divisions in the respective legal article. If this is the current understanding (apart from legal discussions that may arise), it remains to analyze the measures taken by the PGFN when including such companies as co-responsible in enforcement actions. In a spin-off, several companies can be formed. In fact, such legal entities may be Estonia Email List listed as the tax liability of the original company, as long as legal limits are respected. Companies resulting from spin-offs only become responsible for tax debts to the exact extent of their share in the capital of the spin-off company. Due to the lack of legal provisions regarding tax liability in spin-off operations, the PGFN cannot include companies resulting from spin-offs as responsible, indiscriminately, for existing debts.
This was what happened in the judgment of Ordinary Appeal 20010138069, in which the 2nd Panel of the Regional Labor Court of the 2nd Region (São Paulo) established the understanding that the payment of university course fees for the benefit of workers, as it is unnecessary for the development of his activities in the company consisted of salary. However, not all is lost. In the event of the employee using a company-owned vehicle outside of working hours, for private purposes, the TST pacified the issue in favor of the companies, through Jurisprudential Guideline 246, ruling out the salary nature of the benefit, as long as it is not offered as a consideration (“the use, by the employee, in private activities, of a vehicle provided for the company's work does not constitute a utility salary”). In any case, even though the Courts are becoming aware of the social side of the issue and observing the changes in society, there is little care when the company adopts policies to grant benefits to its employees.