Diploma thesis deals with impact of tax practice of the courts on tax collection procedure. The tax collection procedure is an optional part of the tax proceeding and tops the entire process of tax collection. If taxable person fails his tax liability, the tax administrator will be authorized to order a tax execution. Tax administrator follows the act about tax administration. The main object of the thesis was to evaluate the imperfections of this act and express the conclusions about the possibility of judicature to provide enough support of the act's application in praxis. Concurrently was appraised the influence of new procedual act, which was passed and is going to come into effect next year. The conclusions arise from the historical and law analysis.

Recovery of tax arrears and tax execution Abstract The aim of this diploma thesis is the processing of the topic of tax arrears recovery and tax execution, which are crucial areas in the legislation of all democratic rule of law. My original intention was to focus on the analysis of legislation, but also on practical issues, real problems and their possible solutions. I divided the thesis into four parts, which are further divided into chapters and subchapters. The first part of the thesis is devoted to the current legal regulation of the recovery of tax arrears, which is largely embodied in the Rules of Tax Procedure. In several cases significant changes have occurred with the legal effect of this Act, in such cases the comparison with the previous legislation was made. Recovery of tax arrears in the meaning of the term covering various ways of recovery including tax execution is modified in the second part of this thesis. In this part the major focus was given on the statutory procedures during the recovery of arrears through a bailiff and during the recovery of the tax administrator's claim against the tax debtor in insolvency proceedings. Since these two ways are primarily governed by different laws than tax execution, I particularly tried to emphasize the differences between the methods of recovery...

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:23:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Hye Jin Kim.pdf: 2120590 bytes, checksum: f1402761bb7f5f4c3856720ad725672d (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-03-09 / This work aims to investigate the legal nature as well as the legal regime of intervening limitation provided by article 40, paragraph 4, Tax Execution Law, distinguishing it from the limitation of the article 174, National Internal Tax Code. Before studying limitation itself, we delimit the requirements, highlight the importance of language to understand and to create the reality, including the legal reality, harmonize several legal system studies, conceptualize rule of law and explain the correspondent classifications. We found that there is no general theory of limitation and this figure comes from a legal and positive concept, which means, it depends on a statutory provision to verify its nature. Given this conclusion, we separate the primary rule of limitation (substantive rule) from the secondary rule of limitation (procedure rule). We defend that article 40, paragraph 4, Tax Execution Law, is constitutional, extracting from it, choosing from the many interpretations possible, the one that is compatible with the Constitution. In this context, in order to differentiate these figures, we delimited the legal regime of the substantive rule of limitation, provided for article 174, National Internal Tax Code, with the tax constitutional principles, the requirement of declaratory statute to provide about it, as well as its application before, during and after the tax execution. We also outlined the legal regime of the procedure rule of limitation, provided for article 40, paragraph 4, Tax Execution Law, with the procedural constitutional principles and tax execution principles, the requirement of ordinary law, the adoption of the reception theory, the intertemporal issues, and the applicability of this provision by analogy to other situations / O presente trabalho cinge-se à investigação da natureza jurídica, assim como do regime jurídico da prescrição intercorrente prevista no art. 40, §4º, LEF, tendo em vista a sua confusão com a prescrição do art. 174, CTN. Após a delimitação dos pressupostos, o destacamento da importância da linguagem na compreensão e na constituição da realidade, inclusive a jurídica, a compatibilização dos estudos do sistema jurídico, bem como a conceituação da norma jurídica e as classificações pertinentes, aprofundamos o estudo da prescrição. Verificamos que não há uma teoria geral da prescrição, advindo esta figura de um conceito jurídico-positivo, ou seja, depende de uma previsão legal para verificar a sua conformação. Diante desta conclusão, separamos a norma primária de prescrição (de direito material) da norma secundária de prescrição (de direito processual), pois há previsão legal neste sentido: art. 174, CTN, e art. 40, §4º, LEF. Defendemos a constitucionalidade do art. 40, §4º, LEF, tendo em vista o princípio da interpretação em conforme a Constituição. Neste contexto, com o fim de diferenciar estas figuras, delimitamos o regime jurídico da norma primária de prescrição, prevista no art. 174, CTN, com os princípios constitucionais tributários, a exigência de lei complementar para dispor sobre ela, bem como a sua aplicação antes, durante e depois da execução fiscal. Também delineamos o regime jurídico da norma secundária de prescrição, prevista no art. 40, §4º, LEF, com os princípios constitucionais processuais e de execução, a exigência de lei ordinária, a aplicação da teoria da recepção, as questões intertemporais, bem como a possibilidade de aplicação deste dispositivo por analogia