The question arises whether the tax authority

firoj3131

power to draw up infraction notices using the interpretation of “service results” contrary to what was stated in the advisory statement, why could infraction notices be maintained by Carf under such an argument, rejected by the Federal Revenue Service itself? It is true that the administration acting as an enforcer of the law is not to be confused with the administration as a judging body. Furthermore, Carf, organically, is within the structure of the Ministry of Economy, but outside the Federal Revenue Service, so that statements made in consultation or disagreement solutions do not formally bind Carf.

However, none of this seems to justify, either by simple logic or by the content of the principle of equality, a response different from that reached by Carf : in the event that the Federal Revenue Service, in its advisory role, formalizes an interpretation favorable to the taxpayer, such an understanding deserves to be observed in the judgment EX Mobile Phone Numbers of tax charges from the same jurisdiction. After all, with the Federal Revenue — a body whose collection function is to look after the public assets of the Union, via the collection of taxes — saying that a given situation does not constitute a hypothesis of tax incidence, there is a manifestation of the State itself in favor of the individual that cannot be lightly surpassed.



In such a manifestation, the tax administration itself recognizes that there can be no taxation. Corroborating the point, the principle of self-binding of public administration comes to the fore . This principle, which aims to prohibit contradictory behaviors, makes perfect sense in the context of the dynamism of today's society, the lack of density of the law and the excess of legislation, which can give rise to changes in opinion and conduct in legal relations [3] . In short, the logic of prohibiting contradictory behavior is not to limit the freedom to change opinions and conduct in the legal sphere, but rather to halt the effects of this freedom when it results in harm to those who legitimately trust in the guidance that has been offered.