THE BRAZILIAN SUPREME COURT'S PRECEDENTS AND THE CURIOUS TAXING DIFFERENCE ON THE AIR AND INLAND PASSENGER TRANSPORT

Authors

  • Marciano Seabra de Godoi Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais (PUC-Minas)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21783/rei.v2i1.47

Keywords:

Brazilian Supreme Court, Tax Precedents, ICMS, Passenger Transport Service, Air Transport, Inland Transport

Abstract

The study aims to the taxing of transport service provision, particularly the passenger transport, as well as the odd difference of treatment created directly by the Brazilian Supreme Court’s precedents, applying distinguished regimes for air passenger and inland. It discusses the evolution of legislation on the subject and, specially, it examines critically how the Supreme Court’s case law stood on the issue, through the judgment of many direct actions of unconstitutionality (ADI). The study considers legally inconsistent these precedents, in which is unconstitutional the tax collection over the air transport, but constitutional over the inland one.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Marciano Seabra de Godoi, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais (PUC-Minas)

SJD at Universidade Complutense de Madrid and LL.M. at Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG) in Tax Law. Professor of Faculdade Mineira de Direito, Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais (PUC-Minas). Lawyer.

References

BALEEIRO, Aliomar. Direito Tributário Brasileiro, 12.ª ed. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Forense, 2013.

GODOI, Marciano Seabra de. Imunidade Recíproca e Ordem Econômica: o Caso da Cessão do Uso de Bens Imóveis de Propriedade dos Entes Públicos e o IPTU. In: Valdir de Oliveira Rocha (Org.). Grandes Questões Atuais do Direito Tributário, Vol.15. São Paulo, SP: Dialética, 2011.

Published

2016-07-31

How to Cite

Godoi, M. S. de. (2016). THE BRAZILIAN SUPREME COURT’S PRECEDENTS AND THE CURIOUS TAXING DIFFERENCE ON THE AIR AND INLAND PASSENGER TRANSPORT. JOURNAL OF INSTITUTIONAL STUDIES, 2(1), 443–466. https://doi.org/10.21783/rei.v2i1.47

Issue

Section

Case Law Commentaries