REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS
BURNHAM, William. Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1995.
CARP, Robert A. The Federal Courts. 3.ed. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Inc, 1998.
CARP, Robert A.; STIDHAM, Ronald. Judicial Process in America. 5.ed. Washington: Congressional Quarterly Inc, 2001.
COOPER, Phillip J. Battles on the Bench: conflict inside the Supreme Court. Lawrence: University Press Kansas, 1995.
CORTNER, Richard C. The Bureaucracy in Court. Port Washington, NY/ London: Kennikat Press, 1982.
FISHER III, William W.; HORWITZ, Morton J.; REED, Thomas A. American Legal Realism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
FRIEDMAN, Lawrence M. American Law – an introduction. 2. ed. New york/London: W. W. Norton & Company, 1998.
_______. Law in America. A Short History. New York: The Modern Library, 2002.
GIFIS, Steven H. Barron’s Law Dictionary. New York: Barron’s, 1996.
GROSSMAN, George S. The Spirit of American Law. Boulder: Westview Press, 2000.
HALL, Kermit L. (ed.) The Oxford Companion to American Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
_______. The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
HAZARD JR., Geoffrey C.; TARUFFO, Michele. American Civil Procedure. New Haven e London: Yale University Press, 1993.
KAFKA, Gerald A; CAVANAGH, Rita A. Litigation of Federal Civil Tax Controversies. 2. ed. Boston: Warren, Gorham & Lamont / RIA Group, 1997.
KALMAN, Laura. Legal Realism at Yale, 1927-1960. Chapel Hill/London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1986.
MAYERS, Lewis. The American Legal System. Edição revisada. Littleton: Fred B. Rothman & Co., 1981.
MEADOR, Daniel John. American Courts. St. Paul: West Group, 2000.
MELDMAN, Robert E.; SIDEMAN, Richard J. Federal Taxation – Practice and Procedure. 5.ed. Chicago: CCH Incorporated, 1998.
MORGAN, Patricia T. Tax Procedure and Tax Fraud in a Nutshell. St. Paul: West Group, 1999.
STRAUSS, Peter L. An Introduction to Administrative Justice in the United States. Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press, 1989.
WOLFMAN, Bernard; HOLDEN, James P. Ethical Problems in Federal Tax Practice. Charlottesville, Virginia: Michie Bobbs-Merrill Law Publishers, 1981.
NOTAS
01 Robert A. Carp, Melinda G. Hall, Susan G. Mezey e Marc A. Graber, United States Courts, in The Oxford Companion to American Law, p. 174 e ss.
02 Robert A. Carp e Ronald Stidham, The Federal Courts, p. 28. As cortes criadas pelo poder legislativo chamam-se de Legislative Courts e foram criadas nos termos do artigo 1º. da constituição dos Estados Unidos. As cortes criadas pelo poder judiciário, decorrentes do artigo 3º. da constituição são conhecidas como Constitutional Courts.
03 As Court of Appeals estão localizadas em Boston, Nova Iorque, Philadélphia, Richmond, Nova Orleans, Cincinatti, Chicago, Saint Louis, São Francisco, Denver, Atlanta, e há duas em Washington, a do Circuito do Distrito de Columbia e a do Circuito Federal (Federal Circuit). Daniel John Meador, American Courts, p. 92 e ss.
04 Philip J. Cooper, Battles on the Bench, Peter Irons, A People’s History of the Supreme Court, Lucas A. Powe Jr., The Warren Court and American Politics, Howard Gillman, The Constitution Besieged.
05 William Burnham, Introduction to the Law and Legal System of the United States, p. 183.
06 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, p. 62 e ss.
07 Peter L. Strauss, An Introduction to Administrative Justice in the United States, p. 111 e ss.
08 Richard C. Cortner, The Bureaucracy in Court, p. 74 e ss.
09 Robert A. Carp e Ronald Stidham, Judicial Process in America, p. 46 e ss.
10 Daniel John Meador, op,cit,loc. cit.
11 E. Allan Farnsworth, An Introduction to the Legal System of the United States, p. 44.
12 304 U.S. 64 (1938).
13 Kermitt L. Hall, The Oxford Guide to United States Supreme Court Decisions, p. 85 e ss.
14 Patricia T. Morgan, Tax Procedure and Tax Fraud, p. 98. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. The Tax Court is the forum chosen by the most taxpayers, although statistics show that the taxpayer loses more often in the Tax Court than in the other forums.
15 Gerald A. Kafka e Rita A. Cavanagh, Litigation of Federal Civil Tax Controversies, p. 1.02. Traducão e adaptação livre do autor. One of the most significant differences among the available trial forums is the necessity of prepayment of the tax. Payment of the tax is not required to commence deficiency litigation in the Tax Court. Indeed, the Tax Court can be deprived of jurisdiction if payment is made before issuance of the statutory notice of deficiency.
15 Patricia T. Morgan, op. cit., loc. cit. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. For this reason, it is sometimes referred to as the "poor man’s court".
16 Patricia T. Morgan, op. cit., loc. cit. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. The single most important feature of the U.S. Tax Court is that it is the only forum that does not require that the taxpayer first pay the disputed tax in order to file suit.
17 James P. Levine, Jury in The Oxford Companion to American Law, p. 454 e ss.
18 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, Tax Controversies, Practice and Procedure, p. 280.
20Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7441.
21Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7443 (a).
22Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7443 (b).
23Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7443 (c).
24Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7443 (d).
25 Patricia T. Morgan, op. cit. p. 101.
26 Gerald A. Kafka e Rita A. Cavanagh, Litigation of Federal Civil Tax Controversies, p. 1.06 [1].
27Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7443 (e).
28 Patricia T. Morgan, op. cit. p. 100. Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7447.
29 Patricia T. Morgan, op. cit., loc. cit.
30Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7443 (f).
31Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7443 (g).
32Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7451.
33Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7452. Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit., p. 280.
34 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit., loc. cit.
35Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7461.
36Tax Court Rule 13.
37Tax Court Rule 33.
38Tax Court Rule 1 (b). Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. These Rules shall be construed to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every case.
39Tax Court Rule 70.
40Tax Court Rule 13.
41 Tax Court Rule 13. Robert E. Meldman e Richard J. Sideman, Federal Taxation, Practice and Procedure, p. 129. Patricia T. Morgan, op. cit. p. 102.
42 Gerald A. Kafka e Rita A. Cavanagh, Litigation of Federal Civil Tax Controversies, p. 2.02 [2]. Uma vez escolhida, a jurisdição da tax court é absoluta, cobrindo toda a matéria referente à fixação dos valores devidos pelo contribuinte naquele determinado exercício. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. Once involved, the Tax Court’s jurisdiction is all-encompassing, covering the entire subject matter of the taxpayer’s correct tax for the taxable period involved.
43 Esse documento encontra-se definido e caracterizado no Internal Code Revenue, Sec. 6212.
44 Ou cento e cincoenta dias se o contribuinte vive fora dos Estados Unidos. Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6213.
45 A notificação é enviada ao ultimo endereço conhecido do contribuinte, seu last known address. Patricia T. Morgan, op. cit.,p. 104.
46Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6213 (a).
47 Robert E. Meldman e Richard J. Sideman, op. cit. p. 129 e ss.
48 Patricia T. Morgan, op. cit. p. 104.
49 Gerald A. Kafka e Rita A. Cavanagh, op. cit., p. 8.01 [1]. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. Deficiency determinations made by the Commissioner are presumed correct, and the burden is on the taxpayer to prove otherwise. A distinction exists between the effect of the presumption of correctness attached to determinations of the Commissioner and the burden of proof. The burden of proof is in reality the burden of persuasion requiring a party on whom that burden rests to establish the party’s claim, either by preponderance of the evidence or other specially prescribed standart. The presumption of correctness requires a taxpayer to go for scribe standard. The presumption of correctness requires a taxpayer to go forward with evidence to support a finding contrary to the Commissioner’s determination.
50Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6503 (a) (1).
51Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6213 (a).
52 Patricia T. Morgan, op. cit. p. 105.
53 Patricia T. Morgan, op. cit.loc. cit. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. Because the Code focuses on the date of mailing of the notice of deficiency, rather than on the date the taxpayer actually receives it, it is important to retain the envelope in which the notice was mailed.
54 Lawrence M. Friedman, American Law, an Introduction, p. 146 e ss.
55 Lewis Meyers, The American Legal System, p. 4.
56 George S. Grossman (ed.), The Spirit of American Law, p. 210 e ss.
57 Patricia T. Morgan, op. cit., p. 112.
58 Laura Kalman, Legal Realism at Yale, 1927-1960, p. 21.
59 Questões administrativas e constitucionais podem ser apreciadas por praticamente todos os tribunais do país. Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. E Michele Taruffo, American Civil Procedure, p.29.
60 Gerald A. Kafka e Rita A. Cavanagh, op. cit., p. 1.03. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. In choosing among tax litigation forums, applicable case law will be a controlling consideration if the issue has previously been resolved in one tribunal. All forums, of course, must follow a controlling decision of the Supreme Court. However, only a few cases are heard by the Supreme Court each term, even where lower courts have rendered conflicting decisions on the particular issue.
61 Temas afetos ao ideário continental, de acordo com os cursos sobre teoria do ordenamento jurídico ministrados por Norberto Bobbio na Itália no início da década de sessenta, de feição neopositivista.
62 Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit., p. 112. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. Because the Tax Court’s jurisdiction is nationwide, and because it is inevitable that the various Courts of Appeals will resolve some issues differently, the question arises how the Tax Court should decide a case in which the Courts of Appeals differ. Should the Tax Court follow its own precedent, or the precedent of the majority of appellate courts, or the precedent of the Court of Appeals to which an appeal in the case before it would lie?
63 United States Tax Court, 54 T.C. 742 (1970).
64 Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit.loc. cit.
65 Juiz Raum in Golsen v. Commissioner, apud Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit., p. 288 e 289. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. Notwithstanding a number of considerations which originally led us to that decision, it is our best judgment that better judicial administration require us to follow a Court of Appeals decision which is squarely in point where appeal from our decision lies that Court of Appeals and to that court alone. Section 7482 (a), I.R.C. 1954, charges the Court of Appeals with the primary responsibility for review of our decisions, and we think that where the Court of Appeals to which appeal lie has already passed upon the issue before us, efficient and harmonious judicial administration call us to follow the decision of that court.
66 Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit.p. 113. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. The effect of the Golsen rule can be illustrated by the following example. Assume that the issue involved is whether certain purported "interest" payments are deductible, and that the First, Second,Third and Tenth Circuits have held that such payments are nor deductible, while the Forth and Seventh Circuits have held that such payments are deductible. If an appeal in the case before the court would lie to the First, Second, Third or Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, then the Tax Court must rule that the payment is not deductible. If appeal would lie to the Fourth or Seventh Circuit, the Tax Court would be required to hold such payments deductible. If appeal would lie to any other Circuit, the Tax Court could reach its own decision on the question because it would not be bound by any precedent in the Circuit.
67 Esse valor de alçada é fixado no Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7463.
68Tax Court Rule 177 (b).
69Income Revenue Code, Sec. 7463 (b).
70 Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit.p.111.
71 Gerald A. Kafka e Rita A. Cavanagh, op. cit., p. 2.05 [1].
72Tax Court Rule 175 (2).
73 Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit. p.112.
74 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit., p. 290.
75 Gerald A. Kafka e Rita A. Cavanagh, op.cit, p. 10.01.
76 Gerald A. Kafka e Rita A. Cavanagh, op. cit., p. 17.01.
77 Também chamadas de civil actions for refund. Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7422.
78Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6532.
79 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit., p. 293.
80 Robert A. Heineman, Steven A. Perterson e Thomas H. Ramussen, American Government, p. 231.
81 E. Allan Farnsworth, An Introduction to the Legal System of the United States, p. 39.
82 Robert A. Carp e Ronald Stidham, Judicial Process in America, p. 214.
83RCFC rule 1.
84RCFC rule 2.
85RCFC rule 39.
86 Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit. p. 121 e 122.
87 Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit. p. 120.
88 Gerald A. Kafka e Rita A. Cavanagh, op. cit., p. 1.01.
89 2d. Cir. 1971, apud Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit. p. 98.
90 Robert A. Heineman, Steven A. Peterson e Thomas H. Rasmussen, American Government, p. 232.
91 Stephen H. Gifis, Law Dictionary, p. 71.
92 Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit., p. 123 e ss.
93 Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit. p. 127.
94 Laura Kalman, Legal Realism at Yale, 1927-1960, p. 49 e ss.
95 Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law, in William W. Fislher III, American Legal Realism, p.9.
96 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, Tax Controversies: Practice and Procedure, p. 561.
97 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit.loc. cit. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. The reluctance on the part of the government to use the judicial process as a collection mechanism reflects the expensive and time-consuming nature of litigation.
98 Robert E. Meldman e Richard J. Sideman. Federal Taxation, Practice and Procedure, p. 307. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. Revenue officers of the Collection Division possess perhaps the widest range of authority of all federal government employees. They possess all the powers enjoyed by the Collection Division to collect or abate delinquent accounts. They also have the authority to seize and sell property, impose and enforce major penalties for failure to comply with the revenue laws (…) In addition to these powers, revenue officers possess a wide range of investigative tools.
99 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit.loc. cit.
100 Lawrence M.Friedman, Law in America, p. 3.
101 Patrícia T. Morgan, Tax Procedure and Tax Fraud in a Nutshell, p. 189. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. Assessment of the tax is merely the recording of the liability of the taxpayer on an official list.
102Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6203.
103Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6204 (a).
104 Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit.loc.
105 Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit.loc. cit.
106 Gerald A. Kafka e Rita A. Cavanagh, Litigation of Federal Civil Tax Controversies, p. 3.10 [1].
107Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6303 (a).
108 Gerald A. Kafka e Rita A. Cavanahg, op. cit. p. 3.11 [7].
109 Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit.p.190.
110Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6304.
111Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6304 (c) c/c Sec. 7433.
112 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit. p. 562.
113 George Guttman, The Interplay of Enforcement and Voluntary Compliance, 83 Tax Notes 1683 (1999), apud Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit., p. 563.
114Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6159.
115Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6159 (c) (2) (1).
116 Nos últimos cinco anos que antecedem o pedido de parcelamento o contribuinte não pode ter deixado de apresentar declaração de imposto de renda (return), assim como também não pode ter requerido parcelamento anterior. Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6159 (c).
117 Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit. p. 203 e 204.
118Iternal Revenue Code, Sec. 6159 (a).
119 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit. p. 620.
120 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit.loc. cit. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. When evaluating the amount to be paid, the revenue officer is instructed to make an objective economic judgment as to how much the IRS can collect without jeopardizing the taxpayer’s ability to support his family, pay current taxes, and earn income from which to pay future installments.
121 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit. p. 621.
122Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7122.
123 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit. p. 627 e ss.
124Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6303.
125Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6311.
126Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6316.
127 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit. p. 563. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. Once assigned to a case, a revenue officer will contact the taxpayer to determine the current status of the taxpayer’s account and will again demand immediate and full payment of all delinquent accounts. If the taxpayer fails to appear at the interview or otherwise refuses to cooperate, the revenue officer can issue a summons requiring the taxpayer to appear and provide financial information.
128 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit. p. 564.
129 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit. loc. cit.
130Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6303. Tradução e adptação livre do autor. (...) each person liable to the unpaid tax (…).
131 Que é encaminhada ao costumeiro centro de negócios do contribuinte ou no seu último endereço conhecido.
132 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit. p. 564.
133Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6321. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. If any person liable to pay tax neglects or refuses do pay after demand, the amount (including any interest, additional amount, addition to tax, or assessable penalty, together with any costs that may accrue in addition thereto) shall be lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to property, whether real or personal, belonging to such person.
134 528 U.S. 49 (1999).
135 Justiça federal norte-americana de primeira instância, como visto na primeira parte do trabalho.
136 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit., p. 565.
137 Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit., p. 190.
138 Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit., p. 191.
139Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6322.
140 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit. p. 573.
141Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6233.
142 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit. p. 582 e 583.
143Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6233 (2).
144Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6233 (3).
145Internal Revenue Code. Sec. 6233 (8).
146 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit. p. 576.
147 507 U.S. 447 (1993).
148Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6325 (a) (1).
149Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6325 (a) (2).
150Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6325 (b) (1).
151 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit., p. 583. A agência do imposto de renda possui discricionariedade para liberar propriedade de penhora por débito fiscal, sem necessidade de pagamento ou carta de fiança, se os demais bens penhorados possuam valor de mercado que corresponda ao dobro do débito fiscal acrescidos dos demais débitos do contribuinte. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. The IRS has discretionary authority to discharge property from a tax lien, without the necessity of payment or bond, if the remaining property covered by the tax lien has a fair market value at least twice the amount of the tax lien plus the amount of any other liens that have priority over the tax lien.
152Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6325 (b) (2).
153Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6325 (4) (A).
154Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6326.
155Income Tax Regulations § 301.6326-1.
156Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6330. Income Tax Regulations § 301.6330-1.
157Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6330 (2).
158Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6331 (a).
159Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6331 (2).
160Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6331 (k).
161 Leandra Lederman e StephenW. Mazza, op. cit. p. 585.
162 Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit., p. 207.
163Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6332.
164 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit., p. 584.
165 Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit., p. 202.
166 Patricia T. Morgan, op. cit., loc. cit.
167 Trata-se de inusitada exceção. Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6334 (5). Correspondência, endereçada para qualquer pessoa, que ainda não tenha sido entregue ao destinatário. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. Mail, addressed to any person, which has not been delivered to the addressee.
168 Todos essas exceções à penhora estão identificadas no Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6334 (a) e (b).
169Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6335.
170Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6335 (d).
171Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6335 (e) (1) (a).
172Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6335 (c).
173Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6335 (2) (A) (i).
174Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6335 (2) (A) (ii).
175Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6335 (3).
176Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6337.
177Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 6342.
178 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit.,p. 602. Tradução e adaptação livre do autor. Once a valid levy is made, the IRS will seek to obtain possession of the levied property. In most cases, the IRS will first seek to levy upon the delinquent taxpayer’s bank deposits, if any, and wages owing from an employer. In the case of wage levy, the employer must withhold the nonexempt portion of the taxpayer’s wages and remit the amount directly to the IRS. Because a levy on wages and salaries is continuous, the employer must continue to remit portions of the taxpayer’s salary to the IRS until the liability is satisfied in full. In the case of a bank levy, the financial institution is required to hold the taxpayer’s accounts for 21 days after receiving notice of the levy in order to permit the taxpayer time to seek a release of the levy. After the 21-day period, the bank must remit the entire account balance to the IRS.
179 Leandra Lederman e Stephen W. Mazza, op. cit., p. 561.
180Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7401.
181Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7432.
182Internal Revenue Code, Sec. 7433.
183 Patrícia T. Morgan, op. cit., p. 206.
184 Lawrence M. Friedman, Law in America, p. 165.
185 Bernard Wolfman e James P. Holden, Ethical Problems in Federal Tax Practice, p. 43 e ss.
