Competência tributária: entre a rigidez do sistema e a atualização interpretativa

Abstract

This doctoral thesis conducts a critical analysis of how constitutional text is interpreted, more specifically the section that addresses taxing powers, considering how strictly such powers are discriminated. The aim is to determine whether the interpretation often intended for words and expressions deployed in that text is appropriate. According to such interpretation, the text carries concept terms whose meaning is usually derived from lessons in the field of Private Law; and also under a static perspective, assimilating the concept as it was construed when the Constitution came into effect. Critical analysis is based on a historical review of Brazilian constitutions in order to determine whether words and expressions, in the transition from one constitution to another, as the distribution of taxing powers changed, allow any certainty with regard to their meaning, at the constitutional level. This is followed by an analysis of how one reflects on reality, taking into account concept and type. The intention is to consider the possibility of flexibility and progressibility in tax types, still at the constitutional level; this rejects a mandatory use of Private Law concepts and signals toward the admission of types. We also consider changes which the interpretation of Law has undergone, taking into account, above all, constitutional interpretation techniques, as a premise to analyze the alleged literal and automatic imposition of Article 110 of the Brazilian National Tax Code CTN, which addresses the interpretation of taxing power rules and that would determine the option for Private Law concepts, whenever the terms in the Constitution have an equivalent in Private Law. Based on that analysis, this study aims to find the limits to interpretations of taxing power rules, if more open interpretation is possible. Admitting that words have meanings other than privatist concepts, or admitting a global interpretation of the taxing power rule without specifically analyzing every single word, does not imply accepting that the system is not very stringent. Even though the rule can only be conceived based on reality, which is up to date and verifiably in time, and though it is not limited to a word-by-word, prior, static and privatist analysis, the text introduces a normative framework whose boundaries are set by several factors, some of which include tax’s historical range, confrontations with other taxing power rules and with principles of taxation, resorting to natural language and finally discourse practice.