The Supreme Court has defined that judges who have been in office since 2017 must pay the tax on profits – 11/27/2018

This Tuesday began operating according to the hottest calendar proposed by the country's Supreme Court of Justice at the end of the year. It was with a key decision: the Supreme Court "transformed" an injunction and upheld the validity of a law that states that judges – and employees of that power – have taken office since 2017 must pay the tax on profits. For the short term that has pbaded since the rules of the standard, the measure is more symbolic than the economic impact.

Until last night, he was able to confirm Clarin from judicial sources there was a majority of three companies sealed to guarantee the decision (Horacio Rosatti, Juan Carlos Maqueda and Ricardo Lorenzetti), but around noon, after the conclusion of the agreement between the ministers, a source confirmed to Clarín that he had finally "left to l & # 39; unanimously ".

Particular attention was paid to the position of the new President of the Court, Carlos Rosenkrantz, who publicly defended – in speeches and interviews with media such as Clarín – the level of judicial remuneration and proposed a dubious solution: raise wages and then they start paying profits so as not to lose money.

Clarin Bulletins

What you need to know today | The most important news of the day to read in ten minutes

Monday to Friday morning

Be that as it may, it is another substantive discussion that involves the entire judiciary. It is estimated that by exempting from this tax, the state stopped collecting this year between 6 000 and 7 000 million pesos. But now we are only discussing those who have badumed since 2017. In terms of general funds, a very minor part. If special cases are taken, that is a lot: a gross salary of 200,000 pesos would give 50,000 per month of earnings; one in 300,000 would be 85,000. The highest positions of the judiciary are at this level. And some even higher.

With regard to the Vice President, Elena Highton of Nolasco, described as one of the most corporative of the body and aligned with the Association of Magistrates who introduced the precautionary measure stopping the payment of the profit provided for in the law of 2016, she had initially badumed that she could counter it. But it was not so obvious, because at the beginning of last year, the Court itself, in a statement posted on its official website, said: "It is clear that all employees, public servants, prosecutors, defenders , magistrates they will not pay the tax. coming in from 2017, will have to pay"

The hottest judge to date has been Judge Rosatti. He was in favor of the payment of this tax by the judiciary when he attended the public hearing to badume the post. And even two members of its board of directors pay a profit.

In addition, the precautionary measure of the Association of Magistrates, other employees of justice they made claims administratively. The Court being the highest authority in power, these orders also fell there and will be rejected.

As Clarín knew, the Court's decision could also contain a few paragraphs in harsh terms for the intermediate judges who adhered to the demands to end the tax reduction. The Supreme Court, and Rosenkrantz also specified, wants to follow the doctrine that laws are enforced even if they are contrary to public opinion. And that, in all cases, politics settles controversies by changing the rules.

Roughly, this was one of the arguments Rosenkrantz, Rosatti and Highton of Nolasco used to endorse the controversial 2×1 advantage for a repressor. After the scandal, a new law was pbaded and the Court will establish the case law next week (December 4). It is excluded that, as of the change of norm, the benefit will no longer be applicable to persons found guilty of crimes against humanity.