News July 6, 2017

In a tax enforcement action, attachment may fall on the spouse

In tax foreclosure actions, the attachment of assets may fall upon the spouse of the foreclosed party, even where they are married under the regime of partial community of assets.

The Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region (TRF4), in June, reversed a decision that had denied the request for the attachment of assets held in the name of the wife of a foreclosed party in an action brought by the National Institute of Metrology, Quality and Technology (Inmetro).

 

The case – The tax foreclosure action was filed by the Office of the Attorney General of the Union (AGU) on behalf of Inmetro for the collection of amounts arising from an administrative fine. The foreclosed party, however, neither paid the debt nor designated assets for attachment.

Since the foreclosed party is married under the regime of partial community of assets, Inmetro requested that the attachment be made on assets held in the name of his wife, by means of the Bacenjud and Renajud systems.

But the request was denied, considering that the spouse does not appear as a defendant in the foreclosure.

Inmetro then appealed to the court, asserting that there is no reason not to allow the attachment, since, as they are married under the regime of partial community of assets, half of any amount eventually found will belong to the debtor.

 

Outcome – The reporting judge of the case at the court, Federal Judge Maria Isabel Pezzi Klein, granted the interlocutory appeal, maintaining that the court’s case law admits the use of the BACENJUD and RENAJUD systems for the attachment of assets held in the name of the foreclosed party’s wife when they are married under the regime of partial community of assets. The decision was rendered unanimously by the 3rd Panel.

“It should be emphasized, however, that the attachment shall reach only half of the assets, the spouse’s marital share being required to be respected, save where it is proven that any enrichment arising from the unlawful act has reverted to the benefit of the couple,” the magistrate concluded.

 

Source: TRF4

← Back to blog