Listily responsible for the irregular dissolution of company of which it was no longer part, former partner was able to avoid redirecting fiscal implementation through a special appeal at the Superior Court of Justice (STJ). His responsibility was removed after the author entered with embargoes of declaration against the judgment of the second class.

The embarrassing was a socio-manager of a company between the years 1994 and 1996. The irregular dissolution, however, occurred in December 1998, when the company stopped working at the address in the commercial joint, with outstanding tax debts .

In previous analysis of the case, the second class had understood unable to remove the redirection of the execution against the partner, since his departure of the company would not have remained sufficiently proven.

By opposing declaration embargoes, the author claimed that said decision had been omission. He argued that the information recognized by the Court of origin were not taken into account by the class, and that these data proved to leave him before irregular dissolution of the company.

Decision The Minister Humberto Martins, in his vote-view, understood that the reading of the judgment of the Second Instance makes it clear that "the partner was not part of the company when of its irregular dissolution." For Martins, this finding in the records removes the incidence of the SUMULA 7 of the STJ, which prevents the re-examination of evidence by the upper instance.

The minister highlighted excerpts from the judgment of the Court of origin, such as "the last installments carried out by the undertaking carried out were signed in June 1996, when the embarrassment was still part of the board of managers, since the amendment contractual that excluded it was only recorded in July 1996. "

Voto's argumentation was welcomed by the other ministers of the second class and the special appeal of former partner was provided by a majority of votes.

Possibility of redirection The Minister Humberto Martins recalled that the first section of the STJ has already signed understanding that the redirection of implementation, in the hypothesis of uneven dissolution of society, presupposes the permanence of the partner in the company's dissolution.

In his vote, he also cited that the Sun Summary of the STJ allows the redirection of execution to former partners, but only in cases where liability is proven, at the time of the fact that generating the debt executed, resulting from excess of powers , infraction to the law or against the statute, as Article 135 of the National Tax Code (CTN).