Post by account_disabled on Feb 27, 2024 6:04:21 GMT -5
That is how it should continue to happen, as we think and hope. Without neglecting the indispensability of judicial jurisdiction, we must not take it as the first, but rather as the ultimate ratio : by doing so, we will guarantee greater survival for straight-line dialogue and, what is more important, the (essential) vision that tax authorities and taxpayers they are not opposing elements in their individual dimension, but complementary, including and especially with regard to their "private" expectations — one and the other, let us remember, only exist individually when they face each other, never when they hide from each other, placing themselves behind the "father-judge", the one who punishes and/or protects.
Strategies that promote the concert of these ideas and that postulate the replacement of divergence by convergence, more than putting the "father" aside — decomplexifying the socio-legal phenomenon in several aspects (including financial) —, help to uncover what should never have been removed from our visual field: human experience, including the legal-tax experience, is not essentially defined by its Chinese Europe Phone Number List object, but by the subjects (and the plural here is mandatory) that integrate it, not because they are they oppose each other, but because they interdefine each other, conferring reciprocal existence. A good example of this type of strategy is the tax transaction, installed in different political spheres, but which has been more intensely commented on based on the federal experience.
An excellent path of preservation and respect for otherness, it, the transaction, puts aside the judicial hand and tends to guarantee, through concessions adjusted in a straight line, not the individual interest of one or the other, but the juxtaposition, the amalgamation, the copulation of interests that, before being isolated, can only be legitimately seen in an interdefinitory block. Therefore, the necessary impact that this transaction generates in the spirit of those involved, a kind of return to the simplest thing that mobilizes us in our experience, the self-recognition "of" and "from" the other. A final word: this is not a theoretical despite appearances. It is an exhortation to those who criticize institutions such as transaction because they disregard individual interests here and there; an exhortation to those who adhere to these ideas without refusing their correction to meditate on a possible additional way of seeing the issue, taking a step back — necessary, in our way of seeing.
Strategies that promote the concert of these ideas and that postulate the replacement of divergence by convergence, more than putting the "father" aside — decomplexifying the socio-legal phenomenon in several aspects (including financial) —, help to uncover what should never have been removed from our visual field: human experience, including the legal-tax experience, is not essentially defined by its Chinese Europe Phone Number List object, but by the subjects (and the plural here is mandatory) that integrate it, not because they are they oppose each other, but because they interdefine each other, conferring reciprocal existence. A good example of this type of strategy is the tax transaction, installed in different political spheres, but which has been more intensely commented on based on the federal experience.
An excellent path of preservation and respect for otherness, it, the transaction, puts aside the judicial hand and tends to guarantee, through concessions adjusted in a straight line, not the individual interest of one or the other, but the juxtaposition, the amalgamation, the copulation of interests that, before being isolated, can only be legitimately seen in an interdefinitory block. Therefore, the necessary impact that this transaction generates in the spirit of those involved, a kind of return to the simplest thing that mobilizes us in our experience, the self-recognition "of" and "from" the other. A final word: this is not a theoretical despite appearances. It is an exhortation to those who criticize institutions such as transaction because they disregard individual interests here and there; an exhortation to those who adhere to these ideas without refusing their correction to meditate on a possible additional way of seeing the issue, taking a step back — necessary, in our way of seeing.