27/06/2016 12h12 - Updated 27/06/2016 12h12

Expertise says decrees are irregular, but do not see acts of Dilma in arrears

For them, não existiram as chamadas ‘pedaladas fiscais’.
Photo: reproduction
Photo: reproduction

Experts appointed by the Senate Impeachment suing Commission concluded that three of the four additional credit decrees signed by President Dilma Rousseff away were irregular, because they have been edited without approval of the National Congress, and had a negative impact on compliance with fiscal target. However, according to an expert report, were not identified acts away chairwoman who have contributed, direct or indirectly, for delays in payments to public banks, called tax pedaling.

The issue decrees with additional credit and payment delays underlie Dilma's impeachment, which led to the removal of her Presidency of the Republic.

additional credit Decrees

For the three experts - Senate servers João Henrique Pederiva, Prandino Diego Alves and Fernando Alvaro Leon Rincon -, three of the four decrees analyzed by senators in the impeachment process had a negative impact on compliance with fiscal target, that was prevailing at the time it was signed. in the report, experts say that the bodies have not issued warnings that the additional credit decrees were irregular, that is, They were approved without the consent of Parliament.

The defense Dilma argues that the decrees did not impact in meeting the fiscal target, since it concerns only the appropriations - spending permissions - budget, not necessarily resulting in a negative tax impact, They did not involve the commitment or the financial implementation of spending. Like this, acts would be simple reprogramming of the allocation of federal funds.

The Senate's experts concluded that three of the four decrees were later financial execution, resulting in injury to the fulfillment of the then current fiscal target, which was approved in January 2015. The decrees were signed by Dilma in July and August.

For a board of experts, the decrees violated Article 4 Annual Budget Law (LOA), which regulates the additional costs to the budget and determines prior legislative approval for these expenditures.

"Although it has not obtained complete information on the implementation of additional appropriations contained only these three decrees (excluding initial allocations and other supplemental), this Board has identified that at least one programming each decree was executed budget and financially in fiscal 2015, with negative tax consequences on the primary outcome assessed ", wrote the experts.

Those skilled added, However, there were no, by the Federal Budget Secretariat, no alert, before signing, that the decrees would be incompatible with the fiscal target.

Harvest plan

The expert board also concluded that the delay in payment of equalization of interest to public banks in the Harvest Plan represented loans to the Union, which is prohibited by law. They also concluded that the delays also resulted in illegal loans.

Through Harvest Plan, Public banks finance farmers at low interest rates with its own resources and then receive from the government the difference between the amount charged and the farmers that the financial institution paid to raise money.

The defense Dilma argues that delays in payment of equalization do not constitute credit operations, but the provision of ordinary service and always accepted by the Federal Audit Court (TCU), until the court changed its position on the issue last year.

To those skilled, the delays were in fact loans taking into account articles of the Fiscal Responsibility Law (LRF). According to them, values ​​were subject to interest for delay in payment, burdening the Union in more than R $ 450 millions.

"There was the National Treasury credit operations with Banco do Brazil, accordance with the accounting standards, due to the late payment of subsidies granted under the Harvest Plan ", says the expert report.

According to the schedule approved by suing Committee of the Senate Impeachment, prosecution and defense have now 24 hours to request clarification on the expertise. From then on, experts have 72 hours to answer questions.

Source: Agency Brazil

*** If you are in favor of a totally free and impartial press, collaborate enjoying our page on Facebook and visiting often the AM POST.

Latest news

Contact Terms of use Wp: (92) 99344-0505
432 | 0 | enabled | cached | 957 | SELECT translated, source FROM wp_translations WHERE original = 'ampost.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/peritos-Copy.jpg' and lang = 'en' Served from: ampost.com.br @ 2016-12-07 16:34:09 by W3 Total Cache -->