Thus, we cogitate of & lsquo; eluso tributria& rsquo; as being the phenomenon for which the contributor uses of fraudulent ways to prevent the subsuno of the business practised to the normative concept of the typical fact and the respective imputation of the legal effect, of constitution of the obligation tax, as foreseen in lei.& rdquo; Doctrinal divergences to the part, exist certain consent in relation to the direction of that fiscal elimination is related with economy of tributes inside of the legality, and fiscal evasion to the tax evasion/fraud. Thus, it has basic and well distinct differences between elimination and evasion. These differences the two criteria are on: chronological and the legality of the used ways. In the chronological criterion, as the proper name already says, it says respect to the time, that is, the elimination always occurs before the occurrence of the generating fact. Already in relation to the evasion, if of or after or next to the incidence hypothesis the tax. As RABBIT (1998) it describes to follow: & ldquo; The only safe criterion (to distinguish the fraud from the elimination) is to verify if the acts practised for the contributor to prevent, to delay or to reduce the payment of a tribute had been practised before or after the occurrence of the respective generating fact: in the first hypothesis, one is about elimination; in second fiscal.& is about fraud; rdquo; Thus, the credit alone arrives at the State if effectively to occur the generating fact of the operation tax. As displayed above, in case that it does not have the fact, the obligation would not exist to pay the tribute.
Still according to RABBIT, the elimination for we is not to enter in fiscal relation. The evasion is to leave it. It demands, therefore, to be inside, to have been or been able to be at some moment.