Multicriteria method for the evaluation of the principle of minimum penal intervention in the tax abstention opinion

Abstract

This article analyzes the principle of minimal criminal intervention in the abstentional fiscal ruling, because we want to know if there is a close relationship between these two legal figures, since there is doubt if the holders of the public criminal action issue opinions in order not to move the judicial apparatus for facts that are not relevant to criminal law, possibly applying the principle of minimum intervention, or if the cause is not the cause, clearly distinguish the moments in which this general principle of law can be applied so as not to harm the rights enjoyed by human beings. On the other hand, we cannot ignore the other aspect of the work that refers to the abstention of the tax ruling and the cases in which this can occur, clearly determining whether it is with the intention of not intervening or due to non-compliance with requirements legal for its application. Therefore, this research proposes the development of a multicriteria method for the evaluation of the principle of minimum criminal intervention in the ruling of tax abstention. The proposed method bases its operation on a multi-criteria approach for evaluation. A case study is implemented with the objective of evaluating the degree of compliance with the principle of minimal criminal intervention in the ruling of tax abstention. The results show that there are certain necessary requirements so that fiscal abstention can be applied without affecting the principle of legality, objectivity and impartiality where the application of the minimum intervention of criminal law does fit perfectly.