confiscation has historically been conceptualized as a criminal penalty applicable exceptionally serious crimes of a political nature against the assets of state or against humanity, which is embodied in the total ablation heritage the accused, but on what is proper taxes is not punitive in nature, it may be absent, or production of an ablation or direct removal of property or rights, but the economic effect and without compensation appreciable reduction of heritage incidence of taxes, insofar as it involves heavy coercive benefits of giving, almost comparable to that effect unjust confiscation.
In Naveira view of Casanova, in tax matters "confiscation can occur regardless of whether tax law has been designed with a criminal or not, or that has been designed to detract form direct the entire estate of the person or the manifestation of wealth taxed ... No matter the intended purpose of the rule, if fiscal or tax as confiscatory if it occurs, the unjust should be repaired as well. " The same author reports that the ruling of the Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina from 1906, ruling "Faraminas" said that despite the difference between the confiscation of Institute and referred to the effects that might result from tax burden misguided, both must be treated as their results.
confiscatory Such effects could manifest itself in various ways, depending on modo de incidencia del tributo que se trate o del conjunto de todos, pero en general, en materia tributaria, los tributos padecen de esos efectos cuando la capacidad económica para contribuir es excedida por la cuota tributaria o por la presión generada por la acción conjunta de varios tributos. Si, como ha sostenido la jurisprudencia y doctrina españolas, la capacidad es la causa y el límite del deber de contribuir a los gastos públicos , no se puede exigir que pague algún tributo que carezca de riqueza o de medio para producirla, es menester una base mínima de capacidad; pero además, el hecho imponible debe representar en sí mismo una manifestación de riqueza susceptible de soportar el gravamen, como possession of assets, movement of goods, obtaining income or expenditure, and not an act devoid of economic significance. On the other hand, the duty to contribute is limited by the size of that capacity, as not serious and the subsistence livelihood of the individual, nor threatens the very existence of the productive source of wealth. The sacrifice required of each citizen for the support of state and public services must correspond to the actual level of wealth or economic power of each category of taxpayers, according to the kind of taxation.
constitutional order in Venezuela taxpayer's economic capacity is the centerpiece of the fair distribution of public burdens, and the principle of progressivity of the charges and the prohibition of confiscatory effects of taxes are complementary principles of capacity, as escorts for the spine system. While the escalation has the function of adjusting the pressure of taxes to the highest levels of capacity taken up by the rules that describe the facts and bases, so that those who acquire, possess or consume a greater extent, are taxed more, the ban confiscatory effect is an indicator of the threshold of the economic, as opposed to escalation. Arguably confiscatory progressive and are the margins of the river opposite the taxpayer's economic capacity.