The IRC principle and the Duke of Westminster n. 1 of 1936 is that a person can manage his own financial situation and must pay a lower tax. If he succeeds in doing so, he will not be punished by tax laws. Subsequently, when the Court decided to introduce the Ramsey principle into taxpayers' tax remedies, it became irrelevant. Tax avoidance arises from tax planning, through which a company's managers verify the means and measures to be adopted to reduce the tax burden and adopt the correct management of financial documents. It is a right attitude to avoid generating facts that overload the tax burden of that legal entity by choosing less expensive facts. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay According to the doctrine, tax evasion can arise from the law itself or it can arise from gaps and loopholes in the law. In this sense, elimination derives from the law when the regulatory text provides an instrument for granting benefits, as in the case of tax incentives. The elimination will be the result of loopholes and gaps, in turn, when the taxpayer conducts his business in such a way as to reduce the tax burden. This is the case of companies that move their factories to municipalities with a lower ISSQN rate (tax on services of any type), to pay less taxes. Tax planning, and consequently tax avoidance, therefore deserves to be analyzed by each company as a legal way to reduce their burden and increase their profits. Tax evasion, on the other hand, is a disgusting attitude or, at least, an administrative violation. It consists of failure to pay taxes, even when the taxable event has already been established. Circumvention can occur through omission of information or submission of false declarations to agricultural authorities; for falsification or alteration of duplicates, invoices and other taxable transaction documents, as well as false statements regarding rents, assets or facts. Finally, these are falsification or adulterations of documents and declarations aimed at reducing or avoiding the tax burden. An example of tax evasion is when a business owner does not declare a sale or service rendered in order to avoid tax implications. This practice, therefore, illicit, once the operative event has been ascertained, the sale of the goods or the provision of the service should be collected and the taxes due should be collected. Evasion and avoidance differ in when they occur. In this sense, in tax avoidance, there is a way to avoid the operative event (sale of goods) which would represent a significant burden. In tax evasion, the triggering event (the sale of the asset) is allowed to occur and means are sought to falsify or omit information in order to avoid or reduce the tax incidence. Thus, in tax evasion, a company passes from the Municipality to pay the ISSQN at a lower rate. In tax evasion the company remains in the same municipality but declares some services rendered less than the actual amount to pay a lower amount pursuant to the ISSQN. Finally, it should be noted that they differ because elimination is a legal method and tax evasion is an illicit method, subject to administrative tax proceedings. This makes it more attractive for any company to seek legitimate means to reduce its tax burden through proper tax planning. This is because if the company promotes tax evasion, in addition to inappropriate and harmful conduct for the country, it may be subject to serious sanctions resulting from tax proceedings. Tax Avoidance means the taxpayer's conduct aimed at tax evasion.