SUPREME COURT: INCOME TAXES LEVIED ON INTEREST RATE APPLIED IN THE COURT DEPOSIT IS NOT A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER
The Federal Supreme Court (STF) concluded that the discussion involving the levying of Income Taxes (IRPJ and CSLL) on the interest rate (SELIC) applied upon judicial deposits made in tax judicial proceedings should not be judged by the Court.
The justices ruled that the matter is not constitutional, and thus the jurisdiction to analyze the case would belong to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ).
Recently the Supreme Court analyzed a similar issue, in the matter n. 962 of General Repercussion, in which the Court defined that the IRPJ/CSLL should not levy upon the SELIC applied upon the refund of taxes, but did not address the issue of the same taxation upon the SELIC in the judicial deposits made in a guarantee of tax proceedings.
With this new decision, taxpayers must wait for an eventual analysis of the matter by the STJ, and for eventual revision of the Court's past jurisprudence (that was unfavorable to taxpayers with respect to the SELIC in the refund of taxes).
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE VALIDATES "TEIMOSINHA" AS INSTRUMENT FOR SEIZURE OF FUNDS DURING TAX EXECUTION
The 1st panel of the Superior Court of Justice unanimously recognized the legality of automatic reiteration of the blocking of financial resources of a debtor (known as "teimosinha").
The system enables that the block orders issued by judges to be repeated automatically until the total amount of the debt per case is completed, without the need for the judge to renew the orders.
The tax authorities argue that the system is necessary for the effectiveness of the execution. On the other hand, taxpayers alleges that the constriction could cause operational complications, especially for legal entities that may have their cash flow compromise by the unrestrictive use of the new tool.
Even though this decision is not binding, it is an indicative of the Court's understanding on the matter.
SUPREME COURT TO RESTART THE TRIAL OF THE DIFAL MATTER
Justice Rosa Weber, president of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), removed the judgment of ADI 7066 from the virtual plenary. In the case, the Court discusses the initial date for the collection of DIFAL-ICMS (State Tax VAT).
With this decision, the case, which already had the votes of 8 justices, being 7 in favor to taxpayers' thesis that the DIFAL could only be charged from 2023 onwards, should be restarted in the presential plenary. The decision was made after the Supreme Court's President meeting with governors from 15 states.
The discussion revolves around the date of enforcement of Complementary Law No. 190/2022 and consequent collection of DIFAL by the States and the Federal District. Taxpayers argue that since this law was only enacted in 2022, the tax is only due as of 2023, following constitutional rule of anteriority.
The states, in their turn, defend the collection since beginning of 2022 and claim that the setback would cause a loss of R$ 10 billion to the states' treasury.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.