The decision regarding the exclusion of ICMS tax from the PIS and Cofins tax calculation bases, currently one of the most anticipated tax issues in Brazil, was postponed by the Federal Supreme Court (STF) on November 28 and there is no forecast for when it will be handed down. As issue is the judgment of the motion for clarification filed by the National Treasury in the case Imcopa (RE 574706), in which the theory was set that there was general repercussion in whether the ICMS tax is not a part of the calculation basis for the assessment of the PIS and Cofins taxes. Among allegations of omissions and contradictions, the National Treasury requested softening of the effects of the judgment, so that it produce effects only after the judgment of the motions for clarification. Due to the enormous relevance of the case, once again the softening effects has gained prominence in the Brazilian tax scenario.
More than a decade after the decision granted by the First Section of the Superior Court of Appeals (STJ) recognizing taxpayers' right to claim an offset as a matter of defense in motions to stay tax foreclosure, precedents can still be found, even within the STJ itself, not authorizing the claim, based on a mistaken interpretation of the vote drafted by Justice Luiz Fux.
Since the Federal Supreme Court (STF) recognized, in 2016, the right to a refund of the difference in the Tax on Circulation of Goods and Services (ICMS) paid in excess of the tax substitution regime when the actual tax basis of the transaction is lower than the presumed one (Extraordinary Appeal (RE) No. 593.849) there has been discussion of whether the states of the Federation, supported by the same precedent, could charge the ICMS-ST supplement in transactions where the actual amount of the transaction is higher than the presumed amount.
Section 54 of Law n.9,430/96 (Law 9430) provides that legal entities that adopt the presumed profit regime for purposes of corporate income tax (CIT) shall, in the first calculation period in which they are subject to that regime, submit to taxation the balance of the amounts whose taxation was deferred during the adoption of the real profit regime.
Beginning the series of articles on the changes implemented by Executive Order No. 905, published on Tuesday, November 12, we review below changes in the rules for creating and paying a Profit Sharing Plan (PLR).
A growing number of Brazilians have opted to live abroad in recent years. The reasons for this choice are manifold: while in previous decades they were linked to employability and formation of equity, today they are more related to quality of life, economic stability, and security.
The penalty of forfeiture of property is one of the most severe and extreme penalties contained in Brazilian law. Despite its confiscatory nature, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) has already abstractly recognized its validity and compliance with the current Federal Constitution (RE 251.008-AgR/DF, Opinion drafted by Justice Cezar Peluso, First Panel, published in the Official Gazette of the Judiciary on June 16, 2006).
Continuing the series of articles on the changes implemented by Executive Order No. 905, published last Tuesday, we review below the changes regarding the payment of bonuses by companies to their employees.
Executive Order (MP) No. 899/19, already known as the Legal Taxpayer's Executive Order, was published on October 17 of this year with the purpose of reducing tax litigation and recovering debts classified as irrecoverable or difficult to recover. To this end, the MP provides for the possibility of settlement to end administrative or judicial disputes at the federal level.
Since the STF settled the theory that the ICMS tax is not included in the taxable base for the levy of the PIS and Cofins, in the judgment of Extraordinary Appeal (RE) No. 574,706, many taxpayers had a definitive resolution in their individual cases on the topic, which gave room to new controverted issues. One of the most relevant controversies, due to the cash effects found, concerns when to tax by the IRPJ and CSLL the amount of credits recognized in court and which will be subject to administrative offsetting.
One issue that is the subject of frequent debate in the administrative courts with jurisdiction to decide issues raised against infraction notices is the possibility for the administrative authority, after drawing up the infraction notice, to modify the grounds invoked by the authority or even introduce new elements of evidence to strengthen the grounds thereof.
With their publication in the Official Federal Gazette last September 10, 33 precedents approved at the en banc meeting of the Superior Chamber of Tax Appeals (CSRF) of the Administrative Council for Tax Appeals (Carf), held in early September, entered into force. Publication of the minutes of the meeting marks the entry into force of the precedents approved.
With the main objective of combating delinquent debtors and strengthening the collection of outstanding debt within the federal tax administration, the Ministry of Economy presented to the Chamber of Deputies, in March, Bill No. 1,646/19. Some aspects of the text deserve special attention, such as the extrajudicial procedures applicable to delinquent debtors, defined in the Bill as “taxpayers whose tax behavior is characterized by substantial and repeated tax delinquency.”
There are two main forms of defense in tax foreclosures: the pre-foreclosure exception and the motion to stay enforcement. The first is presented in the record, without the need to guarantee the tax debt under debate, that is to say, it is less costly for the taxpayer. However, its scope is limited to situations that do not require production of evidence or where the issues may be heard by the judge ex officio, pursuant to Precedent No. 393 of the Superior Court of Appeals (STJ).
For some time the classification of ICMS tax incentives as an investment subsidy has long been debated in the tax courts. The relevance of this discussion stems from the possibility of excluding income from investment subsidies from the IRPJ (Corporate Income Tax) and CSLL (Social Contribution on Net Income) calculation bases.
