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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
The natural gas market is gaining more and more relevance in Brazil as a way to diversify the country's energy sources. To foster the development of the sector, changes in legislation and regulations have been discussed, especially since 2016, when the Ministry of Mines and Energy launched the Gas to Grow (Gás para Crescer) initiative, with the participation of the entire natural gas market and some government bodies.
Normative Instruction No. 1,888/2019 (IN 1,888), which establishes and disciplines the provision of information related to cryptoasset transactions, shows the concern of the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service (RFB) with providing transparency in transactions with virtual currencies. Although it represents an increase in compliance costs for companies operating in this market, the measure may give more credibility to the industry and help attract new players.
Law No. 13,655/2018, published in early 2018, included new general principles in the Law of Introduction to the Norms of Brazilian Law - Lindb (Decree-Law No. 4,657/1942) and since then, much has been said about the applicability of the changes in all areas of law, especially tax law.
At the end of last year, Justice Dias Toffoli released for judgment Extraordinary Appeal No. 1.063.187, Topic of general repercussion No. 962, which litigates the levying of Corporate Income Tax (IRPJ) and the Social Contribution on Net Income (CSLL) on amounts received by the taxpayer due to the application of the Selic rate when tax withheld in error is refunded. In the judgment, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) will decide whether the amounts paid to taxpayers due to the application of the Selic rate are subject to income tax
At the end of 2017, Justice Regina Helena Costa, of the First Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), admitted an appeal against a divergent decision filed by a taxpayer (EAREsp No. 1.078.194/RJ) against an appellate decision that established the understanding that the ICMS-ST is not a tax different from the ICMS-normal, but merely a form of collection, while maintaining the application of article 13, paragraph 1, I, of Complementary Law No. 87/96, which would legitimize the inclusion of the ICMS-ST in its own base.
The State of Rio de Janeiro Finance Department (Sefaz-RJ) enacted the Resolution Sefaz No. 24, on March 27, 2019, allowing taxpayers to request or to rectify the Digital Tax Bookkeeping, the so-called EFD, without the previous payment of the Charge for State Services.