Court decision may end the confusion that led the issue to be reviewed again, avoiding a step backwards and disregard for case law settled more than 20 years ago.

Some courts have suspended public service, hearings, and in-person sessions. See the rules promulgated thus far.

ME Ordinance No. 13/20, issued on February 13, made a series of amendments to MF Ordinance No. 479/00, which deals with the accreditation of financial institutions to provide federal revenue collection services.

On February 19, the Joint Commission for Executive Order No. 899/19 approved the text of the bill to convert the Executive Order (MP) in law, which is now to be voted in the Chamber of Deputies. The so-called Taxable Person MP was published on October 17, 2019, with the purpose of regulating tax transactions, which has been admitted by the National Tax Code for over 50 years. The measure aims to reduce tax litigation and to fill the public coffers for debts deemed irrecoverable or difficult to recover.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.