Brazil’s judiciary are set for an equally challenging second half to 2020

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Brazil’s judiciary are set for an equally challenging second half to 2020

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-mattosfilho.png
Courts in India have generally given a wide connotation to the expression

Alessandra Gomensoro of Mattos Filho considers how the coronavirus pandemic may cause further discontent for the already overwhelmed Brazilian judiciary.

The Brazilian tax system has always been the subject of many discussions in the judiciary. This is not only due to the difficulty that taxpayers have in interpreting the system given its complexity, but also as a result of the repeated errors of legislative techniques incurred in the issuance of laws, which often disregards the most fundamental tax principles.



On the other hand, the fact that the main tax rules are expressly dealt with in the Brazilian Constitution causes many of the tax disputes to conflict with constitutional norms, and the resolution of which rests with the Supreme Court.



This constitutionalisation of tax rules, which is quite particular in Brazil and is not seen in many other countries, leaves the Supreme Court overwhelmed, and prolongs the definitive resolution of the themes.



While there is no final interpretation on these matters, taxpayers usually continue to pay taxes. Often years later, when the court concludes that levying is improper, it is not uncommon for the government to try to cause embarrassment regarding the refund of amounts on the grounds that the reimbursement will impact the public coffers.



Within this complex context, being aware of the relevance of its decisions and the importance of resolving the main tax issues in the fastest possible way, the Supreme Court included some of the most emblematic and controversial proceedings on the judgment docket of its sessions during the course of the year 2020.



The final judgment of one of the largest tax discussions that the court has ever faced was scheduled for April 1: the exclusion of ICMS from the basis for calculating PIS and COFINS contributions, the merits of which have already been decided favourably to taxpayers in 2017, but had its closure postponed by an attempt by the government to curtail the taxpayers' right to seek refund for what was unduly paid.



The judgment, which would be electronic due to the rules of social isolation arising from the coronavirus pandemic, was postponed at the request of the parties.



Another extremely important issue that should have been resolved on April 30 and which was also postponed, is the definition of the limit of matter’ adjudged in the tax sphere. Basically the analysis concerns whether a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in concentrated control of constitutionality (i.e. with general effects to all) can override a specific earlier decision that a particular taxpayer obtained in the opposite sense.



This theme is extremely relevant because it essentially deals with juridical security, which is one of the pillars of the Brazilian legal system.



Several other relevant and more specific topics are expected to be judged by the end of the year. Some of them will certainly not be heard due to the fear of analysing such important issues in a virtual environment, which might adversely affect the interaction between justices and oral statements by lawyers.



Just as important as implementing the judgments and bringing closure to these discussions, is the awareness that some issues have been developed by the justices of the Supreme Court, which given their technical and economic relevance, cannot wait too long to be included in the docket.



In September 2020, Justice Dias Toffoli leaves the Presidency of the Supreme Court and the new presiding justice will be Luiz Fux. It is expected that Justice Luiz Fux will give priority to tax matters.



In a country that already has difficulty maintaining its political and economic stability, minimal juridical security will always be welcome.




Alessandra Gomensoro

T: +55 21 3231 8222

E: agomensoro@mattosfilho.com.br





more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

E-invoicing is currently characterised by dynamism, with fragmentation acting as a key catalyst for increasing interoperability, says Aida Cavalera of the International Observatory on eInvoicing
Pillar two and the US tax system ‘could work in harmony’, Scott Levine tells ITR in an exclusive interview to mark his arrival at Baker McKenzie
Peter White, who has a tax debt of A$2 million, has been banned for five years from seeking registration with Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board (TPB)
Wopke Hoekstra’s comments followed US measures aimed against ‘unfair foreign taxes’; in other news, Grant Thornton and Holland & Knight made key tax partner hires
An Administrative Review Tribunal ruling last month in Australia v Alcoa represents a 'concerning trend' for the tax authority, one expert tells ITR
A recent decision underlines that Indian courts are more willing to look beyond just legal compliance and examine whether foreign investment structures have real business substance
Following his Liberal Party’s election victory, one source expects Mark Carney to follow the international consensus on pillar two, as experts assess the new administration
A German economics professor was reportedly ‘irritated’ by how the Finnish ministry of finance used his data
Countries that care about the fair taxation of tech multinationals and equitable global distribution of wealth should back the UN’s tax framework, writes economist Abdelmalek Riad
The cuts disproportionately affected staff in certain positions, the report also found; in other news, MHA announced the €24m acquisition of Baker Tilly South East Europe
Gift this article