All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

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 & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Energy ministers agreed on regulations including a windfall tax on fossil fuel companies to address high gas prices at an extraordinary Council meeting on September 30.
The European Parliament raises concerns over unanimity in voting on pillar two, while protests break out over tax reform in Colombia.
Ramesh Khaitan speaks to reporter Siqalane Taho about tax morality, transfer pricing regulations, Indian tax developments, and the OECD’s two-pillar solution.
Join ITR and KPMG China at 10am BST on October 19 as they discuss the personal, employment, and corporate tax-related implications of employees working from overseas.
Tricentis and Boehringer Ingelheim, along with a European Commission TP specialist, criticised the complexity of pillar one rules and their scope at an ITR event.
Speakers at ITR’s Managing Tax Disputes Summit said taxpayers can still face lengthy TP audits, despite strong documentation preparation
Gig economy companies in New Zealand will need to fully account and become liable for the goods and services tax of underlying suppliers on their platforms, under new proposals.
Join ITR and Thomson Reuters at 2pm (UAE) / 11am (UK) on October 13 as they discuss how businesses can prepare for Tax Administration 3.0 and future-proof against changes such as e-invoicing and increasing digitisation.
ITR has partnered with global TP leaders from Deloitte to discuss transfer pricing controversy around the globe, and to share advice on how to navigate an increasingly uncertain and risky TP landscape.
Sources say they are not satisfied with pillar one protections in the marketing and distribution safe harbour, even though it was designed to give businesses greater tax certainty.
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree