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.

In a recent decision handed down in Special Appeal No. 1.733.560/SC, the Second Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) recognized the non-applicability of the Corporate Income Tax (IRPJ), Social Contribution on Net Income (CSLL), PIS and COFINS on real estate swap arrangements carried out by companies opting for the presumed profit taxation regime.

Launched in October of last year as a very positive initiative by the Federal Revenue Service of Brazil (RFB) to guide taxpayers, in addition to avoiding default and potential litigation, the draft ordinance establishing a federal program to encourage tax compliance, Pro-Compliance, has some very questionable points that we shall review in this article.

The system of precedents established by the Brazilian Procedure Code published in 2015 (CPC/2015) is based on the premise that trials of given instruments will have a binding effect on the Judiciary and that, solely for this reason, decisions that do not follow the understanding of such precedents will be challenged by a special lawsuit named “Reclamação”. Decisions with binding effects resulting from: i) trials held by the Federal Supreme Court (STF) in concentrated control of constitutionality; ii) stare decisis (“súmula vinculante”) issued by STF (here, also binding on the Administration, not just for the Judiciary); iii) trials in incidents for assumption of jurisdiction or resolution of repetitive claims; and iv) trials of extraordinary or special repetitive appeals by the STF or the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), respectively.

On April 7, 2018, the State of São Paulo published Complementary Law No. 1,320, of April 6, 2018 ("LC No. 1,320/2018"), resulting from Bill No. 25/2017, which establishes the Program for Stimulating Tax Compliance, “Compliance Program", defining principles for the relationship between taxpayers and the Tax Administration, as well as establishing rules for tax compliance.

A topic has been provoking debates in the administrative tax sphere in the State of São Paulo: the drawing up of infraction notices and impositions of fines (AIIM), based on article 84-A of Law No. 6,374/89, to disregard acts and legal transactions carried out by taxpayers.