Post by firoj1616 on Feb 15, 2024 5:39:21 GMT -5
The Federal Supreme Court postponed defining the scope of its decision on the end of presumed IPI credit for the purchase of inputs that have a zero rate. What the Supreme Court discusses is whether the decision only affects future operations or whether the Union can charge back what has already been credited by companies based on the previous rule. Minister Ricardo Lewandowski, who raised the need to discuss the effects of the decision, did not finish voting in this Wednesday's session (18/4). A request for a view from Minister Marco Aurélio interrupted the trial. In February this year, after years of continuous discussions, the Supreme Court defined that companies that purchase raw materials taxed at zero rates or not taxed are not entitled to presumed IPI credit.
With the end of the trial, Minister Ricardo Lewandowski raised a point of order about the possibility of defining whether a decision can be modulated over time: whether and its effects, whether they would be ex nunc (from now on) or ex tunc (with retroactive effect) . This Wednesday's trial was eagerly awaited. Unlike what normally happens, the audience at the Supreme Court Plenary Canada Email List was almost full. Lawyers interested in the case and the National Treasury showed up in force. The Union's attorney general, José Antônio Dias Toffoli, and the Treasury attorney general, Luis Inácio Adams, also attended the session. At the beginning of the trial, Minister Ricardo Lewandowski recognized the possibility of modulating over time the effects of unconstitutionality decisions made in subjective processes, that is, in diffuse control, and not just in concentrated control processes.
The minister began to talk about the possibility of granting effects only after the decision in the name of legal certainty. “As unconstitutionality can be argued at any time, it is not difficult to imagine that the systematic adoption of the nullity sanction would cause serious disruption to social relations, since the very certainty of the law could be called into question. The annulment of the unconstitutional norm, with the modulation of the temporal effects of the decision, thus emerges as a precious instrument that allows the principle of constitutional supremacy to be tempered with other socially relevant values such as legal certainty”, he said. With the February decision, defined by six votes to five, the companies lost out, but they cannot calculate the real impact of the decision, which still has no defined time to embrace. The Attorney General's Office of the National Treasury, however, estimates that the government will stop paying around R$20 billion annually to companies.
With the end of the trial, Minister Ricardo Lewandowski raised a point of order about the possibility of defining whether a decision can be modulated over time: whether and its effects, whether they would be ex nunc (from now on) or ex tunc (with retroactive effect) . This Wednesday's trial was eagerly awaited. Unlike what normally happens, the audience at the Supreme Court Plenary Canada Email List was almost full. Lawyers interested in the case and the National Treasury showed up in force. The Union's attorney general, José Antônio Dias Toffoli, and the Treasury attorney general, Luis Inácio Adams, also attended the session. At the beginning of the trial, Minister Ricardo Lewandowski recognized the possibility of modulating over time the effects of unconstitutionality decisions made in subjective processes, that is, in diffuse control, and not just in concentrated control processes.
The minister began to talk about the possibility of granting effects only after the decision in the name of legal certainty. “As unconstitutionality can be argued at any time, it is not difficult to imagine that the systematic adoption of the nullity sanction would cause serious disruption to social relations, since the very certainty of the law could be called into question. The annulment of the unconstitutional norm, with the modulation of the temporal effects of the decision, thus emerges as a precious instrument that allows the principle of constitutional supremacy to be tempered with other socially relevant values such as legal certainty”, he said. With the February decision, defined by six votes to five, the companies lost out, but they cannot calculate the real impact of the decision, which still has no defined time to embrace. The Attorney General's Office of the National Treasury, however, estimates that the government will stop paying around R$20 billion annually to companies.