The plenary session of the Supreme Federal Court (STF) has scheduled for May 21st the judgment of the first lawsuits filed to challenge provisions of Complementary Law 214\/2025, which regulates the tax reform. The lawsuits question the constitutionality of provisions that impose restrictions on the application of the zero tax rate on the purchase of vehicles by people with disabilities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The first action was filed by the National Institute for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Oceano Azul. The institute argues that article 149, item II, subparagraph c, of the LC (Complementary Law) excludes autistic people from certain rights guaranteed to people with disabilities, which not only violates the principle of equality, but also harms inclusion and generates a cascading effect regarding the limitation of access to rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Article 150 of Supplementary Law 214 establishes criteria for the recognition of disability, which, according to the lawsuit, hinders access to tax benefits for people with disabilities. Among the criteria is the requirement that mental disability be proven through "significantly below-average intellectual functioning" and "limitations associated with two or more areas of adaptive skills."<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The institute argues that the passages violate the fundamental rights of people with disabilities, "especially those with autism and motor disabilities, who depend on tax exemptions to acquire vehicles adapted to their needs."<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In addition to Article 149, ADI 7790 also challenges Article 152, which stipulates, among other points, that tax rate reductions can only be enjoyed by people with disabilities at four-year intervals. The action was brought by the National Association for Support of People with Disabilities (ANAPCD), pointing to discrimination and problems with tax equality and lack of equal treatment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In this action, Minister Alexandre de Moraes adopted the abbreviated procedure "given the relevance of the matter and its special significance for social order and legal certainty." On March 27, the rapporteur requested information from the parties and opened a period for the Attorney General's Office (AGU) and the Prosecutor General's Office (PGR) to present their arguments, which were for the dismissal of the case and, on the merits, for the rejection of the requests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n