Dear all, good morning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The ministers of the 1st Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) confirmed the understanding that the Union could not have revoked in advance the zero rate of PIS and Cofins on gross revenue from the retail sale of certain electronics, such as smartphones and notebooks. The exemption was supposed to be valid until 2018, but was canceled in 2015.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The trial took place on Tuesday. It is the first time that the group has judged the issue with the new composition, which no longer includes the presence of Napole\u00e3o Nunes Maia Filho, who retired in December.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
There was concern on the part of companies, because when the panel decided in favor of the taxpayer, the score was close: three ministers voted against the early revocation of the benefit and two were in favor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Napole\u00e3o was the rapporteur of the case and voted in favor of the taxpayer. There was fear that his replacement, Manoel Erhardt, a judge called to the position, would take a different position. If that happened, it would turn the tables, giving victory to the tax authorities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The ministers, in today's trial, however, chose to prioritize legal certainty. Even the two who had previously voted against the taxpayer \u2013 Gurgel de Faria and Benedito Gon\u00e7alves \u2013 have now decided to follow the favorable understanding (Resp n\u00ba 1941121).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cOut of respect for legal certainty and in homage to the principle of collegiality, I will reserve my point of view. I am not abandoning it, I am merely reserving it,\u201d stated Minister Gurgel de Faria, adding that when the matter reaches the 1st Section \u2013 which standardizes the understanding of public law groups \u2013 he will be free to express his opinion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Manoel Erhardt, Minister Napole\u00e3o's replacement, followed the same path: \u201cI understand the need to preserve jurisprudence, but highlighting the relevance of the vote of the rapporteur, Minister Regina Helena, demonstrating, including, the social connotation that the granting of this benefit had\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Lei do Bem (Law of Good) (No. 11,196, of 2005) created the digital inclusion program. There was a reduction to zero of the PIS and Cofins rates on retail sales of IT and technology products. The objective was to stimulate the purchase of IT products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This tax benefit was extended twice. In 2009, the zero rate was extended until 2014, when it was again extended until 2018, by Law No. 13,097. However, Law No. 13,241, of 2015, removed the tax exemption for retailers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The validity of this revocation is what was being questioned in the STJ. According to the National Treasury, the zero rate for retail represents R$1.5T 6.7 billion in annual tax expenditure. This amount is no longer collected with the benefit granted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Office of the Attorney General of the National Treasury (PGFN) considers that the discussion is constitutional, as it is necessary to define whether a law could revoke a zero-rate benefit established by another law. The discussion, for this reason, would be up to the Federal Supreme Court (STF).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An appeal (statement of clarification) of the decision handed down today by the STJ is still possible, but only to point out omissions or request clarification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n