The Federal Supreme Court (STF) has published in issue 23/06 of the Electronic Journal of Justice five new authoritative summaries approved by the plenary of the Court, including the number of paragraph 50, the inscription of which states that “a rule of law which modifies the period of recovery of the tax debt is not subject to the principle of the previous one”. To meet the (very high) tax requirement, the term is relevant, but we hope for a tax reform that reduces the huge tax burden we have in Brazil. The legal norm that modifies the period of recovery of the tax debt is not subject to the previous principle. Several precedents of the Supreme Court have led to the publication of the mandatory summary 50, including the RE 295992 AgR, in which an SC company opposed a change in the time limit for collecting social contributions levied by the Union, arguing that this amendment must respect the principle of nonageimality (Federal Constitution, Art. 195, § 6). However, as in other cases, the Supreme Court has upheld the interpretation that the modification of the collection period, since it does not entail the creation or increase of taxes, does not violate the principle of prior taxation. The principles of annuality and nonagesimality, the noventena, are set out in article 150, paragraph III, of the Federal Constitution. In accordance with paragraphs (b) and (c) of this provision, the association, the Länder, the Federal District and the municipalities may not levy taxes during the financial year in which the law established or increased them and before ninety days after the date of publication of the standard. “The question to be examined in the appeal relates exclusively to the application of the constitutional principle of the foregoing enshrined in Article 195(6) of the Constitution. (…) The request for contribution is therefore made only after the expiry of the deadline set by the standard. It is necessary to ascertain whether the change in the time-limit for the collection of tax revenue imposed by the legislation at issue falls within the concept of amendment inserted in that article. That is negative.

In fact, not all changes introduced by law in the system of compulsory contributions should be regarded as synonymous with change. It would not be permissible to expect the effectiveness of the legislation to be undermined solely by a change in the date of payment of the tax due without further effect. (RE 209386, rapporteur Minister Ilmar Galvão, first class, trial of 5.12.1997, DJ of 27.2.1998) This is the case of RE 601.967, subject 346 of the General Implications. In an appeal in 2020, the Supreme Court determined that laws extending the ICMS credit clarification period are not subject to Noventena. It should be noted that from the moment of their publication, binding summonses have normative force and must be implemented by other organs of the judiciary as well as by the direct and indirect public administration at the federal, state and local levels. The objective of the related decisions is to make the treatment of processes more agile and to avoid the accumulation of claims on identical subjects that have already been pacified in the Supreme Court. However, as defined by the Supreme Federal Supreme Court (STF) in Binding Summary No. 50 (DOU 1 of 23.06.2015), “a rule of law that modifies the period of recovery of the tax debt is not subject to the principle of the previous one”. Summary 633-STJ: Law No. 9.784/99, in particular with regard to the time limit for the revision of administrative acts within the federal public administration, may be applied subsidiarily to the Länder and municipalities if there is no local and specific rule governing the matter. • Approved in. Experts will debate changes to the new nutrition table on Tuesday (29.11.). The event is sponsored by the Eye on the Loupes campaign Therefore, if the tax authorities change the tax rule and require that the tax be levied on the first day after the calculation, the same tax levied on the 20th of the following month is not unconstitutional according to this new summary.

For these and others, tax authorities will continue to “press” taxpayers and demand shorter and shorter tax collection times, which is unfortunate in a country where the federal constitution favours free initiative and rules limiting the power to tax, which are generally not respected by the executive. Summary 653-STJ: The application for instalment payments, even if denied, interrupts the limitation period because it marks the extrajudicial admission of guilt. STJ. Section 1. Approved on 02.12.2021, DJe 06.12.2021. Finally, there are cases before the High Court on this subject in which the case is pending. This is the case of ADI 7.066, 7.070, 7.078 and 7.075, which include the need to consider Noventena or annuality in the case of the ICMS rate difference (Difal). The so-called “grandfathering principle” states that there will be no tax collection in the same taxation year of the law that introduced it. Summary 649-STJ: ICMS does not charge fees for the interstate transportation of goods destined for foreign countries. • Approved on 28.04.2021, DJe 03.05.2021. •Important.

Summary 642-STJ: The right to compensation for moral prejudice is transferred on the death of the holder who has active legitimacy to the heirs of the victim to assess or continue the action for compensation. STJ. Special cut. Approved on 02.12.2020, DJe 07.12.2020. Bárbara Mengardo – publisher in Brasilia. Coordinates tax collection in higher courts, Carf and executive branch. Before joining JOTA, he worked for the newspaper Valor Econômico, in São Paulo and Brasilia. Email: [email protected] Abstract 646-STJ: The type of work budget for the purposes of the fgts contribution is not relevant, since only funds covered by the law (s.