In this Tax Law newsletter, you will read about:
- STJ prohibits altering the legal basis of a CDA
- STJ recognizes that a tax decision granted to the parent company extends to subsidiaries not listed in the action
- STF orders Congress to regulate the Wealth Tax
- STF limits fines for failures in ancillary tax obligations
STJ prohibits alteration of the legal basis of the tax debt certificate
The First Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), when ruling on Theme 1,350 under the system of Repetitive Appeals, understood that the Public Treasury may not replace or amend the Certificate of Active Debt (CDA) in order to modify the legal basis of the tax credit subject to enforcement.
The decision, which is binding on all judges and courts, emphasized that the possibility of substitution provided for in the Law on Tax Enforcement Proceedings is limited to the correction of formal errors and does not extend to altering the legal grounds for collection.
Click here to read more.
STJ recognizes that a tax decision in favor of the taxpayer is applicable to its branches
The First Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ruled that the effects of a favorable judicial decision obtained by the taxpayer may be extended to its branches, even if they were not included in the lawsuit. The case concerned a writ of mandamus that set aside the collection of ICMS-DIFAL on interstate transactions.
According to the Reporting Judge, Minister Gurgel de Faria, the head office and its branches form a single legal entity, and the fact that they hold distinct taxpayer identification numbers (CNPJs) does not confer legal autonomy capable of limiting the effects of the decision.
Click here to read more.
STF orders congress to regulate the Wealth Tax
The Federal Supreme Court (STF) acknowledged the legislative omission regarding the regulation of the Tax on Large Fortunes (IGF), which has been provided for in the Constitution for 37 years, and ordered the National Congress to enact the corresponding law. The Court, however, did not set a deadline for the enactment of such legislation.
The Reporting Justice, Marco Aurélio Mello (retired), was joined by Justices Alexandre de Moraes, Cármen Lúcia, Cristiano Zanin, Dias Toffoli, and Nunes Marques. Justice Zanin highlighted the debate on the economic and social impacts of instituting the tax and noted that Brazil has been seeking the most appropriate model for its implementation.
The judgment has not yet been published.
STF limits fines related to ancillary tax obligations
The STF, through Theme 487, ruled that fines imposed for noncompliance or errors in ancillary tax obligations may not exceed 60% of the tax amount, and may reach up to 100% in aggravated cases. The judgment, concluded in a virtual plenary session on November 10, 2025, has general repercussion and will impact the application of penalties established under the new consumption tax reform, which begins its transition in 2026.
See below a chart with the themes ruled by the STF on tax fines.
| Rulings of the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court (STF) on the imposition of tax penalties | |
| TOPIC/STF | What was decided? |
| Qualified penalty 863 | Until a federal supplementary law is enacted on the matter, the qualified tax penalty imposed for tax evasion, fraud, or collusion shall be limited to 100% of the tax liability, and may reach up to 150% of the tax liability in cases of recidivism as defined in Article 44, §1-A, of Law No. 9,430/1996, as amended by Law No. 14,689/2023, subject also to the provisions of §1-C of the same article. |
| Isolated fines in claims to offset 736 | The isolated fine established by law to be imposed solely upon the denial of approval of a tax offset is unconstitutional, as such denial does not constitute an unlawful act capable of automatically giving rise to a pecuniary penalty. |
| Fines related to DCTF and DIRF 872 | The sanction provided for in Article 7, item II, of Law No. 10,426/2002 is deemed constitutional, as it does not violate the principles of proportionality or the prohibition of taxes with a confiscatory effect. |
| Penalty for late payment 816 | Late payment penalties imposed by the Federal Government, States, Federal District, and Municipalities are limited to 20% on the tax liability. |
| Tax assessment fine 1195 | Possibility of setting the percentage of punitive tax penalties — not qualified by tax evasion, fraud, or collusion — at an amount exceeding the principal tax due, in light of the principles of proportionality, reasonableness, and the prohibition of confiscation in tax matters, as well as the possibility of judicial reduction. Theme pending judgment. |
