insights.freddoa.com

Blog

  • STF Veda Revogação Unilateral de Benefícios de ICMS pelos Estados

    O Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) decidiu que os estados não podem revogar unilateralmente benefícios fiscais do Imposto sobre Circulação de Mercadorias e Serviços (ICMS) que tenham sido previamente aprovados em convênios do Conselho Nacional de Política Fazendária (Confaz).

    A Dinâmica das Regras do Confaz

    O Confaz é o conselho que reúne representantes do Ministério da Fazenda e os secretários estaduais. Pela decisão da Corte, embora as deliberações do Confaz não implementem alterações fiscais de forma automática nas legislações estaduais, a revogação de uma regra já incorporada exige o cumprimento das diretrizes do órgão.

    Para que um benefício fiscal seja cancelado, o Confaz exige a aprovação de pelo menos quatro quintos dos seus representantes. A exigência de quórum qualificado atua como um mecanismo para mitigar a chamada “guerra fiscal” entre os estados brasileiros.

    O Caso Concreto: São Paulo e a Região Norte

    O julgamento no STF analisou ações apresentadas pelos estados de Rondônia, Acre, Amapá e Roraima contra um decreto editado pelo governo de São Paulo em 2020. A norma paulista encerrou a isenção de ICMS para mercadorias enviadas às Áreas de Livre Comércio da Região Norte, que abrange cidades dos estados autores das ações.

    Em janeiro do ano corrente, o governo de São Paulo chegou a retomar a isenção, mas limitou a validade do benefício apenas até o dia 30 de setembro.

    O Entendimento da Corte

    O plenário do STF decidiu a questão por 6 votos a 3. A maioria dos ministros seguiu o voto da relatora, ministra Cármen Lúcia. O entendimento vencedor estabelece que a revogação unilateral de benefícios fiscais por um estado prejudica as demais unidades da federação.

    Acompanharam a relatora os ministros Flávio Dino, Cristiano Zanin, Alexandre de Moraes, Dias Toffoli e Edson Fachin. Por outro lado, o ministro Luiz Fux abriu divergência, argumentando que os estados teriam autonomia para revogar os benefícios sem a aprovação prévia do Confaz. Essa posição minoritária foi seguida pelos ministros André Mendonça e Nunes Marques.

    Implicações Práticas

    Para executivos, investidores e gestores de empresas que operam no comércio interestadual, a decisão reforça a estabilidade das operações. O entendimento impede que isenções de ICMS validadas pelo Confaz sejam extintas de forma abrupta e isolada por um único estado, garantindo maior previsibilidade ao planejamento logístico e financeiro das companhias.

    Este conteúdo tem caráter meramente informativo e não constitui aconselhamento jurídico. Para orientação sobre casos concretos, consulte um advogado.

  • STF禁止各州单方面撤销ICMS税收优惠

    STF（巴西联邦最高法院）裁定，各州不得单方面撤销此前经Confaz（全国财政政策委员会）协议批准的ICMS（商品和服务流通税）税收优惠。

    Confaz规则的运作机制

    Confaz是汇集了巴西财政部代表与各州财政厅长的协调机构。根据最高法院的裁决，尽管Confaz的决议不会自动在各州立法中实施税收变更，但撤销已被州法律吸纳的规则必须严格遵循该机构的指导原则。

    若要取消某项税收优惠，Confaz要求至少获得其五分之四代表的批准。这一特别多数表决要求构成了遏制巴西各州之间“税收战”的重要机制。

    具体案例：圣保罗州与北部地区

    STF的此次审理针对的是朗多尼亚州、阿克里州、阿马帕州和罗赖马州就圣保罗州政府于2020年颁布的一项法令所提起的诉讼。圣保罗州的法令终止了发往北部地区自由贸易区货物的ICMS免税政策，该自由贸易区涵盖了起诉各州的多个城市。

    今年1月，圣保罗州政府曾恢复该免税政策，但将优惠有效期限制在9月30日截止。

    最高法院的审理观点

    STF全体法庭以6比3的表决结果作出了裁决。多数大法官支持案件报告人卡门·卢西亚（Cármen Lúcia）大法官的意见。主导观点认为，单个州单方面撤销税收优惠会损害其他联邦主体的合法权益。

    大法官弗拉维奥·迪诺（Flávio Dino）、克里斯蒂亚诺·扎宁（Cristiano Zanin）、亚历山大·德·莫赖斯（Alexandre de Moraes）、迪亚斯·托芙利（Dias Toffoli）以及埃德森·法钦（Edson Fachin）支持了报告人的意见。另一方面，路易斯·富克斯（Luiz Fux）大法官提出不同意见，认为各州拥有无需经Confaz事先批准即可撤销优惠的自主权。该少数派观点得到了安德烈·门东萨（André Mendonça）和努内斯·马克斯（Nunes Marques）大法官的支持。

    实务影响

    对于从事州际贸易的高管、投资者和企业管理人员而言，该裁决巩固了跨州业务运营的稳定性。该先例防止了经Confaz批准的ICMS免税政策被单一州单方面突然废止，从而为企业的物流与财务规划提供了更高的可预测性。

    本内容仅供参考，不构成法律意见。如需针对具体情况的指导，请咨询专业律师。

  • STF Prohibits States from Unilaterally Revoking ICMS Tax Benefits

    The STF (Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court) has ruled that states cannot unilaterally revoke tax benefits related to the ICMS (the state-level value-added tax) that were previously approved under agreements by Confaz (the National Council of Treasury Policy).

    The Mechanics of Confaz Rules

    Confaz is the council that brings together representatives from the Ministry of Finance and state finance secretaries. Under the Court’s ruling, although Confaz resolutions do not automatically implement tax changes into state laws, revoking a rule that has already been incorporated requires compliance with the council’s guidelines.

    To cancel a tax benefit, Confaz requires approval from at least four-fifths of its representatives. This supermajority requirement serves as a mechanism to curb the so-called “tax war” (interstate tax competition) among Brazilian states.

    The Specific Case: São Paulo and the Northern Region

    The STF ruling examined lawsuits filed by the states of Rondônia, Acre, Amapá, and Roraima against a decree enacted by the São Paulo state government in 2020. The São Paulo regulation had ended the ICMS exemption for goods shipped to Free Trade Areas in the Northern Region, which encompass municipalities within the claimant states.

    In January of this year, the São Paulo government reinstated the exemption, but limited the validity of the benefit only until September 30.

    The Court’s Decision

    The STF plenary decided the case by a 6-to-3 vote. The majority of the justices followed the opinion of the reporting justice, Justice Cármen Lúcia. The prevailing view established that the unilateral revocation of tax incentives by one state harms the other federation units.

    Justices Flávio Dino, Cristiano Zanin, Alexandre de Moraes, Dias Toffoli, and Edson Fachin joined the reporting justice. In contrast, Justice Luiz Fux dissented, arguing that states possess the autonomy to revoke incentives without prior approval from Confaz. This dissenting view was supported by Justices André Mendonça and Nunes Marques.

    Practical Implications

    For executives, investors, and business managers engaged in interstate commerce, the ruling reinforces operational stability. The decision prevents ICMS exemptions validated by Confaz from being abruptly and unilaterally eliminated by a single state, providing greater predictability for corporate logistic and financial planning.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • STF（巴西联邦最高法院）统一产假与收养假期限

    STF（巴西联邦最高法院）统一产假与收养假期限

    巴西联邦最高法院（STF）全票裁定，统一女性的产假与收养假期限。该裁决源于联邦总检察长办公室（PGR）于2023年10月提起的一项诉讼，该诉讼质疑了针对不同用工制度和不同生育形式所实施的不平等待遇的合宪性。

    新的计算规则

    根据最高法院确立的理解，亲生母亲与收养母亲均有权享受180天的带薪假期。该假期由120天的标准假期和60天的延长假组成。无论女性的劳动合同关系或公职聘用形式如何，该规则均有效。

    假期期限的起算时间自以下事件之一发生时开始：

    • 分娩之时；
    • 获得儿童监护权之时；
    • 如遇住院情况，以母亲或婴儿出院之时为准（以较晚发生者为准）。

    STF的裁定具有即时效力，既适用于未来的假期，也适用于目前正在进行的假期。

    差异的历史背景

    在做出此项裁决之前，巴西法律根据劳动者的用工关系及育儿方式的不同规定了不同的假期间隔。在适用于私营部门的《统一劳动法典》（CLT）中，亲生母亲和收养母亲享有120天假期，参与“公民企业计划”（Programa Empresa Cidadã）的企业可延长60天。

    在受第8.112/1990号法律管辖的公共部门中，怀孕的公职人员享有120天假期，而收养母亲仅享有90天。在某些特定职业序列中，例如检察机关（Ministério Público），收养假甚至被限制为30天。

    裁决依据

    该案主审法官亚历山大·德·莫拉埃斯（Alexandre de Moraes）在其表决意见中强调，设立假期的主要目的是在母亲与子女之间建立情感纽带。基于这一原因，不应存在差异化的假期期限。巴西联邦总律师局（AGU）在审理过程中亦支持延长假期，认为该措施有利于产妇康复、儿童照料，并使休假时间更贴近世界卫生组织（WHO）和联合国儿童基金会（UNICEF）建议的六个月纯母乳喂养期。

    本内容仅供参考，不构成法律意见。如需针对具体情况的指导，请咨询专业律师。

  • STF Equalizes Maternity and Adoption Leave Periods in Brazil

    STF Equalizes Maternity and Adoption Leave Periods in Brazil

    The STF (Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court) has unanimously decided to equalize the durations of maternity leave and adoption leave for female workers. The ruling stems from a constitutional challenge filed by the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGR) in October 2023, which questioned the constitutionality of unequal treatment across different employment regimes and forms of motherhood.

    The New Counting Rule

    Under the Court’s ruling, biological and adoptive mothers are now entitled to 180 days of paid leave. This total comprises the standard 120-day leave plus a 60-day extension. The rule applies regardless of whether the worker is employed under the private-sector labor code or the public civil service regime.

    The leave period begins upon one of the following occurrences:

    • The date of birth;
    • The formal granting of legal guardianship/custody of the child;
    • Hospital discharge of the mother or newborn, in cases involving hospitalization (whichever occurs latest).

    The Supreme Court’s ruling is of immediate application, covering both future leaves and those already in progress.

    Context of the Prior Disparities

    Prior to this decision, Brazilian legislation established disparate timeframes depending on the worker’s employment regime and the nature of motherhood. Under the Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT), which governs the private sector, biological and adoptive mothers were entitled to 120 days, extendable by 60 additional days for companies enrolled in the voluntary ‘Empresa Cidadã’ tax-incentive program.

    In the federal public sector, governed by Law 8,112/1990, pregnant civil servants were entitled to 120 days, whereas adoptive mothers received only 90 days. In specific careers, such as the Public Prosecution service, adoption leave was restricted to 30 days.

    Grounds for the Ruling

    Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the reporting justice for the case, emphasized in his vote that parental leaves serve primarily to foster emotional bonding between mothers and their children. Consequently, differential timeframes are unjustified. The Office of the Attorney General of the Union (AGU) also supported the extension during the trial, arguing that the measure facilitates postpartum recovery, child care, and aligns statutory leave with the six-month exclusive breastfeeding period recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • STF iguala prazos de licença-maternidade e adotante

    STF iguala prazos de licença-maternidade e adotante

    O Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) decidiu, por unanimidade, unificar os prazos da licença-maternidade e da licença-adotante para mulheres. A decisão é resultado de uma ação protocolada pela Procuradoria-Geral da República (PGR) em outubro de 2023, que questionava a constitucionalidade do tratamento desigual entre diferentes regimes de contratação e formas de maternidade.

    A nova regra de contagem

    Com o entendimento firmado pela Corte, mães genitoras e adotantes passam a ter direito a 180 dias de licença remunerada. Esse período é composto por 120 dias de licença padrão e outros 60 dias de prorrogação. A regra é válida independentemente do tipo de vínculo trabalhista ou funcional da mulher.

    O início da contagem do prazo ocorre a partir de um dos seguintes eventos:

    • O momento do parto;
    • A obtenção da guarda da criança;
    • A alta hospitalar da mãe ou do bebê, em casos de internação (valendo o que ocorrer por último).

    A determinação do STF possui aplicação imediata, abrangendo tanto as licenças futuras quanto aquelas que já estão em andamento.

    O contexto da disparidade

    Antes da decisão, a legislação brasileira apresentava prazos distintos a depender do vínculo da trabalhadora e da origem da maternidade. Na Consolidação das Leis do Trabalho (CLT), regra aplicável à iniciativa privada, mães biológicas e adotantes possuíam direito a 120 dias, prorrogáveis por mais 60 dias em empresas participantes do Programa Empresa Cidadã.

    No setor público, regido pela Lei 8.112/1990, as servidoras gestantes tinham direito a 120 dias, enquanto as adotantes contavam com apenas 90 dias. Em carreiras específicas, como no Ministério Público, a licença para adotantes era restrita a 30 dias.

    Fundamentos da decisão

    O ministro Alexandre de Moraes, relator do caso, destacou em seu voto que as licenças têm como objetivo principal a criação de vínculos afetivos entre mães e filhos. Por essa razão, não devem existir prazos diferenciados. A Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU) também defendeu a ampliação durante o julgamento, argumentando que a medida favorece a recuperação da mulher, o cuidado com a criança e aproxima a licença do período de seis meses de aleitamento materno exclusivo recomendado pela Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS) e pelo Unicef.

    Este conteúdo tem caráter meramente informativo e não constitui aconselhamento jurídico. Para orientação sobre casos concretos, consulte um advogado.

  • CARF确认巴西国家石油公司在ship or pay合同中的税收抵扣权

    CARF确认巴西国家石油公司在ship or pay合同中的税收抵扣权

    CARF（巴西行政税务上诉委员会）做出一项重要裁决，维持了巴西国家石油公司（Petrobras）针对ship or pay模式合同项下产生支出进行税收抵扣的权利。

    合同模式

    在基础设施运营中，特别是在天然气运输领域，合同需要运营保障。在ship or pay模式下，运输公司依据所提供的管道输送能力获得报酬。

    该模式的主要特征是，付款基于预留容量，而非实际运输的天然气量。

    CARF的裁决

    提交至行政法庭审理的争议涉及从此类支出中产生的税收抵扣权。在审理案件后，委员会确认了对该合同模式下所付款项进行税收抵扣的有效性。

    该裁决确认，与管道输送容量预留相关的成本构成了公司计算税收抵扣的基础。

    本内容仅供参考，不构成法律意见。如需针对具体情况的指导，请咨询专业律师。

  • CARF Validates Tax Credits for Petrobras’ Ship-or-Pay Contracts

    CARF Validates Tax Credits for Petrobras’ Ship-or-Pay Contracts

    The Administrative Council of Tax Appeals (CARF, Brazil’s administrative tax court) issued a relevant decision upholding Petrobras’ right to claim tax credits on expenses arising from ship-or-pay contracts.

    The Contractual Model

    In infrastructure operations, especially in natural gas transportation, contracts require operational guarantees. In the ship-or-pay model, the transportation company is compensated based on the pipeline capacity made available.

    The main feature of this arrangement is that payment is made for the reserved capacity, rather than for the actual volume of gas transported.

    The CARF Decision

    The dispute brought before the administrative tribunal concerned the right to maintain tax credits generated from these expenses. Upon analyzing the case, the council validated the claiming of credits on amounts paid under this contractual framework.

    The decision confirms that costs associated with reserving pipeline transportation capacity form part of the basis for calculating tax credits for the company.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • CARF valida créditos em contratos ship or pay da Petrobras

    CARF valida créditos em contratos ship or pay da Petrobras

    O Conselho Administrativo de Recursos Fiscais (CARF) proferiu uma decisão relevante ao manter o direito da Petrobras de apurar créditos sobre despesas oriundas de contratos na modalidade ship or pay.

    O modelo contratual

    Em operações de infraestrutura, especialmente no transporte de gás, os contratos exigem garantias operacionais. No modelo ship or pay, a empresa transportadora é remunerada de acordo com a capacidade de transporte do duto que foi disponibilizada.

    A principal característica dessa modalidade é que o pagamento ocorre pela capacidade reservada, e não pela quantidade efetiva de gás que foi transportada.

    A decisão do CARF

    A discussão levada ao tribunal administrativo envolveu o direito de manter os créditos gerados a partir dessas despesas. Ao analisar o caso, o conselho validou a tomada de crédito sobre os valores pagos sob esta modalidade contratual.

    A decisão confirma que os custos associados à reserva de capacidade de transporte nos dutos compõem a base para a apuração de créditos pela companhia.

    Este conteúdo tem caráter meramente informativo e não constitui aconselhamento jurídico. Para orientação sobre casos concretos, consulte um advogado.

  • Central Bank of Brazil Expands Rules on Cryptocurrencies and Self-Custody Wallets

    Central Bank of Brazil Expands Rules on Cryptocurrencies and Self-Custody Wallets

    The Central Bank of Brazil (BC) announced an expansion of regulatory oversight regarding virtual asset transactions. The measure, which takes effect on October 1, 2026, primarily targets anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism, aligning the cryptocurrency market with stricter financial monitoring standards.

    The new guidelines directly impact Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) and users who rely on self-custody wallets, demanding greater transparency in high-value transactions.

    Mandatory Reporting to Coaf

    The primary change introduced by the Central Bank concerns mandatory notifications to Coaf (Brazil’s Council for Financial Activities Control). Starting in October 2026, cryptocurrency transfers equal to or exceeding US$ 10,000 conducted to or from self-custody wallets must be automatically reported to the agency.

    Self-custody wallets are those in which the user retains direct control over the assets and private keys, without requiring an intermediary or exchange to custody the funds. Because this setup provides less readily available data to regulatory authorities, the new requirement seeks to bridge this information gap.

    The US$ 10,000 threshold operates exclusively as a trigger for mandatory reporting. The Central Bank clarifies that this amount does not represent a cap or prohibition on cryptocurrency movements. Coaf’s mandate is to receive and assess this data to detect potential irregular patterns, underscoring that reporting a transaction does not classify it as unlawful.

    Beyond virtual assets, the automatic reporting requirement to Coaf was also extended to physical cash foreign exchange operations reaching or exceeding the same US$ 10,000 threshold.

    New Requirements for Market Participants

    Companies operating within the virtual asset market will also encounter new regulatory deadlines and requirements. Operating VASPs will have until October 1, 2026, to formally submit their authorization requests to the Central Bank.

    The regulation also establishes strict procedures for winding down commercial relationships with entities that lack authorization or are not undergoing regularization. Furthermore, specific data submission requirements for Central Bank supervision will take effect on January 1, 2027.

    These rules complement the framework established in November 2025, which set baseline requirements for market participants, including:

    • Client protection and transparency in customer relations;
    • Anti-money laundering policies;
    • Security protocols and implementation of internal controls;
    • Customer risk profiling prior to executing complex operations.

    Practical Considerations

    This regulatory package reflects the Brazilian authorities’ efforts to enhance the volume and quality of data across the cryptoasset market. For investors and businesses, the current landscape requires technological and procedural adjustments to secure compliance with reporting and transparency mandates, mitigating risks linked to operations with limited data availability.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.