ICMS is not charged on the movement of goods between establishments belonging to the same taxpayer, reaffirms STF

ICMS is not charged on the movement of goods between establishments belonging to the same taxpayer, reaffirms STF
ADC 49; General Repercussion Theme nº 1099

The Plenary of the Federal Supreme Court (STF), in a virtual session, unanimously reiterated the Court's existing jurisprudence on the non-levy of Tax on the Circulation of Goods and Services (ICMS) between establishments of the same taxpayer. The topic was considered by the STF within the scope of the Declaratory Constitutionality Action that sought to validate articles 11, § 3, item II, 12, item I, in the section “even if for another establishment owned by the same holder”, and 13, § 4 of the Kandir Law (Complementary Law nº 84/1996), which provide for the occurrence of an ICMS triggering event on that occasion.

The Rapporteur of the case, Minister Edson Fachin, admitted the ADC, highlighting the demonstration of the existence of a relevant judicial controversy. In the analysis of the merits, his vote was in the direction of dismissing the request due to the fact that the Court's jurisprudence already included the understanding that the physical circulation of a merchandise does not generate the incidence of tax, since the transfer of possession or ownership of the goods is not verified. In this way, the Rapporteur emphasizes, there is no way to establish a tax obligation, since the mere movement between establishments of the same owner does not generate a legal circulation.

Minister Fachin also recalled that the thesis of general repercussion on the matter had already been defined in a previous judgment (“ICMS is not applicable on the movement of goods from one establishment to another owned by the same taxpayer located in different states, as there is no transfer of ownership or the performance of a commercial act” – Theme of General Repercussion No. 1099).

ADC 49

TJRJ suspends judicial recovery of company that has tax debts
Case nº 0046087-14.2020.8.19.0000

The 16th Civil Chamber of the Court of Justice of the State of Rio de Janeiro (TJRJ) issued a decision that interrupts the company's judicial recovery due to the existence of tax debts. Such a decision is unprecedented since the new Bankruptcy Law (Law No. 14,112/2020) came into force in January this year.

For the judges of the 16th Civil Chamber, the company has approval of the judicial recovery plan conditional on the presentation of the tax regularity certificate, which did not occur in the aforementioned case. The rule, until then, was relaxed by the Judiciary, as there was no appropriate installment of tax debts for companies in recovery, thus making it possible to continue the action without the existence of tax regularity.

The decision was handed down unanimously among the Court's judges.

Check out the full text ruling

PGFN notice published introducing proposals for the negotiation of debts registered in active debt of the Union suspended by court decision more than 10 years ago
PGFN Notice No. 02/2021

The Attorney General's Office of the National Treasury (PGFN) published a notice that enables the payment, under different conditions, of debts registered in the Union's active debt suspended by court decision for more than 10 years. The debts must be in the tax execution phase, already filed or not, with a consolidated registered value equal to or less than R$15 million.

Those interested in negotiating must complete the negotiation by June 30, 2021.

Check out the conditions for negotiation

Published RFB Ordinance regulating virtual service via RFB Chat
COGEA/RFB Ordinance No. 02/2021

The General Coordination of Service of the Federal Revenue of Brazil (COGEA/RFB) published the ordinance that amends the Single Annex of Ordinance RFB No. 853, of May 14, 2020, which regulates the virtual service of the Special Secretariat of the Federal Revenue carried out through the RFB Chat.

Check out the publication in its entirety, which describes the types of services that can be provided through Chat RFB.

Ordinance COGEA/RFB nº 02/2021