In this Tax Law newsletter, you will find:
- TRF4 orders adjustment of income tax withholding on profits and dividends for high-income earners
- TRF-1 guarantees perse to bars, restaurants and hotels in the Federal District until 2027
- Judge grants PIS/COFINS credit to agribusiness company following LC No. 224/2025
- STJ cancels two repetitive themes on social security contributions
- Federal Court of Amazonas upholds Selic rate in the adjustment of judicial tax deposits
- STJ sets aside PIS/COFINS on escrow account amounts
- STJ sets aside new award of attorney’s fees in annulment action following settlement
- STF strikes down rule holding lessees liable for the lessor’s IPVA
1. TRF4 orders adjustment of income tax withholding on profits and dividends for high-income earners
The Federal Appellate Judge Leandro Paulsen, of the Federal Regional Court of the 4th Region, partially granted urgent injunctive relief in an interlocutory appeal to order that the withholding of individual income tax (IRPF) on profits and dividends distributed to individuals be made compatible with the annual taxation actually projected, in cases where monthly payments range between BRL 50,000 and BRL 100,000. The appeal was filed by the taxpayer following a first-instance decision that had denied a request for injunctive relief in a writ of mandamus.
The claimants sought to set aside the 10% withholding provided for in Article 6-A of Law No. 9,250/1995, introduced by Law No. 15,270/2025, levied on profits and dividends distributed above BRL 50,000 per month.
According to the reporting judge, since the monthly withholding is a mere advance payment of the annual taxation, for which the legislation provides a progressive rate ranging from 0% to 10% on income between BRL 600,000 and BRL 1.2 million per year, the advance withholding of 10% in all cases infringes the ability-to-pay principle, as it may require an amount higher than the tax actually due and compromise the taxpayer’s financial availability until the annual adjustment.
This is an injunctive decision, with the merits still pending review by the Panel.
2. TRF-1 guarantees perse to bars, restaurants and hotels in the Federal District until 2027
The 7th Panel of the TRF1 unanimously upheld the PERSE tax benefits for companies in the Federal District affiliated with Sindhobar-DF, securing the zero rate of IRPJ, CSLL, PIS and COFINS until March 2027, the deadline originally set for the program’s termination.
The reasoning rests on the nature of the benefit: instituted by Law No. 14,148/2021 for a fixed term (60 months) and under specific conditions, PERSE constitutes a tax incentive of an onerous nature, and not a mere gratuity. For this reason, it attracts the protection of Article 178 of the CTN and of Precedent 544 of the STF, which prohibit the revocation of onerous exemptions with respect to those who have already fulfilled the conditions. The early termination brought about by Law No. 14,859/2024 could not, therefore, reach these taxpayers, under penalty of violating vested rights, legal certainty and the protection of legitimate expectations.
The Federal Government may still appeal. The decision has scope restricted to the parties, but reinforces a thesis of interest to the entire events, food service and hospitality sector.
3. Judge grants PIS/COFINS credit to agribusiness company following LC No. 224/2025
Judge Antônio César Bochenek, of the 2nd Federal Court of Ponta Grossa (PR), recognized the right of an agricultural company to the use of PIS and COFINS credits following the amendments introduced by Supplementary Law No. 224/2025.
Taxed under the Actual Profit regime (Lucro Real) and previously subject to a zero rate on the acquisition and sale of agricultural products (Law No. 10,925/2004), the company became, under the new rule, subject to the contributions at a 10% rate, but without the right to credit.
The judge held that, where there is effective taxation at the previous stage of the chain, the credit becomes admissible, so as to observe non-cumulativity, tax neutrality and equality.
4. STJ cancels two repetitive themes on social security contributions
On June 30, 2026, the 1st Panel of the STJ, in REsp 1,230,957 and under the reporting of Justice Marco Aurélio Bellizze, canceled Repetitive Themes 479 and 739, which addressed, respectively, the incidence of employer social security contributions on the constitutional one-third vacation bonus and on maternity pay.
The cancellation stems from the supervening STF precedents in general repercussion that established guidance on these matters, now recognized as constitutional in nature: STF Theme 985 upheld the incidence on the one-third bonus for vacation taken (with modulation of effects), while STF Theme 72 declared unconstitutional the incidence on maternity pay.
According to the reporting justice, it is not for the STJ to reproduce, in its own repetitive themes, constitutional theses already defined by the STF, under penalty of unduly encroaching upon the competence of the Supreme Court and of requiring successive adjustments in light of the evolution of case law.
5. Federal Court of Amazonas upholds Selic rate in the adjustment of judicial tax deposits
The 9th Federal Civil Court of the Judicial Section of Amazonas granted judgment in a writ of mandamus to uphold the adjustment of judicial deposits linked to federal tax credits by the SELIC rate, setting aside, in the specific case, Article 37, II, of Law No. 14,973/2024 and Article 8, II, of Ministry of Finance Ordinance No. 1,430/2025, which began to require adjustment by the IPCA as of January 1, 2026.
The reasoning is that, since the federal tax credit remains adjusted by the SELIC rate, the judicial deposit must follow the adjustment criterion of the debt it is intended to secure. According to the judge, allowing the Federal Government to charge by the SELIC rate and refund deposits only by the IPCA generates an imbalance incompatible with the constitutional principles of taxation, of procedure and of administrative action, to the detriment of the taxpayer and to the undue advantage of the Treasury.
6. STJ sets aside PIS/COFINS on escrow account amounts
The 1st Panel of the STJ unanimously, in AREsp 2,765,876/SP, under the reporting of Justice Gurgel de Faria, held that amounts deposited in an escrow account (a guarantee account customary in transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares or equity interests) do not form part of the PIS and COFINS tax base when subsequently withdrawn on account of contingencies provided for in the transaction.
The prevailing understanding was that the incidence of the contributions must consider the legal relationship that gave rise to the amounts, and not their mere accounting classification. Although the PIS and COFINS tax base corresponds to monthly gross revenue or turnover, the triggering event presupposes an inflow that effectively bears the nature of revenue. In the specific case, the amounts were withdrawn by the company, in its capacity as the entity that had absorbed the depositing acquirer through merger, on account of contingencies arising in the corporate transaction,.
The precedent is relevant to the structuring of M&A transactions, as it sets aside PIS/COFINS taxation on escrow amounts released due to contingencies, reinforcing the distinction between a financial inflow and taxable revenue.
7. STJ sets aside new award of attorney’s fees in annulment action following settlement
The 2nd Panel of the STJ unanimously, in REsp 2,199,118/PE, under the reporting of Justice Marco Aurélio Bellizze, held that a new award of loss-of-suit attorney’s fees is not warranted in an annulment action when such fees have already been paid by reason of a settlement that extinguished the debt. The understanding is favorable to taxpayers.
The prevailing premise was that, once the attorney’s fees have been paid within the scope of an installment plan or settlement, they are not due again in the same context. In the specific case, the taxpayer filed an annulment action to challenge debts entered as overdue tax liability and, following adherence to the settlement and payment of the charges, the lower court once again set attorney’s fees. The STJ set aside this new award, as it constituted bis in idem incompatible with the statutory cap on loss-of-suit fees.
8. STF strikes down rule holding lessees liable for the lessor’s IPVA
The Virtual Plenary of the STF, in ADI 4376, formed a majority to declare unconstitutional provisions of Law No. 13,296/2008 of the State of São Paulo that attributed to lessee companies joint and several liability for the IPVA owed by lessors, as well as the rules that authorized the collection of the tax on used vehicles registered in another unit of the federation when leased or made available for lease within São Paulo territory.
As to joint and several liability, the dissent opened by Justice Cristiano Zanin prevailed, according to whom the mere taking of a vehicle under lease does not warrant the attribution of tax liability to the lessee, constituting an unconstitutional expansion, by the state legislature, of the situations of third-party liability. The reporting Justice, Gilmar Mendes, was outvoted, having recognized a sufficient connection between the lessee and the triggering event, given the possession and enjoyment of the vehicle, and having invoked the principle of tax practicality.
As to the spatial criterion, the Court applied Theme 708 of general repercussion, according to which IPVA is owed to the State of the taxpayer’s seat or tax domicile. Taxing in São Paulo the vehicles of companies seated in other States, on the argument of availability for lease, unduly expands the spatial criterion of the tax and may give rise to double taxation within the same fiscal year.
