R$49.9 billion lawsuit over Reintegra and punitive fine return to the STF’s agenda this week

The Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) may resume this week the trial of a lawsuit that questions the variable rates of the Special Regime for Reintegration of Tax Values ​​for Exporting Companies (Reintegra). The case has an estimated fiscal risk of R$49.9 billion for public accounts, according to the Budget Guidelines Law (LDO) of 2024. Another tax lawsuit on the agenda questions the qualified fine of 150% for tax evasion.

In the virtual plenary session, the ministers analyzed two processes regarding the Union’s responsibility in the supply of medicines.

Reintegra

On Thursday, the 5th, the ministers may resume the trial that discusses whether the Executive Branch can reduce the percentage of credits from Reintegra, a federal program that aims to reduce the impact of accumulated tax residues in the production of goods for export. Through Reintegra, companies can calculate credits in a percentage that varies between 01% and 3% on export revenues.

The current rate is 0.1%. The Brazilian Steel Institute and the National Confederation of Industry (CNI) argue that the rates should be set at a maximum of 3%, without any discretion on the part of the Executive Branch. So far, the score is in favor of the Union, at 3 to 2.

Qualified fine of 150%

The Court may still discuss whether the qualified fine of 150% for tax evasion is confiscatory in nature. Taxpayers claim that any fine that exceeds the limit of 30% of the tax is unconstitutional. “The fine, as a tax obligation, is accessory and, as such, cannot exceed the principal amount,” they state.

Justice Dias Toffoli, the rapporteur for the case, has already voted in the virtual plenary session to limit the fine for tax evasion to 100% of the debt, until a complementary law on the matter is enacted. He was accompanied by Moraes, and Justice Flávio Dino requested a highlight.

Medicines

In the virtual plenary session that will run until Friday, the 13th, the ministers will also define the thesis of the judgment that decided, in 2020, that the State is not obliged to provide high-cost medicines requested in court, when they are not included in the standardized list of the SUS. Now, the ministers will analyze “exceptional situations” that can be treated separately.

In another action, the Court is judging whether the Union should be jointly liable in actions against state governments that deal with the provision of medicine or treatment not incorporated into SUS policies, but which is registered with the National Health Surveillance Agency (Anvisa).