EN 
PT_BR 
The STF (Supreme Federal Court) decided that charging a rate of ICMS (Tax on the Circulation of Goods and Services) higher than the regular ICMS rate, which varies between 17% and 18%, on operations involving the supply of electricity and electricity services telecommunications, is an unconstitutional practice.
The collegiate, by majority, agreed with the proposal presented by Minister Dias Toffoli in Extraordinary Appeal No. 714,139, with general repercussion, in which the Court recognized the right to a taxpayer from Santa Catarina, where the rate charged was 25%, as reported by the Solar Channel.
“The ICMS has different rates from state to state, but some have adopted the criteria of selectivity and essentiality to assign different charges to certain types of operations involving the circulation of goods”, explains Einar Tribuci, legal and tax director at ABGD (Brazilian Association of Distributed Generation).
Currently, the Brazilian Constitution already provides for the adoption of the selectivity criterion for assigning differentiated rates for ICMS. “However, for telecommunications services and electricity supply, some states were assigning a higher rate than the regular rate, which should be 17% or 18%, as is the case in Santa Catarina”, said Tribuci.
As a result, the STF understood that it is not possible to charge a higher rate than the standard, as these operations are essential and, therefore, cannot have a higher rate than the others. The issue had been pacified in November 2021, but it remained to be seen when the decision would come into force, given the economic impact of that decision.
When does it come into effect?
The measure will come into effect from 2024, with the exception of actions filed before the start of the judgment on the merits of the appeal, on February 5th of this year. According to Toffoli, applying the rate reset already in the 2022 financial year would represent an annual loss estimated by states at R$ 26.6 billion. “The amounts are high, and revenue losses occur in difficult times and affect states whose economies are already weakened”, he highlighted.
The judge also recalled that governors and members of the prosecutor's offices, in the hearing, presented a table with the annual impact of the decision, based on 2019 prices and which vary according to state: from R$ 19 million (Roraima) to R$ 3, 59 billion (São Paulo). It now remains to be seen whether by 2024 the states that adopt the selectivity criterion for setting different ICMS rates will change their respective internal legislation to adapt to the STF's decision.
27 Responses
This is absurd, so it means that the Supreme Court decided that the States could continue stealing from us until 2024, that's exactly what I understand, correct me if I'm wrong please!
In Minas Gerais, the ICMS for residence is 30%. Should the percentage decided by the Supreme Court have a general reduction? It's the people? Just the states?
To make changes that benefit the population, all politicians claim that the state council cannot lose revenue as it compromises the financial health of the state.
And the financial health of the people when taxes increase their salaries, etc. in the dead of night.
That's why we have so many tax evaders and appropriators in the country
We are all robbed by all our authorities.
Will we have authorities in the future?
Look at the militias dominating the country.
“Their judges are wolves of the evening, leaving no bones until the morning.”
Finally, the STF gave it a go! Better late than never, but they did no more than they had to. I still think that the governors won't let it go cheaply, they will find another way to continue putting their hand in our pockets
If it is unconstitutional, the effects of the decision must be immediate. Strange times at the STF
It should be retroactive to all citizens who paid for energy above and return the differences to the citizens because if you owe the state they charge everything retroactively with interest and fines, not just for those who file a lawsuit
The electoral fund they approved is unconstitutional….. These people have no choice anymore….
I have interest
to the hotel and two more houses
If it is unconstitutional why do we have to pay another two years???? .
An absurd decision, they should return everything they illegally charged and regularize the charge immediately and not regularize the theft for another two years.
This is the Brazilian court……
Is the STF the guardian of the constitution or is it outside the standards? They are exaggerating their power or they think they will continue with their tricks. The STF's self-command of power leaves us free to fight in favor of Bolsonaro.
What country is this.
How absurd, how can it be, only here in this Brazil
Something that is unconstitutional, the highest court allows/rejects that they can continue to harm us?
Until 2024 we will literally continue “stealing”.
Gentlemen, in this country, everything is permitted and even those who can determine it are still valid.
Brazil is not a serious country,
Just look at who is benefiting immediately, large corporations, who really have the means and can afford lawyers. The minority, once again wealthy, is benefiting.
Gentlemen, you are always legislating for those who can afford it.
Another thing is that they take so long to judge things, and even when they decide, only a small minority are benefiting immediately.
The way legal security in our country is so great today is one thing, soon there was a change in the Supreme Court, and the new member has another intention, to change again, a decision that was already being followed.
My God in heaven, how long will this continue to happen in this country.
Decisions are made according to the interests of the moment.
Will 2924 not go back on this decision?
If it is unconstitutional, it must apply equally to everyone and immediately, why wait,
Gentlemen, be fair and honest with all Brazilians.
It's funny, people say a lot that the Supreme Court is the guardian of our Constitution, how can they say this?
How long will we continue to be harmed, and whoever can enforce it immediately, closes their eyes to these things and still endorses, give approval for something like this
This situation is revolting, if the supreme court decided to party and we have nowhere to turn.
Things need to change urgently.
When they decide something, favorable to the government, large corporations, etc., things come into effect immediately, and when it is the opposite.
And things are different, it only needs to be valid based on that,
Another thing until 2024, there's a lot of time, who knows if things won't change again by then.
We don't have to be ashamed of being Brazilians, thank God, but of justice, we have to be disgusted, repudiated, and demand that true justice be done, things need to change urgently.
We must be disgusted and repudiated of these decisions, where only the powerful are favored.
An excellent 2022.
What a wonder only in our
This is pure nonsense STF is the worst robbery entity in the world, they only do and approve what is good for them, one day these stupid people who call themselves Brazilian will open their eyes and we will definitely stop working for these dirty politicians, forgive my sincerity, troop of leeches
Wouldn't it be a replacement for revenue, as a phase of renewable sources is going through?? Due to the high fuel price, oil for energy, in other words, the government will stop collecting revenue from Petrobrás due to renewable sources, well from what I think, when electric cars are at their peak, the price of energy will be like gasoline or Diesel, as was the case with the truckers' strikes that held back the increase in the price of diesel and switched to gasoline, all of this so you don't miss out on income, substituting one for the other but not leaving taxes. Wouldn't that also be unconstitutional?
Henrique, in the case at hand, considering the law that changes ICMS 17%, essential services, to be unconstitutional, and there is nothing to talk about loss, the fact is that loss is when something consistent is lost, for which there is already provision for an appeal, not its marjorative creation. In other words, considering that public coffers will suffer a major impact in 2019, they want to create new sources of funding, harming the rights of the minority, who are the poorest class. Or would it be due to the new electric cars, which would stop consuming petroleum fuels and start using energy? Wouldn't it be a replacement for the declaration? From one fuel to another? Furthermore, as vehicle manufacturers have stopped manufacturing combustion cars and making them energy-powered, ??
This means that, although it is accepted that taxpayers are being robbed by public authorities, they have decided to let them continue to be robbed until 2024!!! Is this justice????? Which country offers this type of justice to its citizens? Only Brazil...
In Pará, a senator allied with the Barbalhos was elected with a single banner: “reducing the absurd value of energy in the State” in addition to doing nothing in this sense, he agrees with an ICMS charge of 25%, which is actually much higher, as the ICMS on top of all taxes, including iCMS itself, a shameless double taxation
In São Paulo the tax rate is also 25%.
And in RS, a 30 % tax rate is charged on energy
The time of tolerance for a recognition of unconstitutionality to come into force is impressive and even an aberration. If it is unconstitutional, it becomes immediate.
How can what is recognized as unconstitutional by the STF become admissible?
Another fact is to consider a loss for the States, we cannot disregard CAIXA, accumulated resources, the result of our loss due to undue, illegal collection over how many years?
To be fair, the reimbursement of undue and fraudulent charges must be allowed as it is unconstitutional.
Defend consumer rights at least once.
According to the STF's decision, this loss of 26 billion must be from the Brazilian population and industry and commerce until 2024. Remembering that commerce and industry pass on their costs. and the people always continue to pay the bill. Also remembering that there is no cost for states to collect ICMS. They just mismanage this resource.
Brazil is the country that has NEVER been SERIOUS AND FAIR.
Very good, but it had to be from the 22nd year onwards, for the consumer everything arrives late. Long live Brazil.
I think it's not just the energy bill that this abuse of the consumer occurs. The same thing happens when it comes to telecommunications bills.
I was wondering, can the validity of an unconstitutional rule be extended? According to national legislation, shouldn't there be a refund of the amounts charged and the collection immediately ceased? Pressure from governors? Political or legal decision? Could someone with legal knowledge clarify these issues? Thanks.
ICMS with a maximum value of 17% should only be charged on the value of the green tariff. The increases due to yellow and red tariffs are catastrophes.