O judiciário como fator de litigiosidade e insegurança jurídicadivergências na aplicação do tema n.779 do Superior Tribunal de Justiça

Resumo

This dissertation critically examines the role of the Brazilian Judiciary in fostering—or undermining—legal certainty in tax litigation, using as a case study a landmark precedent issued by the country’s Superior Court of Justice (STJ) regarding the definition of “input” for purposes of claiming tax credits under the non-cumulative regime of two major federal contributions. Although the precedent aimed to bring uniformity by adopting the criteria of “essentiality” and “relevance” to determine what qualifies as an input, its application has remained inconsistent across administrative and judicial bodies. The research highlights that the Federal Revenue Authority issued guidance that significantly narrowed the scope of the judicial precedent, reverting to restrictive interpretations previously invalidated by the courts. Likewise, decisions from regional federal courts have diverged widely—some applying the precedent correctly, while others impose unjustified limitations, often excluding companies in the commercial sector or requiring a direct link between the input and a production or service process. An empirical review of over 60 decisions from the Superior Court of Justice following the precedent’s issuance reveals a troubling pattern: in many cases, the Court avoids evaluating whether lower court rulings align with the precedent, invoking procedural barriers to dismiss appeals without substantive analysis. This judicial posture weakens the uniform application of federal law and fuels continued legal uncertainty. The dissertation proposes the re-examination of the issue through the mechanism of repetitive appeals, with the goal of establishing clearer and more objective parameters for applying the precedent. Specifically, it advocates for recognizing inputs that are relevant to any economic activity—not only production or service provision—and for eliminating unjustified restrictions that have led to unequal treatment among taxpayers. Ultimately, the study emphasizes the need for more effective judicial enforcement of binding precedents to ensure predictability, fairness, and reduced litigation in the Brazilian tax system.

Ficha do documento

Tipo

Dissertação

Ano

2025

Instituição

Fundação Getulio Vargas

Fonte

Repositório da FGV

Idioma

Português

Acesso

Acesso aberto

Identificador

oai:repositorio.fgv.br:10438/37847

Temas

Desenvolvimento Regional

Palavras-chave

LitigiosidadePIS/COFINSContencioso tributárioNão cumulatividadeRecurso repetitivoPrecedente vinculanteSegurança jurídicaLitigiousnessTax litigationNon-cumulative regimeRepetitive appealBinding precedentLegal CertaintyDireitoCOFINSPIS-PASEPContribuições (Direito tributário)Impostos - BrasilBrasil. Supremo Tribunal Federal - Jurisprudência