On September 16, 2024, Law 14,973/24 was enacted, introducing new criteria for updating judicial and administrative deposits, particularly in cases involving the Federal Government, its agencies, autonomous entities, foundations, and state-owned companies. This new legislation also applies to deposits intended to guarantee federal taxes.
The new law establishes that judicial and administrative deposits will now be adjusted exclusively by an index that reflects inflation, which currently means the use of the Broad Consumer Price Index (IPCA). This change revokes the application of the SELIC rate, as stipulated in the old Law 9,703/98, which combined monetary correction and interest.
With this change, the update of judicial deposits is no longer remunerative, as it was with SELIC, and becomes strictly compensatory. In practice, this means that taxpayers will no longer be compensated for the time the amount remained deposited, potentially resulting in a significant reduction in the amount collected in case of victory in the lawsuit.
Impacts of the New Rule
The main change brought by Law 14,973/24 is that judicial deposits, when adjusted solely for inflation, will no longer follow the yield provided by the SELIC rate. As a result, the deposited amounts will not have the same growth potential as before, making this form of guarantee less attractive for taxpayers.
Additionally, the disparity between the indices applied to tax debts (adjusted by SELIC) and judicial deposits (adjusted by IPCA) may raise questions regarding the equality of treatment between the parties (taxpayer vs. state). This imbalance could lead to judicial discussions on the constitutionality of the measure and the fairness of this differentiated treatment.
Issues to Be Considered by Taxpayers
The change also requires a more careful analysis by taxpayers regarding the best way to secure the suspension of tax debt enforceability. Given the change in the adjustment index, judicial deposits may become a less advantageous option. Alternatives such as requesting a preliminary injunction in a writ of mandamus or offering other guarantees allowed by the National Tax Code (CTN) may be more appealing, depending on the case.
Thus, taxpayers and companies will need to reevaluate their procedural strategies, taking into account the new criteria for updating judicial deposits, as well as the potential tax and financial repercussions resulting from this change.
Our specialized team is available to guide your company on the impact of this new legislation and help you define the best legal strategy for your cases.