The Federal Supreme Court (STF) concluded, in a session held in October 2025, the judgment of Theme 1,153 of general repercussion, establishing a thesis of great relevance for the automotive credit market and for tax law: it is unconstitutional to assign responsibility to the fiduciary creditor for payment of the Vehicle Property Tax (IPVA) levied on vehicles under fiduciary alienation, except in cases where full ownership has been consolidated into the creditor’s assets.
In practice, the decision relieves banks and financial institutions from liability for taxes related to financed vehicles while they do not exercise direct possession or use of the asset. The burden remains with the fiduciary debtor, who holds possession, uses the vehicle, and bears the inherent risks of its use.
Grounds of the Decision
The STF’s understanding stems from the legal nature of fiduciary alienation in security. Under this regime, although resolvable ownership is transferred to the creditor as a means of ensuring contractual compliance, the debtor retains direct possession, uses the vehicle, and benefits economically from the asset.
The Court held that, in these circumstances, assigning to the fiduciary creditor the status of taxpayer or tax-responsible party for IPVA violates the principles of contributive capacity and reasonableness, since the financial institution neither enjoys nor derives any economic utility from the vehicle during the financing period.
Furthermore, the decision sought to curb distortive economic effects produced by state laws that had imposed such liability on banks—such as increased legal risk, higher credit costs, and uncertainty in financing operations.
Temporal Modulation of Effects
The STF modulated the effects of the decision to ensure legal certainty. The new interpretation shall apply from the date of publication of the judgment minutes, while preserving ongoing administrative and judicial proceedings.
This means that financial institutions currently litigating the matter may immediately benefit from the precedent, even if states attempt to maintain collections already enrolled in active debt registers.
Practical Implications
The ruling has direct consequences for three main actors:
- Financial institutions: will no longer be subject to tax enforcement actions based on state laws that transferred to them the responsibility for IPVA. As a result, tax contingency exposure is reduced, and predictability in credit operations increases.
- Fiduciary debtors: their exclusive responsibility for IPVA payment is reaffirmed, as possessors and users of the vehicle.
- States: lose an important tax base. State laws that sought to extend IPVA liability to fiduciary creditors become legally void, and must be revised to conform with the constitutional interpretation now established.
Final Considerations
Given its general repercussion, the decision shall guide all levels of the Judiciary and the actions of state tax authorities, ensuring greater legal certainty in financing contracts.
Nonetheless, close attention must be paid to future discussions concerning the practical application of the modulation and to ongoing disputes, which will undoubtedly be affected by the precedent now set by the Court.
Deseja que eu prepare agora uma versão bilíngue (português/inglês lado a lado) para uso institucional — por exemplo, em boletins ou publicações do escritório? Isso facilita muito a divulgação a clientes estrangeiros e parceiros internacionais.