Ordinance MF No. 1,430/2025, published in the Federal Official Gazette (Diário Oficial da União) on July 8, 2025, establishes a new rule for the monetary adjustment of judicial and administrative deposits made in proceedings involving the Federal Government, its autonomous agencies, foundations, and federal state-owned companies. The regulation provides for the replacement of the Selic rate with the Broad National Consumer Price Index (Índice Nacional de Preços ao Consumidor Amplo – IPCA) as the applicable monetary index for such deposits, effective January 1, 2026.
This measure is part of the fiscal containment framework and the restructuring of litigation policy involving the Public Treasury, reflecting an attempt by the Federal Executive to reduce the costs associated with updating amounts judicially linked to the Federal Government. However, the regulatory change raises significant legal and practical questions, particularly regarding its constitutionality, legality, and the potential impacts on taxpayers’ strategies in tax and administrative disputes.
Scope and Content of Ordinance MF No. 1,430/2025
The new regulation provides that all judicial and administrative deposits linked to proceedings involving the Federal Government, its autonomous agencies, foundations, and federal state-owned companies shall be adjusted, as of 2026, based on the IPCA. This represents a departure from the previous model, in force since 1998, which adopted the Selic rate as the official index for monetary adjustment.
The Ordinance also establishes the mandatory use of a new standardized electronic document, denominated Judicial or Extrajudicial Deposit Document (Documento de Depósito Judicial ou Extrajudicial – DJE), which must be generated through the Federal Revenue Service’s computerized system and integrated into the courts’ electronic case management systems.
The regulation provides, however, that:
- Deposits made before January 1, 2026, will continue to be adjusted by the Selic rate, in accordance with the rules in force at the time of their constitution;
- The new system does not apply to deposits related to Requisições de Pequeno Valor (small-value court-ordered payments), precatórios, nor to deposits made by certain specific entities, such as the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Federal Public Defender’s Office, and professional councils.
Economic Rationale and Objective of the Change
The Selic rate, as it incorporates both inflation and a real interest component, tends to produce higher values than the IPCA, which reflects solely the variation in the cost of living in Brazil.
Accordingly, the change is expected to generate significant fiscal savings, particularly in actions involving high-value deposits and long durations. Furthermore, the measure is intended to discourage the judicialization of tax matters by reducing the financial return that taxpayers may obtain by keeping amounts on judicial deposit for extended periods.
Tax and Strategic Implications for Taxpayers
a) Reduction in the attractiveness of judicial deposits as a form of guarantee
Replacing the index will have a direct impact on the financial yield of judicial deposits. With the IPCA as the adjustment index, taxpayers will no longer benefit from the interest component embedded in the Selic rate, considerably reducing the return on deposited capital.
By way of illustration, while the Selic rate over recent years has ranged between 10% and 13% per annum, the IPCA has generally remained between 4% and 6% per annum. This difference in yield—particularly in medium- or long-term litigation—can represent a significant loss compared to maintaining capital in financial investments or employing alternative guarantees, such as bank sureties (fiança bancária) or judicial performance bonds (seguro garantia judicial).
b) Reassessment of judicial guarantee strategies
In light of the new rule, it becomes increasingly important for taxpayers to evaluate the cost-benefit of the various forms of guarantee in ongoing and future proceedings. In many cases, bank sureties or judicial performance bonds may offer greater financial efficiency, in addition to preserving liquidity and the company’s investment capacity.
It should be emphasized that judicial deposits immediately render the funds unavailable, immobilizing capital that could otherwise be more efficiently allocated—particularly in periods of relatively high real interest rates in the market.