The Federal Supreme Court (STF) has decided, by majority, to acknowledge the omission of the National Congress regarding the regulation of the Wealth Tax (Imposto sobre Grandes Fortunas – IGF), provided for in Article 153, VII, of the Federal Constitution since 1988. Although the Court recognized the legislative delay, it did not set a deadline for Congress to enact the complementary law required to implement the tax.
The decision was rendered in the judgment of ADO 55, filed by the political party PSOL, which argued that the IGF is the only federal tax expressly provided for in the Constitution that remains unregulated nearly four decades later.
- The Case Decided: Omission Recognized, but Without Immediate Binding Effects
The STF concluded that there is indeed a significant constitutional omission, as emphasized by Minister Flávio Dino, the first to vote. In his view, the current situation represents the “only constitutional tax never implemented”, which is sufficient to configure legislative delay.
However, in this case, the majority held that the matter involves technical complexity, macroeconomic implications, and a risk of capital flight, requiring deeper studies before any eventual implementation. For this reason, the Court concluded that it would be inappropriate for the judiciary to impose a deadline on Congress, unlike in some recent precedents.
- Divergence Among the Justices
Votes in Favor of Imposing a Deadline
- Flávio Dino proposed a 24-month deadline for IGF regulation.
- Cristiano Zanin acknowledged the omission but noted that unilateral implementation in Brazil could trigger capital flight, advocating for greater international coordination.
Votes Against Imposing a Deadline
Ministers Alexandre de Moraes, Cármen Lúcia, Dias Toffoli, Kassio Nunes Marques, and the reporting justice Marco Aurélio Mello (retired) argued that imposing a deadline would be inappropriate due to the subject’s complexity and economic repercussions.
Nunes Marques stressed that the omission may reflect a “legitimate political choice”, and that Congress holds autonomy to deliberate on whether and when to adopt the tax.
Vote Against Recognizing the Omission
Minister Luiz Fux dissented from the majority and denied PSOL’s request, asserting that the lack of regulation represents a “political option” and that the judiciary must respect the legislature’s discretionary sphere.
- Impacts and Implications of the Decision
Although the ruling does not produce immediate binding effects, it carries institutional and symbolic relevance:
Institutional Warning to Congress
Minister Alexandre de Moraes described the outcome as an “institutional warning”: the STF acknowledges the delay but respects Congress’s freedom to decide whether to implement the IGF.
The decision aligns with the broader agenda of rebalancing the tax burden, with a potential shift from consumption taxes toward income and wealth taxation—a trend mentioned during the judgment and observed in international debates.
The judgment of ADO 55 does not impose a concrete obligation on Congress but revives the discussion on the Wealth Tax and signals an STF stance attentive to issues of tax justice and fiscal redistribution.
The absence of a deadline reinforces the political nature of the decision to implement or not the IGF and highlights that effective regulation depends solely on legislative will—which has been absent or insufficient for nearly 40 years.