In a recent decision, the 1st Section of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) established that administrative regulations issued by the Federal Revenue or the Office of the General Counsel for the National Treasury (PGFN) can impose a ceiling for adherence to simplified debt installment plans, provided that the law instituting the installment plan does not specify a maximum limit.
The issue was discussed in three appeals addressing the simplified debt installment model instituted by Law No. 10,522/2002, which allows the installment payment of debts of any nature to the National Treasury. Subsequently, Joint Ordinance PGFN/RFB 15/2009 established that the simplified installment plan could only be granted for debts with a value equal to or less than R$ 500,000, a limit that was increased to R$ 1 million in 2013.
Additionally, the same ordinance required the provision of real or fiduciary guarantees in certain cases, making the installment plan less attractive to debtors.
The case’s rapporteur, Minister Herman Benjamin, presented the thesis that was unanimously approved by the 1st Section of the STJ. The thesis establishes that administrative acts of the Treasury or the PGFN can set a ceiling for adherence to the simplified installment plan, according to Article 96 of the National Tax Code (CTN). However, this is not allowed when a specific law already defines a maximum value, and the administrative authority, in regulating the norm, sets a lower value, thereby prejudicing the taxpayer.
The decision is significant for taxpayers as it establishes that, in the absence of a specific legal determination regarding the installment ceiling, the Treasury or the PGFN can use administrative regulations to define this limit. Thus, taxpayers should be aware of sublegal regulations that may impact adherence to installment programs, especially concerning the maximum values allowed for the simplified installment plan.