In a unanimous vote, the 1st Section of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) concluded the judgment of Theme 1319 (RESP 2162629/PR, 2162248/RS, 2163735/RS and 2161414/PR), establishing a binding precedent applicable to other judicial instances and to the Administrative Council of Tax Appeals (Carf), determining that the deduction from the IRPJ and CSLL tax base of Interest on Equity (JCP) calculated on profits from fiscal years prior to the corporate resolution authorizing its payment is permitted.
The judgment standardizes a controversy that had been intensifying in the administrative sphere, especially after the Federal Revenue Service changed its position in 2017.
Understanding Consolidated by the STJ
Legal Framework of the Accrual Basis
The reporting justice argued that the accrual basis does not require temporal coincidence between the profit calculation period and the moment of the resolution instituting JCP payment, since the triggering event for the deductible expense is the corporate resolution, not the period to which the profits refer.
Therefore, deductibility is independent of whether the JCP relates to accumulated profits or reserves formed in prior fiscal years. At the conclusion of the judgment, the following thesis was established: “The amount of JCP calculated based on accumulated profits or reserves from prior fiscal years is deductible from the IRPJ and CSLL tax base, regardless of the period to which they refer, provided there is a corporate resolution authorizing the payment.”
Compatibility with Federal Revenue Regulations
The STJ recognized that until 2017, Federal Revenue Service normative instructions did not provide for temporal limitations on JCP deduction; only from that year did the tax authority begin to maintain that the benefit would be restricted to the fiscal year of the resolution itself. The administrative understanding, therefore, came to conflict with the accounting system itself and with precedents from the STJ’s Public Law Panels.
Consolidated Case Law and Resolution of Divergences
The decision reinforces important precedents:
- STJ’s 1st Panel, in REsp 1.971.537/SP (2023) — allowed deduction of untimely JCP;
- 2nd Panel, in REsp 1.946.363/SP (2022) — identical guidance.
Despite this, some Federal Regional Courts had been pointing to “jurisprudential dispersion,” which justified the need to assign the theme under the repetitive appeal procedure.
The National Treasury Attorney General’s Office (PGFN) sought to persuade the Court to overturn the understanding, invoking an analogy with Theme 454 (deduction of PIS/Cofins on JCP allocated to shareholders). The argument was rejected, as it involved distinct legal situations.
Impact on Carf
The precedent has a strong administrative impact, as Carf historically ruled against the deductibility of untimely JCP, often by tie-breaking vote. Now, with the thesis established by the STJ, Carf and the entire tax apparatus are bound by the judicial understanding, which eliminates divergences, prevents assessments based on temporal limitations, reduces litigation, and consolidates legal certainty for companies.