{"id":3095,"date":"2026-01-13T10:20:43","date_gmt":"2026-01-13T13:20:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/oliveiraalves.com.br\/?p=3095"},"modified":"2026-01-21T14:26:28","modified_gmt":"2026-01-21T17:26:28","slug":"sancionado-o-codigo-de-defesa-do-contribuinte-lc-no-225-2025-com-vetos-relevantes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/oliveiraalves.com.br\/en\/sancionado-o-codigo-de-defesa-do-contribuinte-lc-no-225-2025-com-vetos-relevantes\/","title":{"rendered":"Taxpayers\u2019 Bill of Rights Enacted (LC No. 225\/2025) with Significant Presidential Vetoes"},"content":{"rendered":"

Complementary Law No. 225\/2025<\/strong>, which establishes the so-called Taxpayers\u2019 Bill of Rights<\/strong>, has been enacted and published in the Official Gazette of the Union<\/strong>. The statute represents a milestone in the effort to reorganize the relationship between the tax authorities and taxpayers, introducing instruments of tax compliance<\/strong>, cooperation<\/strong>, and differentiation between compliant taxpayers and habitual tax debtors<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

However, the final text was promulgated with five presidential vetoes<\/strong> that removed a significant portion of the benefits that would have been granted to so-called \u201cgood taxpayers,\u201d<\/strong> especially in matters related to debt regularization and guarantees<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Structural Elements Introduced by LC No. 225<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Code establishes the legal foundations for a new architecture governing the relationship between the Federal Revenue Service<\/strong> and taxpayers, with emphasis on three federal compliance programs:<\/p>\n

      \n
    • CONFIA (Cooperative Tax Compliance Program)<\/strong>
      \nTargeted at large taxpayers, with a focus on transparency, dispute prevention, and cooperation.<\/li>\n
    • SINTONIA<\/strong>
      \nA system for classifying taxpayers according to their level of tax compliance.<\/li>\n
    • AEO \u2013 Authorized Economic Operator (OEA)<\/strong>
      \nA pre-existing customs program now incorporated into the broader logic of tax compliance.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      In addition, the law regulates the concept of the habitual tax debtor<\/strong>, allowing infra-constitutional legislation to establish stricter treatment<\/strong> for taxpayers who use tax noncompliance as a strategy of unfair competition<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Vetoes That Weakened Part of the Incentives<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        Despite the discourse of modernization and cooperation, the presidential vetoes affected precisely the provisions that created economic and procedural advantages<\/strong> for compliant or collaborative taxpayers.<\/p>\n

        The following provisions were vetoed:<\/p>\n

        a) Reduction of Fines and Interest<\/strong><\/p>\n

        A provision that allowed for reductions of up to 70% of fines and interest<\/strong> for taxpayers enrolled in compliance programs.<\/p>\n

        b) Use of Tax Losses and Negative CSLL Base<\/strong><\/p>\n

        The possibility of using IRPJ tax losses<\/strong> and the negative CSLL base<\/strong> to settle tax debts was vetoed.<\/p>\n

        c) Extended Installment Plans<\/strong><\/p>\n

        The provision allowing installment payments of up to 120 months<\/strong> was removed.<\/p>\n

        The justification for this veto was based on:<\/p>\n

          \n
        • lack of a temporal limitation;<\/li>\n
        • incompatibility with the Fiscal Responsibility Law<\/strong>; and<\/li>\n
        • creation of a tax expenditure without budgetary authorization<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

          d) Benefits of the SINTONIA Program by Administrative Act<\/strong><\/p>\n

          Authorization for the Federal Revenue Service to define SINTONIA benefits by regulatory act<\/strong>, according to taxpayer classification, was vetoed\u2014weakening the program\u2019s practical operability.<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Most Sensitive Veto: Guarantees and Judicial Deposits<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            One of the most impactful vetoes prevented:<\/p>\n

              \n
            • flexibilization of the rules for acceptance and substitution of guarantees<\/strong>, including the replacement of judicial cash deposits<\/strong> with surety insurance<\/strong> or guarantees based on the taxpayer\u2019s economic capacity.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

              In practice, this maintains the current rigid framework<\/strong>, which frequently requires cash deposits or costly guarantees<\/strong>, even from financially sound companies.<\/p>\n

              The official justification cited a \u201crisk to the public interest\u201d<\/strong> due to the absence of precise legal parameters.<\/p>\n

              From the taxpayer-defense perspective, however, this veto weakens access to justice<\/strong>, as it:<\/p>\n

                \n
              • immobilizes corporate cash;<\/li>\n
              • increases the cost of tax litigation; and<\/li>\n
              • may hinder the effective exercise of due process and adversarial proceedings<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
                  \n
                1. Practical Effects of the Code After the Vetoes<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                  With the vetoes, the Taxpayers\u2019 Bill of Rights enters into force with an important normative structure, but without the main economic instruments<\/strong> that would make compliance genuinely attractive.<\/p>\n

                  In practice, the result is as follows:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
                  What Remained<\/th>What Was Removed<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
                  Compliance programs (CONFIA, SINTONIA, OEA)<\/td>Significant reductions of fines and interest<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                  Legal basis for addressing habitual debtors<\/td>Use of tax losses to settle debts<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                  General rules of cooperation<\/td>Long installment plans (120 months)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
                  Procedural duties and rights<\/td>More flexible guarantees regime<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n

                   <\/p>\n

                    \n
                  1. Critical Assessment for Companies and Economic Groups<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    For corporate groups, holdings, and medium- to large-sized taxpayers<\/strong>, the Code:<\/p>\n

                      \n
                    • formalizes a taxpayer classification logic<\/strong>, which tends to influence audits, special regimes, and the relationship with the Federal Revenue Service;<\/li>\n
                    • does not<\/strong>, however, deliver the economic incentives<\/strong> that would make participation in the programs truly strategic;<\/li>\n
                    • maintains a high financial cost<\/strong> of tax litigation, particularly due to the rigidity of guarantees.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                      The result is a more sophisticated control and compliance model<\/strong>, but one that remains asymmetrical<\/strong>: the tax authorities gain monitoring tools without taxpayers receiving proportionate financial or procedural relief<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

                      Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n

                      LC No. 225\/2025<\/strong> represents an institutional advance<\/strong> in the effort to distinguish compliant taxpayers from habitual debtors and to promote a culture of tax compliance.<\/p>\n

                      Nevertheless, the presidential vetoes<\/strong> removed precisely the elements that could have transformed this framework into a genuine cooperative relationship<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

                      In practice, the system has become more sophisticated, but not more balanced<\/strong>, keeping tax planning, fiscal risk management, and guarantee strategies<\/strong> at the center of corporate decision-making in Brazilian tax litigation.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

                      Complementary Law No. 225\/2025, which establishes the so-called Taxpayers\u2019 Bill of Rights, has been enacted and published in the Official Gazette of the Union. The […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":3100,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3095","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-tributario"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/oliveiraalves.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3095","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/oliveiraalves.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/oliveiraalves.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oliveiraalves.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oliveiraalves.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3095"}],"version-history":[{"count":12,"href":"https:\/\/oliveiraalves.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3095\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3135,"href":"https:\/\/oliveiraalves.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3095\/revisions\/3135"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oliveiraalves.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3100"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/oliveiraalves.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3095"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oliveiraalves.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3095"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/oliveiraalves.com.br\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3095"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}