Análise da monofasia e da seletividade, em função da essencialidade, do imposto sobre circulação de mercadorias e serviços em relação à gasolina, etanol combustível e diesel
Carregando...
Tipo
TCC
Data de publicação
2023-06
Periódico
Citações (Scopus)
Autores
Espanhol, Victor Funari
Orientador
Barone, Marcelo Luiz
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título de Volume
Membros da banca
Programa
Resumo
O presente trabalho aborda a constitucionalidade da Lei Complementar nº 192/22, que estabelece os combustíveis sobre os quais o ICMS incidirá uma única vez, da Lei Complementar nº 194/22, que trata sobre a essencialidade do ICMS, e do tratamento da essencialidade dos combustíveis pelas legislações estaduais. Partes do primeiro dispositivo levou os governadores de vários estados a interporem Ação Direta de Inconstitucionalidade junto ao Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF), alegando ofensa à ordem constitucional em vigor e ao pacto federativo. Os impetrantes defendem que houve invasão de competência quanto a definição das alíquotas do ICMS, violando a autonomia financeira dos Estados e do Distrito Federal. Além disso, os governadores argumentam que a extrapolação da matéria afronta a vedação constitucional de isenção heterônoma. Outrossim, na análise das legislações estaduais, constatou-se que as alíquotas dos combustíveis são, usualmente, superiores às alíquotas gerais do Estado correspondente, atestando verdadeira inobservância da essencialidade dos combustíveis e demonstrando uma situação de inconstitucionalidade sistêmica. Diante dessa situação, o Presidente da República interpôs Arguição de Descumprimento de Preceito Fundamental nº 984 junto ao STF, uma vez que a seletividade em razão da essencialidade é um instrumento de justiça fiscal e a prática reiterada de todos os Estados-membros em fixar alíquotas de ICMS sobre bens essenciais em patamar superior ao das operações em geral contrapõe-se aos ditames constitucionais. Por fim, firmou-se acordo entre representantes da União e dos Estados, no âmbito do julgamento das ações de controle de constitucionalidade em destaque, com medidas a serem implementadas.
The present work addresses the constitutionality of Complementary Law No. 192/22, which establishes the fuels subject to a single incidence of ICMS (State Value Added Tax), Complementary Law No. 194/22, which deals with the essentiality of ICMS, and the treatment of fuel essentiality by the state’s legislations. Parts of the first provision led the governors of several states to file Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality with the Federal Supreme Court (STF), alleging a violation of the current constitutional order and the federative pact. The petitioners argue that there was an encroachment on the competence regarding the definition of ICMS rates, violating the financial autonomy of the states and the Federal District. Moreover, the governors argue that the expansion of the matter violates the constitutional prohibition of heteronomous exemption. Furthermore, in the analysis of state’s legislations, it was found that fuel rates are usually higher than the general rates of the corresponding state, indicating a true disregard for the essentiality of fuels and demonstrating a situation of systemic unconstitutionality. In view of this situation, the President of the Republic filed a Request for Non-Compliance with Fundamental Precept No. 984 with the STF, since selectivity based on essentiality is an instrument of fiscal justice and the repeated practice of all member states in setting ICMS rates on essential goods above those of general operations contradicts constitutional dictates. Finally, an agreement was reached between representatives of the Union and the states, within the scope of the highlighted constitutional control actions, with measures to be implemented.
The present work addresses the constitutionality of Complementary Law No. 192/22, which establishes the fuels subject to a single incidence of ICMS (State Value Added Tax), Complementary Law No. 194/22, which deals with the essentiality of ICMS, and the treatment of fuel essentiality by the state’s legislations. Parts of the first provision led the governors of several states to file Direct Actions of Unconstitutionality with the Federal Supreme Court (STF), alleging a violation of the current constitutional order and the federative pact. The petitioners argue that there was an encroachment on the competence regarding the definition of ICMS rates, violating the financial autonomy of the states and the Federal District. Moreover, the governors argue that the expansion of the matter violates the constitutional prohibition of heteronomous exemption. Furthermore, in the analysis of state’s legislations, it was found that fuel rates are usually higher than the general rates of the corresponding state, indicating a true disregard for the essentiality of fuels and demonstrating a situation of systemic unconstitutionality. In view of this situation, the President of the Republic filed a Request for Non-Compliance with Fundamental Precept No. 984 with the STF, since selectivity based on essentiality is an instrument of fiscal justice and the repeated practice of all member states in setting ICMS rates on essential goods above those of general operations contradicts constitutional dictates. Finally, an agreement was reached between representatives of the Union and the states, within the scope of the highlighted constitutional control actions, with measures to be implemented.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
competência tributária , pacto federativo , constitucionalidade , tax competence , federative pact , constitutionality