Bill No. 9252/17, by Jerônimo Goergen, which extinguished Funrural’s liabilities generated by the decision of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) in March last year, does not deal with a debt forgiveness or remission of a liability, says the Association of Soybean and Maize Producers of Mato Grosso (Aprosoja / MT). According to the entity, the issue is, in fact, another case of legal uncertainty and jurisprudential turnaround regarding the understanding of justice regarding the collection of taxes.
“It is not true, for example, that the rural producer did not pay Social Security. It is necessary to be attentive to two things: one is the Funrural, a general contribution to the regime, another is the contribution linked to the retirement of the rural man. The contribution to the producer’s retirement is made monthly, through a base salary that serves as costing, under the terms of Law No. 8,212 / 91, and has never been questioned, “says a statement from Aprosoja / MT.
In the note, the entity points out that it is necessary to understand, firstly, that in 2010 and 2011, two collegiate decisions and unanimity (11×0) in the Supreme Court had, until that moment, pacified the matter and categorically, stating that the rural producer should not pay Funrural more on gross revenue, the absolutely unconstitutional recital for breaking the principle of tax isonomy. “That’s because the townspeople paid on paper, while the rural ones were paid the tax on revenue.”
This, stresses Aprosoja / MT, caused millions of producers, believing the final word of the Supreme, to stop collecting the social contribution based on this understanding. Many of these producers even went back to paying taxes like the urban sector (20% on payroll), and there is therefore no generalized non-payment, as some claim.
“The rural producer was not only supported by the previous STF’s understanding that there was no longer any need to collect Funrural on gross revenue but also, supported by decisions in collective or individual lawsuits, which also protected him from non-payment” , points out the president of Aprosoja / MT, Antonio Galvan.
However, in 2017, the Supreme changed its position and, by 6×5, began to consider the constitutional tax, that is, assuming that the levy could be levied on the revenue from the commercialization of production. Since then, a legal battle has begun, some understanding that the past has to be collected and some arguing that the Revenue could not charge the passive call, this for lack of legal basis, arguing in this case that the Senate in September 2017, observing the 2010 and 2011 judgments of the STF, has withdrawn from the legal system the basis of calculation, rate and form of collection (subrogation) of Funrural by Resolution.
In the statement, Aprosoja points out that he believes that the term “debt forgiveness” is wrong, because what the Revenue and the Union have, in fact, is an expectation of law, a claim to charge, without any certainty, in large part, on account of a prematurely approved Refis at the end of 2017. This is what, in the words of one of the greatest tributaristas of the country, Dr. Ives Gandra da Silva Martin, is the “first refis of the world of a nonexistent debt” .
Thus, on the side of the taxpayer, a rural producer, there is a conviction that there is no past debt, since all that eventually ceased to be collected was based on FTS decisions. In view of this conflictive scenario, PL 9252 has the objective of restoring stability and predictability in rural taxation, regulating, definitively, the contribution of all rural producers, to remove the pretension of Revenue from charging what is not due, and to restore beacons for their collection from January 2018 (time frame).
According to Antonio Galvan, “PL 9252 is a legal way to return legal certainty to the field, because if Funrural remains without definitive regulation, producers are unlikely to confide in the debt and accept payment for what they should not “.
In this case, the bill that will be voted by the Chamber of Deputies is a way that the parliament must compose this conflict, where everyone, in some way, wins. Both the tax authority, which will have returned revenue from now, and the producer, who will have peace and stability in their businesses to continue to account for almost 30% of GDP, for more than 40% of exports, and for the generation of approximately 20 million direct and indirect jobs.
“The Brazilian agricultural industry can not continue living this legal instability, therefore, the urgent need for approval of PL 9252 in the National Congress to bring not only justice for rural producers, but also respect for one of the classes that contributes most to the base of the country’s economy, “concludes Antonio Galvan.
This text was translated by machine from Brazilian Portuguese.