Digital presence as an extension of legal practice

The new website was designed as a platform that objectively conveys the firm’s identity. The project arises from the understanding that legal practice needs to be accompanied by communication consistent with the values and technical excellence that define C. Moreno.

What does the new website offer?

The new structure brings together essential elements for those who want to learn more about the firm in depth:

• Detailed practice areas, with emphasis on expertise in Tax, Corporate, and Strategic Litigation Law;
• Clear institutional information that reinforces the firm’s culture, values, and trajectory in the legal sector;
• A dedicated content space with articles, analyses, and relevant legal interpretations, to be published regularly.

The goal is to offer the public a functional, straightforward digital environment connected to what really matters: technical expertise, strategic thinking, and commitment to consistent legal solutions.

Integration with other communication channels

The launch of the website is part of a movement to strengthen the firm’s institutional presence.

The firm has been adopting a new communication approach on LinkedIn, with recurring content and a more accessible language, such as the #rapidinhas series, which already translates relevant legal decisions into a clear and direct format.

The website redesign comes to consolidate this new phase, integrating all channels and reinforcing the firm’s presence in the digital environment.

Discover the new website!

The new site is live. Browse through all the pages: www.cmoreno.com.br

This is another step in C. Moreno’s commitment to excellence, now also reflected in its digital presence.

O post New website, same excellence: C. Moreno Advogados strengthens its institutional presence apareceu primeiro em C Moreno.

According to Ordinance MF No. 1.40/2025, from the Ministry of Finance, all federal, judicial or administrative deposits, including criminal ones, must comply with the new rules for updating from the moment the ordinance comes into force.

The aforementioned Ordinance establishes a transitional rule, so that two distinct forms of updating will coexist:

for currently existing deposits, and for those to be made by 12/31/2025, the update will be made based on the Selic rate up to the time of withdrawal or conversion into income for the Union;

for deposits made from 01/01/2026, the IPCA update will be applied until the time of update or conversion into income.

For taxpayers who make a judicial or administrative deposit in the event of a tax dispute, the conversion into income will imply additional collection, as the IPCA is lower than the Selic rate.

On the other hand, taxpayers will receive less when they manage to recover undue payments.

O post Update of Federal Court Deposits by IPCA Regulated apareceu primeiro em C Moreno.

The case involved a car rental company that received insurance compensation after accidents involving vehicles in its fleet. The question was: should these amounts be taxed as if they were company revenue? The Superior Court of Justice’s response was

no.

According to the Court, the compensation paid by the insurer does not represent profit, gain, or revenue. It is merely a recovery of assets—that is, compensation for the loss suffered. Therefore, there is no IRPJ or CSLL levy, as there is no real increase in the company’s assets, as required by law.

Furthermore, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) also ruled that this type of compensation does not qualify as income for tax purposes. Therefore, it should not be included in the PIS and COFINS tax bases.

Although, in accounting, these amounts can be recorded as “revenue”, tax law has its own rules, and accounting classification alone does not determine whether or not an amount will be taxed.

Although the topic is not new, the decision constitutes an important precedent favorable to taxpayers, as it removes the Tax Authorities’ impetus to tax any and all amounts received simply because their accounting designation is “income”, to recognize that they will only be income, subject to taxation, if they comply with other tax precepts and principles.

O post Receipt of insurance by a company does not generate payment of federal taxes apareceu primeiro em C Moreno.

Recently, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ruled that offsetting social security debts with credits calculated before the implementation of eSocial is not permitted. This decision was made in the judgment of Resp 2.109.311-RJ.

In practice, this means that those with INSS debts cannot use old credits—obtained before eSocial came into effect—to offset them. This is called “cross-compensation,” prohibited by Article 26-A of Law No. 11,457/2007.

The reason is that the law requires that offsetting comply with strict rules, including regarding the timing of the credit’s origination. The Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ruled that the term “assessment period” refers to the date the tax was generated (and not the date the credit was legally recognized).

Therefore, if the credit was recognized judicially, but refers to a tax calculated before eSocial, it cannot be used to pay off current social security debts.

This is a very detrimental understanding for taxpayers, and it may make it difficult to return amounts paid unduly (e.g., forcing taxpayers to wait for payment of court orders).

O post Social Security Compensation: STJ Maintains Ban on Settling Debts After eSocial with Credits from Periods Prior to the System apareceu primeiro em C Moreno.

This was the understanding adopted by the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), in the judgment of REsp 2,209,077-RS.

According to the Superior Court of Justice (STJ), a company’s liability for unlawful acts committed prior to a corporate change continues to exist, even if the company’s structure has been modified. This means that a company cannot escape liability simply by changing its name, being incorporated by another company, or even being divided into two.

The law’s intention is to prevent organizations from escaping legal consequences through corporate restructuring.

Furthermore, Article 4, §2, of the Anti-Corruption Law determines that companies that are part of the same group—such as controlling companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, or consortiums—are jointly and severally liable for unlawful acts, meaning they can all be held jointly liable. This rule prevents business groups from using the fragmentation of their structures to avoid punishment.

The Superior Court of Justice’s decision reinforces the legislation’s commitment to integrity in relationships between companies and the government. The message is clear: formal changes do not eliminate liability for past misconduct.

O post Anti-Corruption Law: company remains liable even after merger, spin-off or corporate transformation apareceu primeiro em C Moreno.

The bill will still be voted on by the Chamber itself and, if approved, will proceed to the Senate. In other words, the legislative process is ongoing, and nothing changes until the PDL is definitively approved by both houses.

Meanwhile, all the requirements of the decree remain valid, including the new incidence of IOF on transactions involving drawn risk, at a rate of 0.0082% per day.

This point has generated controversy. The risk drawn—a transaction involving the advance of receivables—does not technically qualify as a credit transaction, which raises questions about the constitutionality of the charge.

Furthermore, the Federal Revenue Service itself has already recognized, in several statements, that the assignment of credits without co-obligation does not constitute a taxable event for the IOF.

In this scenario, there is room to judicially discuss the IOF requirement on the risk drawn, especially in light of the principle of legality and the limits of the Union’s tax jurisdiction.

O post PDL 314/2025: Chamber speeds up processing, but requirements of the new IOF decree remain valid apareceu primeiro em C Moreno.

The understanding was based on the provisions of articles 835, IX, and 861, of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows the seizure of shares owned by partners in limited companies.

Based on the understanding of the STJ, the creditor may

Liquidate part of the company, with the consequent reduction of the share capital, provided that the business activity of the original sole shareholder is preserved; or

Alienation of the company as a whole, as a way of preserving the productive unit and avoiding fragmentation, which could compromise its continuity.

Based on the solutions suggested by the STJ, the constitutional principle according to which no one will be forced to associate or remain associated (art. 5, II, of the CF/88) will be respected, as they will not imply an involuntary link between the debtor and the creditor.

O post Participation in a Sole Proprietorship May Be Seized apareceu primeiro em C Moreno.

This is a new approach to art. 1 of Decree No. 20,910/1932, which establishes a prescriptive period of 5 years from the date of the act or fact that gives rise to debt against the Union, States or Municipalities.

Based on this new interpretation, the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) ruled that the statute of limitations, which begins upon the final judgment of the court decision, must be respected for each PER/DCOMP transfer, which constitutes the act through which the taxpayer materializes the recovery of the undue payment. In other words, after the five-year period, the taxpayer will no longer be able to enforce the recovery of the undue payment.

This can have a significant impact on the use of tax credits obtained by taxpayers through court decisions, especially because compensation depends directly on the existence of tax to be collected through this method.

O post STJ Limits Taxpayer’s Deadline to Offset Tax Credits to 5 Years apareceu primeiro em C Moreno.

Retail traders argue that they are entitled to the credit arising from the purchase of fuels because LC 192/2022 established a zero-rate tax benefit for Pis/Cofins, which is why all legal entities that are part of the fuel sales chain are now entitled to maintain the credits until 12/31/2022, which includes taxpayers subject to the single-phase taxation regime.

The thesis also argues that Provisional Measure No. 1,118/2022 only excluded the final purchasers of the products, having ensured the benefit of a zero rate for producers and resellers, and that the modifications brought by LC 194/2022 (prohibitions on the use of credits for the single-phase regime) would only produce effects after observing the ninety-day prior notice defined in art. 195, §6, of the CF/88.

It will be up to interested taxpayers to follow the developments of Topic 1339.

O post The Right to Pis/Cofins Credit on Fuel Purchases for Retailers Will Be Decided by the Repetitive Regime apareceu primeiro em C Moreno.

The rapporteur, Justice Cristiano Zanin, voted to apply the 90-day prior notice period. Justice Edson Fachin, however, argued that both prior notice periods apply. The controversy revolves around the legal nature of the benefit: whether tax-related, as the exporters argue, or merely financial, as the federal government argues.

In our understanding, since Reintegra represents a mechanism for refunding taxes already paid, its nature is clearly fiscal. Thus, the reduction in tax rates represents an indirect increase in the tax burden, which requires respect for the annual advance payment.

Given this scenario, we recommend that companies affected by abrupt reductions in Reintegra tax rates file the appropriate legal action as soon as possible. This is because the Supreme Federal Court (STF) may modulate the effects of the decision, restricting its benefits to taxpayers who have already filed lawsuits before the conclusion of the trial.

O post Supreme Federal Court rules on whether reductions in Reintegra must respect annual precedent apareceu primeiro em C Moreno.