IBS and CBS in the ICMS Base: Injunction and Risks

On September 9, 2026, the 16th Public Treasury Court of São Paulo granted Privalia an interim injunction allowing it to calculate ICMS without including IBS and CBS once the new taxes become effectively chargeable. The order applies only to the company and may be overturned. For other taxpayers, the São Paulo guidance still requires inclusion from 2027. The dispute starts with article 13 of Supplementary Law 87/1996, which defines the ICMS tax base as the “value of the transaction”, and faces its main risk in STJ Repetitive Theme 1,223.

Executive decision summary

The injunction opens a relevant legal argument, but it does not create an automatic right or tax saving for third parties. Before considering a writ of mandamus, a company needs to measure exposure by transaction and state, separate gross tax liability from cash impact, prepare its ERP for two scenarios, and quantify a reversal. My assessment is that the exclusion has serious legal grounds, with material and high appellate risk.

Status checked on September 14, 2026. The injunction had been published, the service order had been issued, and compliance was pending. Neither the public docket nor the 108-page authenticated case file then available contained an appeal or a submission by the State. No claim of absolute primacy is made because no judicial census was performed.

The case matters because São Paulo, the Federal District, and Pernambuco have already issued administrative guidance that distinguishes 2026 from 2027. According to those specific acts, the absence of an effective burden in the test year prevents inclusion. Once IBS and CBS produce an effective charge, the position recorded in the acts reviewed here changes: the new taxes form part of the value of the transaction and, consequently, of the ICMS tax base.

This is where the issue becomes a business decision. The difference can reach pricing, margins, contracts, tax documents, ERP configuration, and provisioning for an adverse scenario. The Privalia case is the new event. The lasting problem is determining how much the interpretation recorded in the state acts reviewed here adds to ICMS and how much risk a company is prepared to accept in challenging it.

What the São Paulo court decided in the Privalia case

Identification and scope of the injunction checked against the official case file.
Element	Verified information	Consequence
Case	1138866-98.2026.8.26.0053	Individual preventive writ of mandamus.
Court	16th Public Treasury Court of São Paulo	Trial-court decision subject to review.
Claimant	Privalia Brasil S.A.	The protection does not extend to third parties.
Starting point	Effective chargeability of IBS and CBS	The order does not create an exclusion or credit for 2026.
Effect	ICMS without IBS/CBS in its tax base	Suspends only the difference created by the contested inclusion.
Status on September 14, 2026	Order issued and awaiting compliance	The merits had not been finally decided.

The decision was issued by Judge Márcio Ferraz Nunes and published on September 14, 2026. In a direct English rendering, its operative language allows the claimant to “assess and pay the state tax without including the amounts corresponding to IBS and CBS in its tax base”. The full decision is available from the São Paulo Court of Justice under validation code PDArDvg0.

The time limit must be read carefully. The order starts when IBS and CBS become effectively chargeable and lasts while they coexist with ICMS. It does not state that the new taxes must be removed from the tax base today. The initial petition sought a future offset or refund if payments were made between 2027 and 2032, but the injunction did not decide that request or recognize a tax credit.

The procedural protection prevents the named authorities from collecting the difference, imposing penalties, or applying restrictions based exclusively on the authorized exclusion. The official case docket must govern every update concerning an appeal, suspension, final judgment, or compliance.

What the injunction does and does not do

The individual order must be separated from its possible persuasive value as a precedent.
The injunction does	The injunction does not
Protect Privalia against a charge based only on the contested inclusion.	Automatically benefit other companies.
Suspend the enforceability of the ICMS difference while it remains effective.	End the merits dispute or prevent an appellate court from overturning it.
Operate when IBS and CBS become effectively chargeable.	Create a credit, refund, or saving for 2026.
Bind the São Paulo authorities named in the case.	Bind other states or invalidate their guidance in the abstract.
Provide a concrete basis for studying a preventive claim.	Authorize third parties to remove IBS/CBS from the tax base on their own.

An interim injunction is provisional relief. In a writ of mandamus, Law 12,016/2009 governs its effectiveness, appeals, and possible suspension. An initial finding of plausibility and risk does not replace a final judgment or a binding precedent.

Is a trial-court injunction “worthless”?

No. Trial-court status does not deprive the order of legal effect in the individual case. Article 151(IV) of the National Tax Code lists an injunction granted in a writ of mandamus among the grounds that suspend enforceability of a tax debt. Article 7, paragraph 3, of Law 12,016/2009 preserves the measure until judgment unless it is revoked or vacated. In this case, the economic effect is tied to the point at which IBS and CBS become effectively chargeable; the order therefore does not yet produce the disputed 2027 saving during 2026.

That does not make the injunction a final victory. The trial judge may revoke or modify it under article 296 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the State may file an interlocutory appeal; and, to prevent serious injury to public order, health, safety, or the public economy, it may request the special suspension governed by article 15 of Law 12,016/2009. But filing an appeal is not the same as overturning the order. Under article 995 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal does not by itself prevent a decision from taking effect. A statutory rule or a judicial order granting suspensive effect is required. Nothing in the official docket available on September 14, 2026 supported a prediction that the order would be overturned “any minute”; that is a forecast, not a procedural fact.

The reversal risk is real. STF Súmula 405 states that, when the writ is denied by the trial judgment or upon review of the appeal from that judgment, the injunction loses effect and the adverse ruling operates retroactively. It is persuasive rather than binding, and the STF page itself records exceptional prospective treatment to protect legitimate expectations; that exception cannot be presumed here. In Jurisprudence Bulletin 605, the STJ held that, once the suspensive ground is removed, the tax authority may resume collection without awaiting a final, unappealable judgment unless another ground under article 151 of the National Tax Code or an appeal with suspensive effect remains in place.

The treatment of penalties also changed shortly before this order. In force since September 4, 2026, Supplementary Law 236/2026 added paragraphs 2 and 3 to article 142 of the National Tax Code, barring ex officio and late-payment penalties in an assessment made to prevent expiry of the assessment period when suspension preceded the tax proceeding, and paragraph 3 to article 161, interrupting the late-payment penalty from the grant of relief until 30 days after publication of the decision finding the tax due. That period does not extend the injunction, preserve suspended enforceability, or eliminate principal and applicable interest. In EREsp 839,962/MG, the STJ First Section recognized monetary adjustment and interest or Selic during the relief period; the ruling is not repetitive and predates the new law. A company should model principal, interest, penalties, ancillary obligations, and the applicable collection mechanics separately.

Board-level reading. The right question is not whether the injunction “counts.” It is how much cash it may protect from 2027 if still effective and what it will cost to restore the tax position if the order is suspended, vacated, or overturned. Filing without reserves, a documentary trail, and an executable reversal scenario turns a defensible claim into poorly governed financial risk.

The effect is inter partes: it reaches the claimant and the authorities named in that case. Neither publication of the order nor its persuasive value converts that individual scope into collective protection.

For another company, copying Privalia’s tax treatment without its own protection would mean assuming the ICMS difference, statutory charges, and possible registration or documentary consequences under the applicable rules. The decision may support an argument. It is not a collective authorization.

The issue must also be separated by establishment. A company operating in several states faces authorities, administrative guidance, and formulas that may differ. The São Paulo case does not resolve the exposure of branches subject to other jurisdictions.

Why the state acts reviewed here support inclusion in 2027

The SP, DF, and PE acts connect the “value of the transaction” to economic pass-through and distinguish the test year from the start of effective collection.

Article 13(I) of the Kandir Law states that the ICMS tax base on an outgoing sale of goods is the value of the transaction. The position recorded in the reviewed state acts takes a broad view: if IBS and CBS are charged to the purchaser as components of the price, they would form part of that value even without appearing on a nominal list in paragraph 1.

In São Paulo, Consultation Response 32,303/2025 and Consultation Response 33,083/2026 exclude the new taxes from the ICMS base in 2026 because of the exceptional treatment and absence of an effective burden. They point to inclusion once IBS and CBS become chargeable from 2027.

Primary administrative acts located and checked as of September 14, 2026.
Jurisdiction	Document	2026	From 2027
São Paulo	CR 32,303/2025 and CR 33,083/2026	No inclusion in the test year.	Inclusion in the value of the transaction and the ICMS tax base.
Federal District	SUREC Notice 1/2026	No inclusion.	Inclusion and adaptation of invoicing and bookkeeping.
Pernambuco	CR 10/2026	Test-year exception.	Preservation of the inclusion rule outside that exception.

This table is not a map of Brazil’s 27 federative units. It records only official acts that were opened and checked. For a multijurisdictional decision, a company still needs to identify the rule and competent authority for each relevant establishment.

What are the legal grounds for excluding IBS and CBS

The taxpayer’s position combines statutory text and the architecture of the new VAT. The conflict remains because the Kandir Law uses a broad tax base.

Legality and the supplementary-law requirement

Articles 146(III)(a) and 150(I) of the Constitution reserve tax-base rules to supplementary law and prohibit collecting or increasing a tax without a law. Article 97(IV) and paragraph 1 of the National Tax Code tie the tax base to legality and treat a change that makes the tax more onerous as an increase.

The taxpayer’s argument is direct: placing two new taxes inside the ICMS tax base increases the state tax and would require unequivocal statutory authorization. The tax authority’s answer is equally direct: that authorization already exists in the “value of the transaction” concept in article 13 of the Kandir Law.

The express inclusion of the Selective Tax only

Article 167 of Supplementary Law 227/2026 added an express rule for the Selective Tax to paragraph 1 of article 13 of the Kandir Law, effective January 1, 2027. It did not do the same for IBS and CBS. The injunction reads that difference as a deliberate legislative choice.

The taxpayer characterizes this as qualified silence: if lawmakers expressly included one new tax, leaving out the other two should carry meaning. The counterargument is that paragraph 1 does not exhaust every item that may form the value of the transaction. That dispute over the list’s function will be central in any appeal.

The outside-tax calculation and split payment

Article 12 of Supplementary Law 214/2025 structures IBS and CBS as taxes calculated on top of the base: they do not form their own tax base, and paragraph 2 provides exclusions during the transition. Articles 31 to 35 govern split payment, which can segregate tax collection within the payment flow.

This helps distinguish IBS and CBS from the former federal contributions. Split payment, however, is a collection mechanism. By itself, it does not contain a rule removing IBS and CBS from the ICMS tax base. The outcome depends on interpreting the system as a whole.

The analogy with STF Theme 69

In Theme 69, the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court held that ICMS does not form the PIS and Cofins tax base. The taxpayer invokes the same balance-sheet logic and the destination of the amount to another government to support the reverse exclusion.

That analogy has a limit. Theme 69 decided whether ICMS belongs inside the PIS and Cofins base. The current case asks whether IBS and CBS belong inside the ICMS base. The direction is different, and the STJ has already rejected automatically transferring the precedent in a similar dispute.

STJ Theme 1,223 is the strongest argument against the injunction

The case is not identical to PIS/Cofins, but Theme 1,223 gives the state a qualified line of reasoning.

In Special Appeal 2,091,202/SP, decided under Repetitive Theme 1,223, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice held that PIS and Cofins form the ICMS tax base when it corresponds to the value of the transaction. The court considered economic pass-through and the absence of a specific statutory exclusion.

The precedent also rejected applying Theme 69 in reverse. This is not a peripheral point. It directly reaches one of the paths used to exclude amounts transferred to another government.

There are relevant differences. IBS and CBS were designed as transparent taxes calculated on top and capable of being segregated within the payment. Supplementary Law 227/2026 expressly placed the Selective Tax in the ICMS base and remained silent on IBS and CBS. These elements support a distinction from PIS and Cofins.

My assessment, however, is that the distinction does not neutralize the risk. Theme 1,223 is a repetitive precedent, interprets the same expression “value of the transaction”, and gives the state a ready argument that exclusion requires an express law.

STF Theme 1,446 adds another layer. In 2026, the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court held that the analogous dispute over PIS/Cofins in the ICMS tax base is a statutory matter without general repercussion. It does not decide IBS/CBS, but it increases the weight of the Kandir Law and the STJ precedent.

Risk assessment. The exclusion argument is legally defensible. The likelihood of an appeal and reversal must enter the numbers from day one. Treating the injunction as a settled victory would hide the most dangerous precedent for the taxpayer.

Three weaknesses may arise in an appeal

Potential weaknesses in the reasoning, without anticipating an appeal that had not been located.
Weakness	Why it matters	Possible response
Provision cited	The decision refers to article 69(2)(II) of Supplementary Law 214/2025, which relates to imports of tangible goods.	For domestic transactions, the relevant general provision is article 12(2)(V).
Theme 1,223 absent	The reasoning supplied does not expressly address the STJ repetitive precedent.	The taxpayer will need to show why IBS and CBS are structurally different from PIS and Cofins.
Kandir Law list	The decision treats the express inclusion of the IS only as evidence that the other taxes are excluded.	The state may argue that the main clause and item I already cover the full value of the transaction.

The first weakness does not erase the entire premise. Article 12(2)(V) of Supplementary Law 214 excludes ICMS and ISS from the IBS/CBS base during the transition. The problem lies in the precision of the provision cited to support domestic transactions.

The second weakness is more substantive. A decision that does not confront a nearby repetitive precedent gives the appellate court room to frame the case under the existing rule. The taxpayer’s task will be to show that outside-tax calculation, transparency, split payment, and legislative choice create a legally relevant difference.

The third weakness is the core statutory dispute. If article 13 of the Kandir Law already contains broad authorization, the absence of a nominal reference to IBS and CBS loses force. If the addition of the Selective Tax is understood as a closed list or a deliberate choice, the taxpayer’s case gains ground.

Why the dispute is concentrated in 2027

Constitutional Amendment 132/2023 concentrates the start of effective collection in 2027, before ICMS begins to decrease.

Articles 126 to 129 of the ADCT, introduced by Constitutional Amendment 132/2023, govern the transition. In 2027, CBS becomes effective, IBS will have a 0.1% rate, and ICMS will not yet have begun its progressive reduction. The state tax starts to decrease in 2029 and is scheduled to end in 2033.

This design creates the overlap that matters for cash. A company may face chargeable IBS/CBS while ICMS remains in full force. If the new taxes are added to the state tax base, the gross ICMS liability grows compared with the exclusion scenario.

The page on Brazil’s 2027 tax reform changes organizes the other developments for that year. To understand the calculation, credits, and dual-VAT framework, see the guides to IBS and CBS and regulation of the new taxes. These Portuguese URLs are retained because no equivalent English alternates are registered for them in the current site map.

How much the inclusion may add to ICMS

Hypothetical simple gross-liability example, without gross-up, credits, incentives, ICMS-ST, DIFAL, or FCP.
Input or scenario	Calculation	Result
ICMS base without IBS/CBS	Assumption in the example	BRL 1,000,000
IBS/CBS added to the base	Independent assumption, without presuming a final rate	BRL 100,000
ICMS with inclusion	BRL 1,100,000 × 18%	BRL 198,000
ICMS with exclusion	BRL 1,000,000 × 18%	BRL 180,000
Gross difference	BRL 100,000 × 18%	BRL 18,000

In the simple scenario, the formula is:

Incremental gross liability = IBS/CBS amount added to the base × ICMS rate.

TaxUp analytical model, with stated assumptions

The example does not use a final IBS/CBS rate. It starts with a hypothetical amount already calculated at BRL 100,000 and an ICMS base held constant. The reconciliation closes: 18% of BRL 100,000 is BRL 18,000, exactly the difference between the two gross liabilities.

That difference is not the same as net savings or an additional cash outflow. ICMS credits, incentives, credit balances, assessment regime, ICMS-ST, DIFAL, FCP, and price formation may change the effect. When ICMS must be grossed up inside the price, the calculation is no longer the simple multiplication above.

The IBS and CBS calculator now separates the two layers. The first module calculates IBS/CBS outside their own base; the second compares including and excluding the new taxes from the ICMS base. Before comparing, choose whether the net amount before taxes or the invoice total must remain constant. That premise changes the ICMS gross-up, so the result should not be confused with the linear sensitivity shown in the table. The module is a simplified gross-liability scenario and does not cover credits, ICMS-ST, DIFAL, FCP, incentives, or special regimes. The Portuguese URL is retained because no equivalent English alternate is registered for it in the current site map.

Do not label the largest number as “savings”. The amount used for a decision must distinguish gross liability, accounting effect, price, cash, and provision. A simulation is neither a guarantee of success nor an opinion on a specific transaction.

How a company should decide before filing a claim

Decision matrix for tax, legal, finance, and technology teams.
Dimension	Objective question	Evidence needed
Exposure	Which transactions and establishments pay ICMS in jurisdictions whose located acts support inclusion?	Registration data, tax flows, and administrative positions by state.
Materiality	How much does the gross liability change, and how much reaches cash?	Calculation with credits, incentives, and balances.
Pricing and contracts	Can the amount be passed through, or will margins absorb it?	Price, adjustment, and tax-change clauses.
Systems	Can the ERP and tax engine support inclusion and exclusion scenarios?	Configuration, tests, audit trail, and contingency plan.
Evidence	Is there a concrete threat of collection in the relevant state?	Consultation response, administrative act, and transaction classification.
Proceedings	Which authority, establishment, and period must be identified?	Corporate and tax map, documents, and venue analysis.
Reversal	Can the company bear principal, statutory charges, and provisions if relief falls?	Adverse scenario, accounting policy, and cash governance.
Governance	Who approves the position and monitors its conditions?	Decision by tax, legal, CFO, audit, and board teams as applicable.

The proper sequence begins with exposure. A company without relevant materiality or adequate evidence does not reach the same decision as one with concentrated transactions, tight margins, and express tax guidance against its treatment.

Legal, tax, and technology teams should work together from the outset. If the company obtains protection, the ERP must apply the authorized base without losing the administrative scenario’s audit trail. If relief is suspended or overturned, the reversal must be executable.

Two extremes should be avoided. One is paying under the more expensive interpretation without measuring its effect. The other is litigating only because another company obtained an injunction. The decision should combine numbers, evidence, precedent, the relevant state position, and capacity to withstand the adverse scenario.

The guide to a Brazilian tax writ of mandamus explains documentary evidence, the respondent authority, and the proceeding’s limits. The page on STF Theme 69 separates the original precedent from the analogy sought in this dispute.

Can Supplementary Bill 16/2025 resolve the dispute

The bill could eliminate the asymmetry through express language, but the legislative process itself supports arguments on both sides.

Supplementary Bill 16/2025 would exclude IBS and CBS from the ICMS, ISS, and IPI tax bases. On September 14, 2026, it was awaiting the rapporteur’s opinion in the Chamber of Deputies’ Finance and Taxation Committee. It had not been approved and had no legal effect.

For the taxpayer, the proposal shows that the problem has been identified and that placing one new tax inside another creates a distortion inconsistent with the reform’s logic. For the state, the bill may show the opposite: if Congress must approve a specific exclusion, the current Kandir Law still authorizes inclusion.

It is not safe to build a 2027 strategy on the assumption that the bill will pass. A company may monitor the legislative process, but its systems and legal decision need to be prepared for the statute currently in force.

What happens next in the case

Compliance does not make the order final. An appeal, suspension, or judgment may change the scenario.

After the order is issued, the authorities provide information and the case proceeds through the applicable submissions, judgment, and possible appeals. There may be an interlocutory appeal against the injunction or a suspension request, depending on the procedural strategy. It is not appropriate to predict which measure will be filed.

The protected company must monitor both the case and its internal tax execution. If the order’s scope is challenged, the tax document, assessment, and calculation file will be the concrete record of what the company did while relief remained effective.

For those monitoring the argument, three events justify a material revision of this analysis: an appeal or suspension of the injunction, a judgment on the merits, and a relevant precedent from another court. The mere passage of time does not change the legal status.

The injunction forms part of a wider tax-reform dispute

How this argument connects to the rest of the transition without displacing the role of the relevant owner pages.
Related issue	Connection with IBS/CBS in the ICMS base	Where to go deeper
Derivative disputes	The reform creates new combinations of tax bases, credits, jurisdictions, and transition rules.	Map of derivative tax-reform disputes
Preventive writ	Administrative guidance may help demonstrate a concrete threat, depending on the case.	Procedure, evidence, and limits of a writ of mandamus
Theme 69	It offers an analogy but does not automatically decide the reverse direction.	Scope of Brazil’s “thesis of the century”
2026–2033 transition	The coexistence of the systems creates the dispute’s economic window.	Full transition calendar in Portuguese
Tax litigation	Evidence, risk, provisioning, and execution need to move together.	Tax litigation services

Excluding IBS and CBS from the ICMS tax base is one of the disputes created by the overlap between the former and new systems. Other disputes concern conditions on tax credits, jurisdiction, dual administrative litigation, and cross-tax incidences. Each needs its own scope so that an analogy does not become an automatic answer.

Theme 69 offers an operational lesson. When a claim gains relevance, the timing of filing, evidence, individual scope, and possible future modulation may alter the outcome available to each taxpayer. This does not mean every company should file now. It means that waiting until 2027 to open the first spreadsheet may be too late for a sound decision.

My practical recommendation is to begin with the model and the documents. Proceedings come after materiality. If the numbers do not reconcile, the ERP cannot support both scenarios, or the company cannot carry a reversal, the legal argument alone does not resolve the decision.

Frequently asked questions about IBS, CBS, and the ICMS tax base

The injunction answers only the first test for one company. The other three remain company-specific.

Do IBS and CBS form part of the ICMS tax base in 2027?

For taxpayers without judicial protection, the official acts located in São Paulo, the Federal District, and Pernambuco point to inclusion once IBS and CBS become effectively chargeable. The issue is disputed, and the Privalia injunction reached the opposite conclusion only for the claimant.

Does the injunction apply to every company?

No. The order was granted in an individual writ of mandamus and protects only Privalia against the named authorities. It may serve as persuasive authority, but it does not automatically extend its effects to third parties or other states.

Can a company exclude IBS and CBS without a court order?

Unilateral exclusion would conflict with the administrative guidance located for the jurisdictions reviewed here and expose the company to collection of the difference and consequences under applicable law. The legal and operational route must be assessed for the state, transaction, and protection actually obtained.

Why are 2026 and 2027 treated differently?

The reviewed state guidance treats 2026 as a test year without an effective burden and therefore excludes the new taxes from the ICMS base for that period. In 2027, CBS becomes effectively chargeable, IBS will have a 0.1% rate, and ICMS has not yet begun its progressive reduction.

Does STF Theme 69 guarantee exclusion?

No. Theme 69 removed ICMS from the PIS and Cofins tax base. The current dispute moves in the opposite direction, and STJ Theme 1,223 rejected automatically applying that logic when it decided whether PIS and Cofins belong inside the ICMS tax base.

Could STJ Theme 1,223 defeat the argument?

It is the principal adverse precedent. It allows PIS and Cofins in the ICMS tax base when the base is the value of the transaction and emphasizes the absence of an express statutory exclusion. IBS and CBS have structural differences that permit a distinction, but the risk that the repetitive precedent will be applied is material.

How much does inclusion increase ICMS?

In the simple incremental calculation, the gross difference equals the amount of IBS/CBS added to the tax base multiplied by the ICMS rate. Gross-up, credits, incentives, credit balances, ICMS-ST, DIFAL, FCP, the assessment regime, and price formation may change the economic and cash effects.

Is Supplementary Bill 16/2025 already in force?

No. On September 14, 2026, the bill was awaiting an opinion in the Chamber of Deputies’ Finance and Taxation Committee. It would expressly exclude IBS and CBS from the ICMS, ISS, and IPI bases, but it had not been approved and had no legal effect.

Must a writ of mandamus be filed before 2027?

There is no universal answer based solely on the calendar. A preventive writ requires a concrete threat and pre-constituted documentary evidence, and its scope depends on the transaction, authority, and applicable guidance. Early analysis helps quantify exposure and collect documents before the first effective assessment.

Does the decision also cover ICMS-ST, DIFAL, and FCP?

The operative order reviewed here does not resolve those levies in general. ICMS-ST, DIFAL, and FCP may use their own tax bases, authorities, and rules. Each component must be modeled against the relevant state’s law and the exact scope of any judicial relief.

Measure the 2027 exposure before choosing the legal position

TaxUp brings together transactions, states, rates, credits, contracts, and tax configuration to estimate the impact of including IBS and CBS and to assess available routes with the company’s legal team. The analysis does not presume litigation. It starts with materiality and the reversal scenario.

Request an IBS/CBS × ICMS exposure assessment

Primary sources checked on September 14, 2026: case 1138866-98.2026.8.26.0053 and the official São Paulo court docket; Federal Constitution, articles 146(III)(a) and 150(I); National Tax Code, articles 97(IV) and paragraph 1, 142(2)–(3), 151(IV), and 161(3); Supplementary Law 87/1996, article 13; Supplementary Law 236/2026; Supplementary Law 227/2026, article 167; Supplementary Law 214/2025, article 12 and articles 31 to 35; Constitutional Amendment 132/2023, ADCT articles 126 to 129; Law 12,016/2009, sections 7(1), 7(3), and 15; Code of Civil Procedure, articles 296 and 995; STF Súmula 405 and Themes 69 and 1,446; STJ Theme 1,223, Jurisprudence Bulletin 605, and EREsp 839,962/MG; São Paulo Consultation Responses 32,303/2025 and 33,083/2026; Federal District SUREC Notice 1/2026; Pernambuco Consultation Response 10/2026; and the Chamber of Deputies’ record for Supplementary Bill 16/2025. The tables, calculation, and diagrams are TaxUp analytical work based on the assumptions stated. This content is informational and does not replace legal, tax, accounting, and operational analysis of a specific situation.