O Tribunal de Justiça do Rio Grande do Sul, no julgamento de Apelo em Mandado de Segurança decidiu que precatórios devidos pelo IPERGS, podem compensar dívida do ICMS das empresas devedoras do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul.
O Ilustre Julgador, Dês. Relato Carlos Roberto Lofego Canibal, usou por bem a letra crua da lei para embasar sua decisão. Basicamente, defendeu que a luz do artigo 170 do Código Tributário Nacional, a autorização para compensação é expressa e que, eventual negativa de compensação somente poderia se dar por apego a filigranas subjetivas de quem aprecia os pedidos.
A impossibilidade da dita compensação só traz benefícios à “cadeia credora” do Estado que, diga-se, insiste na utilização de estratagemas escapistas para se eximir de obrigações. Isso que, no caso, são alimentares !
A impossibilidade usurparia dos credores do IPERGS a única forma de se ressarcir de algo, muitas vezes, há muito declarada líquida pela justiça.
Curiosa é a resistência do Estado em resistir ante a compensação. Pois, a luz do bom senso universal, isso só pode trazer vantagens ao Estado. Claro que falamos de um Estado motivado a cumprir sua função junto a sociedade. Mas ao que parece, o calote estatal só pode ser travado coercitivamente.
O que se lamenta, pois a compensação deveria ser albergada já pela via administrativa. Sob pena do própria Estado contribuir para o sem número de demandas “dispensáveis” que hoje assoberbam o Judiciário.
A retórica acerca do assunto já é maculada pelo excesso de redundantes obviedades, como se vê, tanto o é que o STF já saneou o assunto, vejamos:
DECISÃO: Discute-se no presente recurso extraordinário o reconhecimento do direito à utilização de precatório, cedido por terceiro e oriundo de autarquia previdenciária do Estado-membro, para pagamento de tributos estaduais à Fazenda Pública.
2. O acordão recorrido entendeu não ser possível a compensação por não se confundirem o credor do débito fiscal — Estado do Rio Grande do Sul — e o devedor do crédito oponível — a autarquia previdenciária.
3. O fato de o devedor ser diverso do credor não é relevante, vez que ambos integram a Fazenda Pública do mesmo ente federado [Lei n. 6.830/80]. Além disso, a Constituição do Brasil não impôs limitações aos institutos da cessão e da compensação e o poder liberatório de precatórios para pagamento de tributo resulta da própria lei
VOLTAR
In the economic sense, having well balanced accountancy for companies or governments means they have receivables and debt capacity greater than or equal to liabilities already contracted to be paid in short, medium or long term. For this reason, when assessing the economic situation, it is important to check whether the receivables correspond in quantity and timing of maturity to the debts already contracted added to those who have yet to be hired and / or renegotiated.
Ano : 2010
Autor : Édison Freitas de Siqueira
Brazil - Increase in public debt on the eve of the elections exposes Brazilian Economic Abyss
Consequently, it is said that the economic situation would be bad if the assets, production capacity and the short, medium and long term receivables are less than the cost and value of payable loans in equal terms. This unbalance in the economy accounts indicates likely "default", whereby more expensive or impossible to attract new funding. For no other reason but that Brazil pays its creditors according to the “Selic” interest rate, which is the Brazilian interest rate for operations of risk and that happens to be the highest interest rate in the world.
In the case of the Brazilian economy, the receivables either: (a) the total collection of taxes, (2) amounts received by the Brazilian Federal Administration as distribution of profits from private companies of which the government is a partner, (3) the values obtained in auctions of government concessions in the areas of transportation, communication, mail services, energy production, exploitation of mineral resources etc. (4) revenue from the sale of shares of companies formerly controlled by the state, (5) the receivables from royalties from exploration oil, gas and minerals, and - when not given losses - (6) values earned by public companies.
Government spending on the other hand, corresponds to the money needed to provide funding for the state as a whole, namely: (1) to build roads, harbors, airports, hospitals, (2) promote public safety, (3) maintain the Army, Navy and Air Force, (4) use and invest in states and municipalities, (5) pay wages to all employees and officials of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches, (6) pay the pension benefits and compensation due from the Brazilian Federal Administration, (7) pay interest and main value of loans that are due daily, according to the government debts to the banks through direct loans, or to the market through the issuance of government bonds, a kind of promissory note that the European Union as collateral to creditors around the world, borrows money when the promise of attractive payment of the “Selic” interest rate "pro rata".
Ignoring these reasons, and disregarding the constitutional presumption of "urgency", the president’s office issued the Presidential Decree nº 472, which, just over 30 days, was converted into the Bill nº 12.249/10, which established new issuance of securities to ballast a loan of "114.8 billion USD. These resources, in the most part, were intended for BNDES (Brazilian National Development Bank), Banco do Nordeste (Northeastern Bank), the Merchant Marine Fund and Caixa Economica Federal (Brazilian Federal Savings Bank). Only these bonds, issued in June 2010 accounted for 12% of the GDP, increasing the national debt in securities, according to the Central Bank itself, this debt has reached, a few days before, a figure greater than 64% of the GDP, not including this calculation, direct debts contracted by the government to banks. These figures, together or separately, along with a sequence of more than 25 years of low economic growth rates indicate that there is a real gap in the government accounts. This condition becomes even worse when we see that the same law that determined this huge loan, also created the financial scheme to support the of the MST (the Brazilian NGO that fights for the land redistribution for rural workers who are self declared as the “landless”) , in which 50% of the value is donated to debtors forgiven in 100% of the rural debts from credits below USD 19,903,000.00; created the program "One Laptop per Student" and the special tax exemption for the "poor" Petroleum companies, as well as the Information Technology and Aviation sectors.
These operations, on the eve of the election process, expose the gigantic public debt of more than 340 billion dollars, which generates liabilities of USD 120 million only in interest "a day". Surprisingly the main amount of bonds issued to fetch these resources, almost all due in an average term of 05 years, while the BNDES, Caixa Econômica Federal and even the Bank of Brazil, to which it transferred most of the loaned value, yielded the same amount in bonds with payment periods from 10 to 20 years, beginning with a grace period for payment between 02-05 years.
This "default", imbalance between inputs and payable accounts , is a bubble ready to burst the fragile Brazilian economy, mostly because tax revenues, the largest source of revenue for the Brazilian Federal Administration, is 100% committed to the payment of the current national spending . From these numbers we can presume it is not clear how real the chance of receiving the payment of these debts is, if there is not economic growth equal to or greater than 10% per year and / or the Central Bank does not devalue the currency in time to take advantage of the exchange gains earned on the dollars and inventory reserves accumulated during the governments of President Lula and the former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso (now USD 147.9 billion), these would be the only measures to allow the reduction of the national debt in securities and the likely impact that can be caused by the leakage of dollars from Brazilian reserves, if the Brazilian market is exposed by the imbalance of its own numbers.
While the market expects, the ones who survive will see big time watered stock!
VOLTAR
.
4. Esta Corte fixou jurisprudência na ADI n. 2851, Pleno, Relator o Ministro Carlos Velloso, DJ de 3.12.04, no sentido de que:
“EMENTA: CONSTITUCIONAL. PRECATÓRIO. COMPENSAÇÃO DE CRÉDITO TRIBUTÁRIO COM DÉBITO DO ESTADO DECORRENTE DE PRECATÓRIO. C.F., art. 100, art. 78, ADCT, introduzido pela EC 30, de 2002.
I. – Constitucionalidade da Lei 1.142, de 2002, do Estado de Rondônia, que autoriza a compensação de crédito tributário com débito da Fazenda do Estado, decorrente de precatório judicial pendente de pagamento, no limite das parcelas vencidas a que se refere o art. 78, ADCT/CF, introduzido pela EC 30, de 2000.
II. – ADI julgada improcedente.”
Dou provimento ao recurso extraordinário, com fundamento no disposto no art. 557, § 1º-A, do CPC. Custas ex lege. Sem honorários.
Publique-se.
Brasília, 28 de agosto de 2007.
Ministro Eros Grau
Relator –
(grifos nossos)
O STF nessa decisão, no papel de “Corte Unificadora” exalta mandamento constitucional autorizador da referida compensação. Ora, mandamentos dessa natureza não são soberanos sobre as demais leis? Que dúvida há sobre a compensação?
Em suma, a triste historia do inadimplemento do Estado em relação a esses pacientes credores (ou seus sucessores, muitas vezes) só reforça a convicção de que o precatório deve ser transformado em uma espécie de “título ao portador”. Por questão de pura justiça em nome da aplicação da legislação vigente.
Dr. Tarso Luiz Hofmeister
Advogado Executivo