Modificações da jurisprudência e o cabimento da ação rescisória em matéria tributária: entre a busca pela justiça e a quebra da segurança jurídica

Abstract

Due to oscillations in judicial precedents and the often lengthy period required for the formalization of a leading case on certain legal issues, situations have arisen in which taxpayers obtained final judgments (res judicata) declaring the non-exigibility of a tax levied on recurring facts. Over the years, however, such decisions may come to conflict with subsequent understandings of the Higher Courts. The distortion resulting from this dynamic has sparked debates about mechanisms to mitigate the so-called “unconstitutional res judicata,” including within the case law itself, which has begun to restrict the temporal reach of judicial decisions involving continuing tax relationships. The pursuit of instruments capable of correcting res judicatae that diverge from the prevailing interpretation of the Higher Courts may, however, lead to an improper expansion of the grounds for filing rescissory action . This study analyzes the impacts of recent landmark decisions of the Brazilian Higher Courts on the requirements for admitting an rescissory action in tax matters—particularly those based on manifest violation of a legal rule or contradiction with a subsequent ruling of the Supreme Federal Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal), under Articles 966(V) and 535(§8) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The research seeks to assess whether the current jurisprudence represents an undue broadening of this action and to evaluate its consequences for res judicata and the principle of legal certainty