By Matheus André Ribeiro and Laura Rendak Dalberto

The Federal Supreme Court concluded, in a virtual session ended on 04/28/2026, the judgment of the second motions for clarification filed in RE 928,943 (Theme 914), which discusses the constitutionality of the incidence of CIDE-Royalties on remittances abroad.

By majority, the Court followed the understanding of the Reporting Justice, Flávio Dino, to not admit the appeal of relevant associations from the media and publishing sectors (ABTA, ABERT, ANJ and SNEL), on the procedural ground that the request to join the case, as amicus curiae, had been filed untimely.

In the motions for clarification, the associations preliminarily requested their admission as amicus curiae in the case. On the merits, they sought the exclusion of the incidence of CIDE-Royalties on transactions involving copyrights of audiovisual works, arguing that such transactions would already be included within the scope of the Contribution for the Development of the National Film Industry (Condecine), also classified as an economic domain intervention contribution. The overlap of the two levies, according to the associations, would characterize a case of double taxation.

Although the outcome of the judgment of the motions for clarification reaffirmed, on a formal level, the prevalence of the previously established thesis, the debate revealed significant divergences regarding the material scope of the contribution. In this sense, the dissenting opinion of Justice Luiz Fux is noteworthy, as he defended the need to review the general repercussion thesis.

After a request for review, Justice Fux voted to grant the motions for clarification, with modifying effects, proposing the restriction of the incidence of CIDE-Royalties to contracts involving the effective exploitation of technology. In his opinion, he suggested the express exclusion of remittances related to copyrights and services unrelated to technological contracts, with the aim of avoiding double taxation and preserving the interventionist nature of the contribution.

Justice Dias Toffoli, in turn, followed the Reporting Justice regarding the non-admission of the motions filed by the associations due to untimeliness of the request to join the case. However, his vote presented a highly relevant reservation for taxpayers. Toffoli highlighted that, although the associations’ appeal was not admitted in this judgment, the merits issues they raised (such as the exclusion of remittances related to copyrights) will still have to be analyzed in the judgment of the motions for clarification filed by the taxpayer in the leading case, which remain pending before the STF.

Thus, although the broad thesis adopted by Justice Flávio Dino currently prevails, the votes of Justices Dias Toffoli and Luiz Fux keep open the discussion on the modulation of effects and on the possibility of specific limitations of the thesis for certain economic sectors and transactions without transfer or exploitation of technology. In this context, the judgment of the motions for clarification filed by the taxpayer assumes a central role, as it should define whether there will be protection for past taxable events and whether the Court will establish more precise guidelines regarding the material scope of CIDE-Royalties.

The tax team of Marins Bertoldi Advogados remains monitoring the developments of the topic and remains available for any clarifications.