Funrural is on the agenda at the STF

The Rural Workers Assistance Fund (Funrural) is on the agenda of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) on October 6th, when Ministers will once again discuss the constitutionality of the contribution. For more than 10 years, individual rural producers and agribusinesses have been following the back and forth of processes that legitimize or not the payment of contributions that make up the fund.

Fernanda Tarsitano, lawyer at Martinelli Advogados, an office specialized in tax issues linked to agribusiness, explains that the return of the discussion about Funrural owed by the individual rural employer, already validated by the STF in 2017, could generate a new discussion, if a reversal occurs of understanding. “Although positive, any favorable decision from the Supreme Court could give rise to new discussions aimed at recovering amounts paid in 2018 under the Rural Tax Regularization Program (PRR), a time when the understanding was unfavorable”, she assesses. 

Just to understand the progress of the discussions, the Funrural in question is based on Law 10.256/2001, which introduced a charge of 2,5% on gross income from the commercialization of rural production from agro-industries and 1,8% from rural producers natural persons. “The contribution is nothing more than the “INSS” of the rural sector, as it covers social security and social security issues”, explains Fernanda.

In the last two decades, challenges have been made by agricultural companies and Funrural has already entered and left the composition of the sector's tax burden a few times. The STF will judge Funrural owed by agribusinesses for the first time on 06/10/2021. On the other hand, Funrural for rural employers has already been analyzed by Ministers on other occasions. In 2010, Fernanda recalls, the contribution from individual rural employers, due based on a law prior to Law 10.256/2001, was considered unconstitutional following a lawsuit filed by a meatpacking company. This generated a false feeling of no need to collect the tax, which caused many rural producers to stop paying it. “However, in 2017, when analyzing the same contribution, this time due based on Law 10.256/2001, the STF validated the issue and judged the Funrural of the individual rural employer to be constitutional”, explains the lawyer.

Possibility of refund

Lawyer Breno Cônsoli states that a question that has been circulating in the legal environment of agricultural companies, for example, is if Funrural is judged unfounded, what will be the reimbursement for payments over the last five years. “Funrural confused agriculture as a whole because it is technically complex, with a very long timeline,” he observes.

The lawyer recalls that, in relation to Funrural for rural employers, when the STF legitimized Funrural's obligation in 2017, the following year the Rural Tax Regularization Program (PRR) was created, which established - by law 13.606 - the installment of tax debts due from previous years. Cônsoli also says that another point that should be discussed is the analysis of tax subrogation, that is, in the link of a production chain, who pays for Funrural? The answer, according to him, will have to come out of this debate. 

Screenplay

The mandatory payment to the National Rural Apprenticeship Service (Senar) by rural producer employers should also be included on the STF's agenda on October 6th. Senar was created in 1991 with the objective of organizing, administering and executing, throughout the national territory, rural professional training and social promotion of young people and adults who carry out activities in rural areas.

Last year, however, the amount raised was not fully invested. According to data provided by Senar itself, in 2020 the institution had a cash surplus of R$40 million. Senar's revenue, according to the entity itself, was R$146 million in the period.