Brazil government to challenge tax hike reversal in Supreme Court
The government believes that lawmakers overstepped their constitutional powers and created legal uncertainty by reversing President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's decree raising the so-called IOF tax, Messias told reporters in Brasilia.
Lula in May hiked the tax levied on certain credit, foreign-exchange and private pension plan operations as a way to boost revenue and limit spending freezes needed to comply with the government's fiscal rules.
The move, however, faced immediate backlash from lawmakers, who said they would not approve the tax hikes and last week dealt the government a major blow by ultimately nixing the decree.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
2 hours ago
- BBC News
Pedro's Chelsea move 'works for us as well as him'
Brighton chief executive Paul Barber says Joao Pedro's move to Chelsea is a "disappointment" but believes that when a player wants to move, it is important to find a "plan that suits everybody".The Brazil international signed for a then club-record £30m from Watford in 2023 and after scoring 30 goals in 70 games for the Seagulls has now moved to Stamford Bridge for £60m. "Joao leaving us is a disappointment in many ways but at the same time we've realised the significant profit made on Joao from the signing we made from Watford," Barber told BBC Radio Sussex."We've had two great seasons from him, a lot of goals, a lot of great memories. We wish him well. He's been a great player for us while he's been here."Joao has been given a chance to play in the Champions League. When you've got ambitions to play in a World Cup as he has next summer with his country, he's going to need and want to push to play at the highest possible level."We know from previous experience when players are in that mindset sometimes its better to talk to Fabian [Hurzeler], talk to Tony [Bloom], talk to David [Weir] and come up with a plan that suits everybody. It doesn't have to just suit the player - it needs to suit the club as well."In this case, I think the value we've achieved, the timing and the players we've bought in, all works for us as well as him. As I say, I wish him well."Listen to the full chat on BBC Sounds
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Former banker gets result of court battle with ex-wife over £80m 'gift'
Judges have issued their ruling on a bitter divorce battle over £80m retired sheep-farming tycoon and ex-CFO of UBS Clive Standish gave his wife to avoid inheritance tax A retired banker who gave his wife nearly £80 million to avoid paying inheritance tax will not have to split the money equally with her following their divorce, the Supreme Court has ruled. Five justices unanimously agreed that because most of the money had been earned prior to the marriage, Clive Standish, 72, was entitled to keep the largest share. The retired sheep-farming tycoon and former CFO of UBS had transferred the multimillion-pound assets to his wife Anna Standish, 57, in 2017, to take advantage of the Australian's non-dom status and allow more money to benefit their two children. Mr Standish, who officially lives in the UK, was worried about paying around £32 million in inheritance tax if he died with the assets in his name, Lords Burrows and Stephens explained in their ruling today. They said: "In short, there was no matrimonialisation of the 2017 assets because, first, the transfer was to save tax, and, secondly, it was for the benefit of the children, not the wife. The 2017 assets were not, therefore, being treated by the husband and wife for any period of time as an asset that was shared between them." Mr Standish expected his wife to use the money to establish two offshore trusts, but Mrs Standish never did so, and she remained the sole owner of those assets when legal action began. In 2022, two years after their divorce, High Court judge Mr Justice Moor split the family's total wealth of £132 million by awarding Mr Standish £87 million and Mrs Standish £45 million. Mr Standish challenged this decision at the Court of Appeal, arguing that the majority of the money, including the £80 million of transferred assets, was earned before they began living together in Switzerland in 2004. Last year, Court of Appeal judges assessed that 75% of that £80 million had been earned prior to the marriage and so reduced Mrs Standish's share to £25 million. Lords Burrows and Stephens, sitting with Lord Reed, Lord Lloyd Jones and Lady Simler, said they "see no reason" to interfere with the Court of Appeal's assessment and dismissed Mrs Standish's Supreme Court appeal. In their ruling they noted: "The crucial point is that the 2017 assets are largely non-matrimonial property and only a relatively small element comprises matrimonial property. That point was lost in the approach taken by Moor J at first instance and the Court of Appeal was therefore entitled to intervene and to make its own assessment." Lord Faulks, for Mrs Standish, argued during the Supreme Court hearing that the assets had become shared property after the transfer and that she had contributed to that wealth by accepting them as a gift. Tim Bishop KC, said that the gift was not for the sole benefit of Mrs Standish but "primarily for the benefit of the children". Lords Burrows and Stephens said: "Here the source of the pre-marital assets within the 2017 assets was exclusively the husband. Those assets have been transferred to the wife. "But the problem for the wife is that there is nothing to show that, over time, the parties were treating the 2017 assets as shared between them. Rather the transfer was in pursuance of a scheme to negate inheritance tax and it was for the benefit exclusively of the children."
NBC News
3 hours ago
- NBC News
Wisconsin Supreme Court strikes down state's 1849 near-total abortion ban
The Wisconsin Supreme Court on Wednesday formally struck down an abortion ban from 1849 that had technically retaken effect after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal abortion rights. In a 4-3 decision that came down across ideological lines, the court's liberal majority affirmed a lower court ruling that overturned the 176-year-old ban and left in place a more recent law in Wisconsin allowing most abortions until about the 20th week of pregnancy. "We conclude that comprehensive legislation enacted over the last 50 years regulating in detail the 'who, what, where, when, and how' of abortion so thoroughly covers the entire subject of abortion that it was meant as a substitute for the 19th century near-total ban on abortion," liberal justice Rebecca wrote in the majority opinion. "Accordingly, we hold that the legislature impliedly repealed [the 1849 ban] to abortion, and that [that law] therefore does not ban abortion in the State of Wisconsin." The ruling is a win for abortion rights activists the battleground state, where Democrats had put the issue at the forefront of many statewide elections — including two races in 2023 and 2025 that recalibrated the state Supreme Court's ideological balance — in the years since the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The state's 1849 law — enacted the year after Wisconsin was granted statehood — banned abortion in almost all cases by making performing an abortion a felony. Under the law, doctors who perform the procedure technically faced up to six years in prison and thousands of dollars in fines. The law included an exception for abortion care only to save the life of the woman, but not for her health or for rape or incest. As was the case in many states with similar older laws, or newer so-called trigger laws, the ban technically snapped back into effect almost immediately after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down Roe v. Wade. In short order, the decision prompted Planned Parenthood's Wisconsin operations to suspend abortion services in the state. But a series of legal developments unfolded shortly thereafter, which ultimately ended with the question of the law's future before the state Supreme Court. Shortly after the Roe decision, Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers and Attorney General Josh Kaul, both Democrats, filed a suit arguing that the law had been effectively deemed invalid by more recent, more lenient abortion restriction legislation in the state. Evers and Kaul said at that time, in 2022, that they wouldn't enforce the law. Both won re-election later that year and have maintained their promise. But a state judge ruled on the case in July 2023, declaring that the 1849 law did not apply to consensual medical abortions — (the judge in that case found that the original law intended to outlaw attacks on women that were intended as attempts to kill her unborn child) — prompting abortion providers to resume care in the state in September 2023. The district attorney of conservative Sheboygan County, Joel Urmanski, backed by abortion opponents and other Republican attorneys, appealed that ruling, arguing that the 1849 ban should remain the law of the land, eventually elevating the case to the state Supreme Court. Meanwhile, in a separate case, Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin filed a lawsuit in February asking the state Supreme Court to decide on the question of whether a constitutional right to abortion care exists in the state. Arguments haven't been scheduled. But part of Wednesday's decision could well forecast how judges decide on that case. The new decision is the latest consequence of liberals having regained the majority of the technically nonpartisan court for the first time in 15 years in a bitter and expensive 2023 election that ended with progressive Janet Protasiewicz's victory. The race was largely defined by Protasiewicz's support for abortion rights and opposition to the state's heavily gerrymandered legislative maps. Both issues quickly came before the court following the election, both of which ended with victories for the liberal parties in the cases. The issue of abortion played a prominent role in this year's state Supreme Court race as well: On that ended with a Susan Crawford win, allowing liberals to maintain their narrow majority. Crawford will be sworn in next month and did not participate in Wednesday's decision. The issue could also animate yet another race for a seat on the high court next year. Conservative justice Rebecca Bradley has announced she won't run for another, triggering what promises to be another expensive and contentious race. State Supreme Court elections are scheduled in Wisconsin each year from 2026 to 2030.
