Figuras que julgam: a linguagem na decisão tributária do STF

Abstract

This study examines how the Supreme Federal Court (STF) discursively constructs the rationality of tax decisions favorable to taxpayers through the use of metaphors. The overall objective is to analyze how metaphors operate as an argumentative device in votes delivered by the STF in tax cases under the general-repercussion regime that are already final (res judicata). The specific objectives are to identify and describe the metaphors present in the votes analyzed; to investigate how this figure contributes to constructing the court’s reasoning; to examine the role of figurative language in the argumentative structure of the votes; and to establish connections between the rhetoric employed and the authority produced by the judgment, in light of the frameworks of Olivier Reboul, Lakoff & Johnson, Chaïm Perelman, and João Maurício Adeodato. The research adopts a qualitative, descriptive-analytical approach, combining content analysis with argumentation theories. The corpus consists of six general-repercussion judgments that are already final (Themes 745, 1099, 1174, 1187, 1214, and 1383). For in-depth analysis, three cases (1099, 1174, and 1214) are selected, with the remainder retained as an extended corpus. The results indicate a recurrent presence of structuring metaphors, leading to the conclusion that metaphors—far from mere ornaments—function as argumentative instruments that organize the intelligibility of the case, rationalize dissensus, and contribute to the legitimation of decisions before the legal community. The study highlights the linguistic-pragmatic dimension as a vector for constructing legal meaning in rulings with strong capacity to reshape the dynamics of the tax system.