Editorial policy and corrections

Our legal guides help readers identify questions and documents for an individual assessment. They do not establish eligibility, guarantee an outcome or replace advice on the facts of a matter.

Sources and scope

Material legal statements should link to the relevant legislation, court decision or responsible public authority. A municipal practice, proposed bill and enacted rule are different things. Dates, jurisdiction, exceptions and administrative dependencies matter; a summary must not silently remove them.

Authors, review and dates

A byline identifies the attributed author. It is not proof that a lawyer approved every later edit. An update date identifies a substantive editorial change and is distinct from a recorded legal review. We do not represent an automated edit, technical build or source-link check as a lawyer’s signoff. Any specifically claimed legal review must have a named reviewer, date and retained record.

AI assistance and verification

AI tools may assist research, organization, translation and editing. They are not a source of legal authority or evidence of a client result. The October 2026 corrections used AI-assisted research and editing; no individual lawyer approval is claimed for that work. Readers should use the linked primary sources and seek advice before acting on a legal deadline or transaction.

Examples and professional claims

Educational scenarios are labelled and do not represent actual client engagements. Client history, quotations, credentials, statistics and results require verifiable support and appropriate confidentiality and professional-conduct treatment. An unsupported narrative cannot be made factual by calling it anonymized. Hypothetical calculations must state assumptions and cannot promise savings.

Corrections made on 3 October 2026

• Removed the American-retiree narrative’s unsupported savings and quotations, the purported US–Brazil income-tax treaty rate, and the claim that lacking a Brazilian will requires judicial probate.
• Replaced unsupported estate, agribusiness and carbon-market case narratives with educational document and decision guidance. This does not establish that the earlier narratives were hypothetical.
• Corrected ITBI valuation summaries to distinguish STJ Tema 1113 from municipal collection practices.
• Corrected citizenship-route and investor-route comparisons, including the distinction between family-based ordinary and special naturalization.
• Replaced obsolete US estate-tax sunset advice with a source-linked 2026 explanation.

Report a concern

Send a correction request with the page URL, the disputed passage and any supporting primary source. Please do not include confidential client documents. An identified material error should be corrected or removed while unresolved; a correction is not proof of a complete legal review of the entire library.

Policy published 3 October 2026. Ler em português.