COMMENT: Why Brazil must decide if its CFC rules are constitutional

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

COMMENT: Why Brazil must decide if its CFC rules are constitutional

brazil-flag.jpg

In 2001, President Cardoso enacted a provisional measure into the Brazilian Tax Code which introduced controversial controlled foreign corporation (CFC) rules in Brazil.

The measure states: “In regard to the tax base of income tax and social contribution on net profits, according to article 25 of Law 9.249/95, and article 21 of this Provisional Measure, the profits received by controlled and associated companies offshore will be considered available to the controlling or associated company in Brazil at the date in which they were accounted through balance sheet, in terms of this code”.

Ever since it was first introduced, the measure has been disputed by Brazilian companies on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.

The Brazilian Federal Revenue Service (RFB) is using the CFC rules to levy income tax on foreign profits of Brazilian multinationals even before such profits have been distributed to the Brazilian branch.

Taxpayers argue that this violates the constitutional concept of income for taxation purposes because it does not take into account the actual time at which these non-distributed profits are available to the Brazilian companies and their shareholders.

The dispute is making it difficult for Brazilian multinationals to compete in international markets.

The world’s second largest mining company, Vale, is disputing $14.8 billion of taxes and penalties with the RFB as a result of assessments made under the controversial CFC rules.

A claim regarding the unconstitutionality of the CFC rules filed by Brazil’s National Confederation of Industry has been taken to the Supreme Court, but following a split decision the trial was suspended.

Four of the Supreme Court judges which voted have since retired and a decision on the matter is now awaiting a new vote following an appeal submitted on March 16 2012.

Further confusion is arising from the RFB’s treatment of profits earned in countries with which Brazil has signed double tax avoidance treaties (DTTs).

Tax dispute cases involving Vale, drink distribution company Eagle, and a number of others, have all seen the RFB attempting to tax income (both active and passive) of controlled companies established abroad irrespective of whether DTTs are in place that should override Brazil’s CFC rules.

The Brazilian tax authorities are by no means alone in adopting an increasingly aggressive stance against international tax planning and treaty shopping.

But the approach they are taking is violating constitutional principles in Brazil and tax treaty provisions and international rules, such as those established in the OECD model convention.

By refusing to align with internationally accepted models of CFC taxation, the Brazilian authorities are creating an uncertain legal environment which is unattractive to foreign investors and harms the international expansion of its domestic companies.

The pending Supreme Court decision could rule that the existing CFC rules are unconstitutional, which would void these rules and require enactment of a new law. But there is presently no indication as to when this ruling will be made.

For the sake of Brazilian taxpayers, the ruling cannot arrive soon enough.

Further reading

Vale case could change the way Brazil taxes foreign profits

What to expect from the Suprem Court in 2012

How Brazil is reacting to international tax planning

Brazil: The current tax challenges for new and old investors

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The partnership model was looking antiquated even before the UK chancellor’s expected tax raid on LLPs was revealed. An additional tax burden may finally kill it off
The US’s GILTI regime will not be forced upon American multinationals in foreign jurisdictions, Bloomberg has reported; in other news, Ropes & Gray hired two tax partners from Linklaters
APAs should provide a pragmatic means to agree to an arm's-length outcome for an Australian entity and for the ATO, the tax authority said
Overall revenues and average profit per partner also increased in the UK, the ‘big four’ firm revealed
Increasingly complex reporting requirements contributed towards the firm’s growth in tax, it said
Sector-specific business taxes, private equity tax treatment reform and changes to the taxation of non-residents are all on the cards for the UK, authors from Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer predict
The UK’s Labour government has an unpopular prime minister, an unpopular chancellor and not a lot of good options as it prepares to deliver its autumn Budget
Awards
The firms picked up five major awards between them at a gala ceremony held at New York’s prestigious Metropolitan Club
The streaming company’s operating income was $400m below expectations following the dispute; in other news, the OECD has released updates for 25 TP country profiles
Software company Oracle has won the right to have its A$250m dispute with the ATO stayed, paving the way for a mutual agreement procedure
Gift this article