Brazil proves that easiest is not always best

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Brazil proves that easiest is not always best

abraz.jpg

TP Week correspondent Machados explains why the easiest transfer pricing method is not always the best approach

abraz2.jpg

In order to arbitrate import and export transaction prices, Brazilian taxpayers must choose the method that best fits their needs among those established by tax legislation. Based on our experience, the Resale Price Less Profit (PRL) is the easiest way, but at times not the most advantageous, to calculate the parameter price due on import transactions as its applicability depends solely on Brazilian company documents.

Article 18 of Law no. 9430/96 establishes that the PRL parameter price shall be equivalent to the weighted average of resale prices of imported goods, services or rights for unrelated parties, less: (i) unconditional discounts; (ii) taxes on sales; (iii) brokerage fees and sales commissions; (iv) in the case of mere resale of imported goods, 20% profit margin on resale price less unconditional discounts only; or 60% profit margin on resale price less unconditional discounts and value added in the country, in the case of manufacturing inputs.

The issue arises as to the application of 60% profit margin on resale. The referred article of Law no 9430/96 was firstly regulated by normative ruling no 32/01, which determined that the parameter price should be the difference between the net sales price (duly deducted of discounts, taxes and commissions) and the profit margin of 60%. For a better understanding, we illustrate a hypothetic calculation according to this ruling, which we understand to be fully according to the law:

Description

Brazilian R$

Reference

Raw material import cost

7,600.00

(a)

Added costs in Brazil

3,190.00

(b)

End product cost

10,790.00

(c) = (a) + (b)

Average sales price

14,000.00

(d)

Unconditional discounts, sales on taxes, brokerage fees and sales commissions

2,000.00

(e)

Calculation basis of 60% profit margin

8,810.00

(f) = (d-e-b)

60% profit margin

5,286.00

(g) = (f x 60%)

Parameter price

6,714.00

(h) = (d-e-g)

IRPJ and CSLL adjustment

886.00

(i) = (h-a)



However, normative ruling no 32/01 was revoked in November 2002 by normative ruling no. 243/02, which determines that the calculation of the parameter price shall consider only the deduction of the profit margin (corresponding to the proportion of the imported material on the total cost of the end product) from the value of participation of the imported material in the net sales price of the end product, as follows (hypothetically):

Description

Brazilian R$

Reference

Raw material import cost

7,600.00

(a)

Added costs in Brazil

3,190.00

(b)

End product cost

10,790.00

(c) = (a) + (b)

Average sales price

14,000.00

(d)

Unconditional discounts, sales on taxes, brokerage fees and sales commissions

2,000.00

(e)

Percentage of the imported raw material on the end cost product

70,44%

(f) = (a/c)

Participation of the imported raw material in the net sales price of the end product

8,452.80

(g) = (f) x (d-e)

60% profit margin

5,071.68

(h) = (g x 60%)

Parameter price

3,381.12

(i) = (g-h)

IRPJ and CSLL adjustment

4,218.88

(j) = (i-a)



The calculation determined by normative ruling no 243/02 can represent a major tax burden to taxpayers in relation to IRPJ and CSLL payment and is not supported by Law no 9430/96 and subsequent changes.

We understand that normative ruling no 243/02 may be challenged on the grounds that only a law can determine or raise taxes, while a normative ruling can merely clarify the contents of a law, according to the Brazilian Federal Constitution and Brazilian Tax Code.

It is probable that the taxpayer will be charged if it follows the provisions of normative ruling no 32/01 instead of normative ruling no 243/02 regarding the calculation of parameter price – PRL 60%. In this case, we understand that the chances of success in an administrative dispute are good since the grounds above have already been sustained by Taxpayers’ Council in similar cases.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Peter White, who has a tax debt of A$2 million, has been banned for five years from seeking registration with Australia’s Tax Practitioners Board (TPB)
Wopke Hoekstra’s comments followed US measures aimed against ‘unfair foreign taxes’; in other news, Grant Thornton and Holland & Knight made key tax partner hires
An Administrative Review Tribunal ruling last month in Australia v Alcoa represents a 'concerning trend' for the tax authority, one expert tells ITR
A recent decision underlines that Indian courts are more willing to look beyond just legal compliance and examine whether foreign investment structures have real business substance
Following his Liberal Party’s election victory, one source expects Mark Carney to follow the international consensus on pillar two, as experts assess the new administration
A German economics professor was reportedly ‘irritated’ by how the Finnish ministry of finance used his data
Countries that care about the fair taxation of tech multinationals and equitable global distribution of wealth should back the UN’s tax framework, writes economist Abdelmalek Riad
The cuts disproportionately affected staff in certain positions, the report also found; in other news, MHA announced the €24m acquisition of Baker Tilly South East Europe
The plan aims to improve the efficiency, transparency, and effectiveness of direct tax administration in India
Meanwhile, South Africa’s finance minister has accepted a court decision on suspending a VAT increase and US President Donald Trump mulls a 100% tariff on foreign films
Gift this article