Disparity between the US and Brazil’s approach to royalties increases risk of double taxation

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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

Disparity between the US and Brazil’s approach to royalties increases risk of double taxation

As a result of Brazil’s unique policy to prevent erosion of the tax base, companies often face double taxation.

The pending case before the US Tax Court (Docket 5816-13), 3M Co. et al. v. Commissioner, brings this issue into the spotlight. In this case the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) claims that 3M should be charging higher royalties for the trademark. 3M claims that it is bound by Brazilian legal requirements. The IRS argues that the amount charged is not at arm’s-length, because there should be a 6% royalty rate over the net sales of manufactured products.

In Brazil, outbound royalty payments are not subject to transfer pricing rules. Instead, there are fixed limits for deductibility and remittance requirements that must be observed. First, all the contracts must be submitted for analysis by the National Industrial Property Institute (INPI) and be registered with the Brazilian Central Bank.

Second, royalties related to the use of patents of invention, manufacturing formulas or processes, and expenses for technical, scientific, administrative or similar assistance are, in most cases, limited to 5% of the net revenue from the sale of products covered by the licence agreement or service provision agreement, but for some of them the limitation is lower, depending on the company’s activity.

Royalties for the use of brands (industrial or trademarks) pertaining to any type of production or activity, when not involving use of a patent, manufacturing formula or process, are limited to 1% of the same revenue.

Technical, scientific, administrative and related fees are also subject to the same requirements for deductibility and remittance of royalties, except for the fact that they can only be deducted in the first five years of the company’s establishment or the application process. Deductions can be, renewed for another five years if it is proved to be necessary.

Brazil and the US do not have a double tax treaty or any alternative dispute resolution mechanism so the outcome of the 3M Case is very important for planning and tax compliance purposes for companies investing in Brazil.

By André Gomes de Oliveira (andre.oliveira@cbsg.com.br) and Francisco Lisboa Moreira (Francisco.moreira@cbsg.com.br)

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The controversial deal will allow US-parented groups to be carved out from key aspects of pillar two
Awards
ITR invites tax firms, in-house teams, and tax professionals to make submissions for the 2027 World Tax rankings and the 2026 ITR Tax Awards globally
Pillar two was ‘weakened’ when it altered from a multinational convention agreement to simply national domestic law, Federico Bertocchi also argued
Imposing the tax on virtual assets is a measure that appears to have no legal, economic or statistical basis, one expert told ITR
The EU has seemingly capitulated to the US’s ‘side-by-side’ demands. This may be a win for the US, but the uncertainty has only just begun for pillar two
The £7.4m buyout marks MHA’s latest acquisition since listing on the London Stock Exchange earlier this year
ITR’s most prolific stories of the year charted public pillar two spats, the continued fallout from the PwC Australia tax leaks scandal, and a headline tax fraud trial
The climbdowns pave the way for a side-by-side deal to be concluded this week, as per the US Treasury secretary’s expectation; in other news, Taft added a 10-partner tax team
A vote to be held in 2026 could create Hogan Lovells Cadwalader, a $3.6bn giant with 3,100 lawyers across the Americas, EMEA and Asia Pacific
Foreign companies operating in Libya face source-based taxation even without a local presence. Multinationals must understand compliance obligations, withholding risks, and treaty relief to avoid costly surprises
Gift this article