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

HMRC’s push for unified tax adviser registration won’t prevent every instance of improper conduct, but it is good for taxpayers and the UK’s reputation
Elsewhere, the UAE’s tax office has issued an update on registration penalties and two firms have been busy making lateral hires
The case sits within a context of Brazil signalling that it is replacing informal discretion and ambiguity with structures that reward analytical rigour, one expert tells ITR
Jeff Soar lifts the lid on WTS UK’s ambitious recruitment plans, the firm's positioning against the big four, and why tax is the perfect profession for AI
The move reinforces Milan’s role as a key European hub for international business, the firm said
Australia’s government has also announced that it will implement the pillar two side-by-side agreement
Sara Morgan is due to join Joseph Hage Aaronson & Bremen as a partner in London, ITR understands
The newly combined tax team has already worked on thousands of joint client matters, leaders from McDermott Will & Schulte tell ITR
As AI becomes increasingly intuitive and idiot-proof, its tax applicability is becoming impossible to overstate
New data on public CbCR showed uneven adoption, as Singapore advanced pillar two compliance and firms expanded their tax capabilities
Gift this article