International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

Brazil: Decision reached on new Brazilian CFC rules


Alvaro Pereira

Mark Conomy

Brazil's Federal Court of Curitiba has released a decision on the application of the new Brazilian controlled foreign corporation (CFC) rules on May 6 2016. The single court judgment, in relation to Process No. 5005596-52.2015.4.04.7000/PR, outlines that a Brazilian taxpayer may remove from the calculation of its corporate income tax (IRPJ) and social contributions (CSLL), results of its controlled foreign subsidiaries located in Argentina and Chile, until those results are effectively made available to the Brazilian controller.

The decision represents the first time the issue of controlled subsidiary results has been considered under the recently amended CFC rules introduced in May 2014 by Law No. 12,973/2014, which applies from January 1 2015 unless adopted earlier.

By way of background, pursuant to the new Brazilian CFC rules, Brazilian taxpayers are generally required to submit tax profits earned in a calendar year (regardless of distribution) by CFCs, as well as affiliates, in certain circumstances. Pursuant to the new law, the investment in each directly and/or indirectly controlled foreign entity should be managed in individual sub-accounts and should be adjusted annually to reflect the change in the investment value corresponding to the profits or losses of the entity, in proportion to the Brazilian entity's participation. Any accounting profit (before taxes and excluding foreign exchange) of the foreign entity must be added to the calculation base of IRPJ and CSLL in Brazil.

Turning to the present case, the taxpayer argued that the taxation of undistributed profits prior to the effective distribution is illegal, except where the entities are located in tax havens. Further, the present circumstances of Brazil's DTAs with Chile and Argentina should prevail over the domestic law to prevent taxation of such profits in Brazil. The Brazilian Administration considered that the previous jurisprudence provides that such law should only be unconstitutional to the extent that it applies to affiliates (e.g. non-controlling interests) not located in tax havens. In relation to the discussion of the DTAs, the tax authorities argued that the law does not seek to tax the profits of the relevant subsidiary, but rather the profits of the Brazilian controller earned through the foreign subsidiary (i.e. the adjustment being made in Brazil).

The Federal Court of Curitiba's judge considered that the relevant article of the new CFC law is unconstitutional on the basis that it creates a hypothetical situation requiring taxation of a different economic base than that contemplated by the Constitution. There may be restrictions on the ability of the foreign entity to distribute the profits and therefore the mere adjustment of the value of the investment in the foreign entity does not appear to supply the legal availability of the underlying profits. The judge also considered that both of the relevant subsidiaries, in the present case, are located in jurisdictions that have signed a DTA with Brazil, which include a clause stating that profits can only be taxed in the State in which the entity is located, except where the entity has a permanent establishment in the other State (i.e. the article referring to business profits). The foreign entities did not have a permanent establishment in Brazil.

For these reasons outlined above, the judge concluded that the request of the taxpayer should proceed and the profits removed from the calculation of the Brazilian entity's IRPJ and CSLL. An appeal has already been filed by representatives of the Brazilian Administration.

The decision represents a welcome development for taxpayers in terms of how the new law should be applied, as well as the interaction of the law with executed DTAs. However, as the decision has yet to be ratified by a superior court and the amended law remains relatively untested, taxpayers should continue to carefully monitor the developments of the issue in the courts.

Alvaro Pereira ( and Mark Conomy (



more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

ITR’s latest quarterly PDF is going live today, leading on the EU’s BEFIT initiative and wider tax reforms in the bloc.
COVID-19 and an overworked HMRC may have created the ‘perfect storm’ for reduced prosecutions, according to tax professionals.
Participants in the consultation on the UN secretary-general’s report into international tax cooperation are divided – some believe UN-led structures are the way forward, while others want to improve existing ones. Ralph Cunningham reports.
The German government unveils plans to implement pillar two, while EY is reportedly still divided over ‘Project Everest’.
With the M&A market booming, ITR has partnered with correspondents from firms around the globe to provide a guide to the deal structures being employed and tax authorities' responses.
Xing Hu, partner at Hui Ye Law Firm in Shanghai, looks at the implications of the US Uyghur Forced Labor Protection Act for TP comparability analysis of China.
Karl Berlin talks to Josh White about meeting the Fair Tax standard, the changing burden of country-by-country reporting, and how windfall taxes may hit renewable energy.
Sandy Markwick, head of the Tax Director Network (TDN) at Winmark, looks at the challenges of global mobility for tax management.
Taxpayers should look beyond the headline criteria of the simplification regime to ensure that their arrangements meet the arm’s-length standard, say Alejandro Ces and Mark Seddon of the EY New Zealand transfer pricing team.
In a recent webinar hosted by law firms Greenberg Traurig and Clayton Utz, officials at the IRS and ATO outlined their visions for 2023.