All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

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 & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Speakers at ITR’s Global TP Forum Europe said TP analyses are often tied to the value created from a company’s ESG commitments.
Discussions around recharacterisation are better to avoid, as tax authorities could dismiss an entire TP transaction, said panellists at ITR’s Global TP Forum.
Several tax chiefs shared their administrations’ latest digital identity tracking systems and other tax technologies at the OECD’s annual meeting of authorities.
Businesses welcome the UK’s decision to scrap the IR35 reforms but are not happy about the time and money they have wasted to date.
Energy ministers agreed on regulations including a windfall tax on fossil fuel companies to address high gas prices at an extraordinary Council meeting on September 30.
The European Parliament raises concerns over unanimity in voting on pillar two, while protests break out over tax reform in Colombia.
Ramesh Khaitan speaks to reporter Siqalane Taho about tax morality, transfer pricing regulations, Indian tax developments, and the OECD’s two-pillar solution.
Join ITR and KPMG China at 10am BST on October 19 as they discuss the personal, employment, and corporate tax-related implications of employees working from overseas.
Tricentis and Boehringer Ingelheim, along with a European Commission TP specialist, criticised the complexity of pillar one rules and their scope at an ITR event.
Speakers at ITR’s Managing Tax Disputes Summit said taxpayers can still face lengthy TP audits, despite strong documentation preparation
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree