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: Government raises ceiling for presumed profit method



Nélio B Weiss

Philippe Jeffrey

On May 17 2013, the Brazilian government published Federal Law No. 12.814 which raised the ceiling for the presumed profit method (lucro presumido) of computing corporate income tax (IRPJ) and social contribution on net income (CSLL) from BRL 48 million ($22.5 million) to BRL 78 million. Accordingly, as from January 1 2014, qualifying legal entities with a gross annual revenue not exceeding BRL 78 million, or proportionally to the number of months the company is operational in a given calendar year (if less than 12 months), will be able to opt for computing income taxes in this manner.

Under the presumed profit method, taxable income is calculated on a quarterly basis and corresponds to a deemed profit margin applied over gross revenue, adjusted as determined by tax law.

Generally speaking, for IRPJ purposes, the statutory profit margin is defined as 8% of gross revenue for most commercial and manufacturing activities, over which the regular 25% IRPJ rate is applied (15% plus a surcharge of 10% on annual taxable income in excess of BRL 240,000).

For CSLL purposes, the presumed profit margin is defined as 12% for the same activities, over which the 9% rate is levied. For most services, the profit margin is set at 32% for both IRPJ and CSLL, although exceptions do apply.

The benefit of this method lies in its simplicity, as it disregards expenses and costs and also requires no transfer pricing adjustments for import transactions with related parties. It is usually advantageous for qualifying companies whose actual profit margins are higher than the statutory presumed profit margins.

Some companies, such as financial institutions, are prevented from using the presumed profit method and must compute taxable income under the actual profit method (lucro real).

In contrast, under the actual profit method, computed on either an annual (calendar year) or quarterly basis, taxable income is calculated over book results, adjusted by certain additions and exclusions, as determined by Brazilian legislation. Tax losses generated can be carried forward indefinitely, however, taxpayers may only compensate up to 30% of the taxable profit generated in a given year with accumulated losses.

The choice between the two tax regimes is largely left to the taxpayer, provided that the necessary legal requirements are met, and will depend on what is more advantageous for the company, considering all relevant aspects.

Changes to IOF rate over inflow of funds for certain investments

By means of Federal Decree No. 8.023/2013, published on June 5, the Brazilian government has reduced the rate of IOF (tax on financial transactions) from 6% to zero in cases of foreign exchange transactions for the inflow of funds into Brazil for investment in the financial and capital markets, which includes fixed-income investments as well as the purchase of government bonds.

Further, the reduction also applies to the inflow of funds for the purposes of constituting margins, as required by stock, commodities and futures exchanges.

In relation to variable income investments, the applicable IOF rate for inflow of funds into Brazil had already been reduced to zero as from December 1 2011.

These new provisions are effective immediately.

Nélio B Weiss ( and Philippe Jeffrey (


Tel: +55 11 3674 2271


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.