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

Brazil makes key ruling on methodology


TP Week correspondent Machado Associados reports on a key ruling by the Brazilian tax authorities

The Brazilian tax authorities have made a key ruling about the resale price less profit method. The method can now be used on import transactions.

Law 9430/96 established control of import and export prices charged on transactions carried out between Brazilian legal entities and their related parties (individual/legal entity resident or domiciled abroad) or individual/legal entities resident or domiciled in a reduced taxation country. It encompasses import and export of goods, services or rights and interest payments between related parties, as technically defined by law.

To arbitrate import and export transaction prices, Brazilian taxpayers must choose the method that best fits their needs among those established by tax legislation. The ones related to import transactions are comparable independent prices (PIC), production cost plus profit (CPL) and resale price less profit (PRL).

The application of the PRL method to arbitrate the import price of goods to be consumed or used in the manufacturing process was previously vetoed by normative instruction 38/97. Such restriction ended as of January 2000, with the implementation of Law no. 9959/2000, which authorised the use of the PRL method in these cases, but using a profit margin of 60%.


Based on that ruling, the tax authorities have assessed the taxpayers (most of them in the pharmaceutical area) who arbitrated the import price of goods that were used or consumed in the manufacturing process according to the PRL method.

The Taxpayers’ Council (second level of the administrative court) has analyzed the pharmaceutical industries’ appeals and has decided in their favor due to the following reasons, among others:

(i) according to the Brazilian Federal Constitution, only the law can state or raise tax while the normative ruling can merely clarify the content of a law;

(ii) the restriction was only included in a normative ruling and not in a law; and

(iii) at that time, Law 9430/96 did not prevent the use of PRL (20% profit margin) in case the imported goods were used in the manufacturing process.

Another aspect related to the PRL method (60% margin) that has been discussed by taxpayers and requires further clarification is the calculation established by IN SRF 243/02.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

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
Gig economy companies in New Zealand will need to fully account and become liable for the goods and services tax of underlying suppliers on their platforms, under new proposals.
Join ITR and Thomson Reuters at 2pm (UAE) / 11am (UK) on October 13 as they discuss how businesses can prepare for Tax Administration 3.0 and future-proof against changes such as e-invoicing and increasing digitisation.
ITR has partnered with global TP leaders from Deloitte to discuss transfer pricing controversy around the globe, and to share advice on how to navigate an increasingly uncertain and risky TP landscape.
Sources say they are not satisfied with pillar one protections in the marketing and distribution safe harbour, even though it was designed to give businesses greater tax certainty.
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree