Brazil proves that easiest is not always best
International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX
Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Brazil proves that easiest is not always best

abraz.jpg

TP Week correspondent Machados explains why the easiest transfer pricing method is not always the best approach

abraz2.jpg

In order to arbitrate import and export transaction prices, Brazilian taxpayers must choose the method that best fits their needs among those established by tax legislation. Based on our experience, the Resale Price Less Profit (PRL) is the easiest way, but at times not the most advantageous, to calculate the parameter price due on import transactions as its applicability depends solely on Brazilian company documents.

Article 18 of Law no. 9430/96 establishes that the PRL parameter price shall be equivalent to the weighted average of resale prices of imported goods, services or rights for unrelated parties, less: (i) unconditional discounts; (ii) taxes on sales; (iii) brokerage fees and sales commissions; (iv) in the case of mere resale of imported goods, 20% profit margin on resale price less unconditional discounts only; or 60% profit margin on resale price less unconditional discounts and value added in the country, in the case of manufacturing inputs.

The issue arises as to the application of 60% profit margin on resale. The referred article of Law no 9430/96 was firstly regulated by normative ruling no 32/01, which determined that the parameter price should be the difference between the net sales price (duly deducted of discounts, taxes and commissions) and the profit margin of 60%. For a better understanding, we illustrate a hypothetic calculation according to this ruling, which we understand to be fully according to the law:

Description

Brazilian R$

Reference

Raw material import cost

7,600.00

(a)

Added costs in Brazil

3,190.00

(b)

End product cost

10,790.00

(c) = (a) + (b)

Average sales price

14,000.00

(d)

Unconditional discounts, sales on taxes, brokerage fees and sales commissions

2,000.00

(e)

Calculation basis of 60% profit margin

8,810.00

(f) = (d-e-b)

60% profit margin

5,286.00

(g) = (f x 60%)

Parameter price

6,714.00

(h) = (d-e-g)

IRPJ and CSLL adjustment

886.00

(i) = (h-a)



However, normative ruling no 32/01 was revoked in November 2002 by normative ruling no. 243/02, which determines that the calculation of the parameter price shall consider only the deduction of the profit margin (corresponding to the proportion of the imported material on the total cost of the end product) from the value of participation of the imported material in the net sales price of the end product, as follows (hypothetically):

Description

Brazilian R$

Reference

Raw material import cost

7,600.00

(a)

Added costs in Brazil

3,190.00

(b)

End product cost

10,790.00

(c) = (a) + (b)

Average sales price

14,000.00

(d)

Unconditional discounts, sales on taxes, brokerage fees and sales commissions

2,000.00

(e)

Percentage of the imported raw material on the end cost product

70,44%

(f) = (a/c)

Participation of the imported raw material in the net sales price of the end product

8,452.80

(g) = (f) x (d-e)

60% profit margin

5,071.68

(h) = (g x 60%)

Parameter price

3,381.12

(i) = (g-h)

IRPJ and CSLL adjustment

4,218.88

(j) = (i-a)



The calculation determined by normative ruling no 243/02 can represent a major tax burden to taxpayers in relation to IRPJ and CSLL payment and is not supported by Law no 9430/96 and subsequent changes.

We understand that normative ruling no 243/02 may be challenged on the grounds that only a law can determine or raise taxes, while a normative ruling can merely clarify the contents of a law, according to the Brazilian Federal Constitution and Brazilian Tax Code.

It is probable that the taxpayer will be charged if it follows the provisions of normative ruling no 32/01 instead of normative ruling no 243/02 regarding the calculation of parameter price – PRL 60%. In this case, we understand that the chances of success in an administrative dispute are good since the grounds above have already been sustained by Taxpayers’ Council in similar cases.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

As German clients attempt to comply with complex cross-border rules, local advisers argue that aggressive tax authorities are making life even harder
Based on surveys covering more than 25,000 in-house lawyers, the series provides insights into what law firms must score highly on when pitching to in-house counsel
The UK tax authority reportedly lost a case due to missing a deadline; in other news, Canada has approved pillar two legislation
There will always be multinationals trying to minimise tax by pushing the boundaries of their cross-border arrangements, Rob Heferen claimed
HMRC’s attempts to crack down on fraudulent tax relief claims are well-meaning, but the agency risks penalising genuinely innovative businesses, writes Katy Long of ForrestBrown
Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa are among the countries the OECD believes could benefit from the simplified TP rules
It comes despite an offshore enabler penalty existing in the UK throughout the entire period
It is extraordinary that tax advisers in the UK can offer their services without having to join a professional body. This looks like it is coming to an end, Ralph Cunningham writes
Meet the esteemed judges who are assessing the first-ever Social Impact Awards
The ‘big four’ firm has also vowed to spend more on nurturing junior talent; in other news, Blick Rothenberg has hired a pair of tax partners
Gift this article