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

MP 899 needs refining before it can improve Brazilian tax transactions

Sponsored by

The measure aims to improve the tax dispute resolution process

Júlio de Oliveira, Paulo Rogério G. Ribeiro and André Affonso Amarante of Machado Associados discuss the effectiveness of the latest measure related to tax transactions in Brazil.

On October 16, 2019, the federal executive branch issued Provisional Measure (MP) No. 899 to establish conditions related to tax transactions. The purpose of the measure is to improve current regulation and methods for the settlement of tax disputes between the federal government and taxpayers, as provided for in the National Tax Code. Taxpayers currently may negotiate conditions such as penalty and interest discounts, terms and forms of payment, on transactions.

MP 899 can be seen as a commendable act, as it may (i) relieve the Brazilian Courts – which has a backlog of lawsuits without expectation of a prompt and definitive resolution; (ii) represent a way to increase federal tax collection; and (iii) reduce the indebtedness of individuals and companies.

However, in spite of the innovations brought forward by MP 899, the wording of the measure requires adjustments, changes and refinements that, in our view, should be implemented before its conversion into law. The broad debate between the federal government and taxpayers about the subject of the tax transaction is welcomed, especially with publicity, representativeness and participation in defining the variables. 

It can be argued that the unilateral proposal of the Minister of Economy and the mere adhesion of the taxpayer are incorrect ways of materialising the tax transaction. MP 899 prevents the active participation of other interested parties in the formulation of transaction proposals, mainly interlocutors of taxpayers, such as the Order of Attorneys of Brazil (OAB), associations, trade union confederations, and trade associations. The lack of participation of the company in the transaction process may strip the mechanism of its main characteristics, subjecting unilateral proposals to questions of all kinds that may frustrate the tax transaction.

MP 899 also fails to objectively address specific requirements that make a legal discussion relevant and widespread, which in itself is a problem capable of stifling the materialisation of the tax transaction. Firstly, the use of the conjunction “and” in the wording of MP 899, instead of the alternative conjunction “or”, significantly limits tax disputes that may be the subject of a transaction, as the legal controversy may be relevant but not widespread and vice versa. Secondly, it is common for certain tax discussions to be restricted to a particular sector of the economy. When these restrictions exist, this measure could be interpreted as being devoid of dissemination; when it should be relevant to the federal government and to taxpayers.

Moreover, the executive branch has committed an error in authorising the federal government to file for taxpayer bankruptcy in the event of the termination of a transaction. In addition to being inconvenient, such a matter should not be dealt with by means of a Provisional Measure. Furthermore, it affronts case law that rules out the possibility of the federal government filing for bankruptcy in cases where the taxpayer is not interested in the bankruptcy proceedings.

As the executive branch’s initiative to regulate tax transactions at federal level is commendable, there is little doubt that MP 899 deserves to have its content implemented. Following broad discussion in society and from the National Congress, a final agreed version can effectively encourage the federal government and taxpayers to use this important instrument for tax debt relief and dispute settlement.

more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

David Pickstone and Anastasia Nourescu of Stewarts review the facts and implications of Ørsted’s appeal at the Upper Tribunal.
The Internal Revenue Service will lose the funding as part of the US debt limit deal, while Amazon UK reaps the benefits of the 130% ‘super-deduction’.
The European Commission wanted to make an example of US companies like Apple, but its crusade against ‘sweetheart’ tax rulings may be derailed at the CJEU.
The OECD has announced that a TP training programme is about to conclude in West Africa, a region that has been plagued by mispricing activities for a number of years.
Richard Murphy and Andrew Baker make the case for tax transparency as a public good and how key principles should lead to a better tax system.
‘Go on leave, effective immediately’, PwC has told nine partners in the latest development in the firm’s ongoing tax scandal.
The forum heard that VAT professionals are struggling under new pressures to validate transactions and catch fraud, responsibilities that they say should lie with governments.
The working paper suggested a new framework for boosting effective carbon rates and reducing the inconsistency of climate policy.
UAE firm Virtuzone launches ‘TaxGPT’, claiming it is the first AI-powered tax tool, while the Australian police faces claims of a conflict of interest over its PwC audit contract.
The US technology company is defending its past Irish tax arrangements at the CJEU in a final showdown that could have major political repercussions.