Brazil: STJ confirms tax treaty benefits apply on cross-border services income
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: STJ confirms tax treaty benefits apply on cross-border services income

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-pwc.png
The two decisions provide clarity on the developing area of law

Alvaro Pereira and Mark Conomy of PwC Brazil take a look at a key STJ decision will assist companies carrying out cross-border transactions.

On May 19 2020, the Brazilian Superior Court of Justice (STJ) granted Special Appeal No. 1.618.897 (RJ (2016/0208110-5)), confirming that income related to the provision of technical services by a French company should not be subject to withholding income tax, due to the application of the tax treaty signed between Brazil and France. 



By way of background, the Brazilian tax legislation provides that income derived by non-residents in relation to the provision of technical services and assistance should be subject to withholding income tax at a rate of 15% (increased to 25% where the beneficiary is located in a tax haven). 



In this case, the beneficiary of the payments was a French company, which did not have a permanent establishment in Brazil, which rendered technical services consisting of construction and maintenance of submarine cables to a Brazilian entity. 



The main issue revolved around the interpretation of the Brazil-France tax treaty and its interaction with the domestic Brazilian law. Further, it considered the application of the business profits provision (Article 7) and whether it should apply to prevent the application of withholding tax on income relating to the services provided. 



In summary, the decision established the following:

  • International treaties and conventions should prevail over domestic legislation, due to the principle of specificity, except for the application of the federal constitution;

  • The Brazil-France tax treaty provides that the profits of a company of a contracting state are only taxable in that same state (being France), unless the company carries out its activity in the other state (Brazil) by means of a permanent establishment – which was considered not to be the case; and

  • Although recognising Brazil is not a member of the OECD, it has adopted the OECD model in relation to the business profits article of its tax treaties. The term ‘profit’ should be interpreted not as real profit, but as operating profit, being the result of activities, principal or accessory that constitute the purpose of the legal entity, including, income paid as consideration for services rendered.


In light of above, it was concluded that the special appeal should be granted, confirming the applicant's right not to subject the payments to withholding income tax, due to application of the Brazil-France tax treaty.




The decision referred to, and is consistent with, another important decision of the STJ, REsp. 1.161.467/RS (judgment dated May 17 2012), which previously led to formal changes in the Brazilian tax authorities (RFB) public position on this issue. 



This earlier decision of the STJ resulted in the Attorney General of the National Treasury (PGFN) releasing Opinion PGFN/CAT. No. 2,363/2013 that recommended that its previous view set out in Opinion PGFN/CAT No. 776/2011 should be repealed. This opinion had formed the foundation for the public position taken by the RFB in Interpretative Declaratory Act COSIT No. 1/2000 (ADI 1/2000). As such, shortly following the release of Opinion PGFN/CAT No. 2,063/2013, the RFB released Interpretative Declaratory Act 5/2014 (ADI 5/2014) formally modifying its public position and revoking ADI 1/2000. 

The decision provides a helpful precedent for companies that make cross-border transactions involving services with jurisdictions that have entered into tax treaties with Brazil. However, careful consideration still needs to be given to the type of service (technical versus non-technical), as well as the particular tax treaty to determine whether the relevant protocol includes such services within another specific article permitting source taxation (e.g. the ‘royalty’ article).



Alvaro Pereira

T: +55 11 3674 6526

E: alvaro.pereira@pwc.com



Mark Conomy

T: +55 11 3674 2002

E: conomy.mark@pwc.com



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