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

Limitations on the application of tax incentives in Portugal

Law No. 75-B/2020 introduces an extraordinary and transitory regime of incentives to maintain jobs

Francisca Marabuto Tavares of Morais Leitão explains why tax incentives in Portugal maybe discouraging for many companies.

In Portugal, there are several tax incentives which are exhaustively regulated and have proven to be substantially helpful in the development of companies, such as: 

  • Credit lines with state guarantees;

  • Contractual tax benefits for productive investment;

  • Research and Development Tax Incentives System II (SIFIDE II);

  • Tax Regime for Investment Support (RFAI), which allows companies to deduct a percentage of the investment made in non-current assets (tangible and intangible) from the amount of corporate income tax (CIT) due;

  • Extraordinary Tax Credit for Investment II (CFEI II), which allows companies to deduct part of the investment made between July 1 2020 and June 30 2021 from the amount of CIT due; or

  • Conventional Remuneration of Share Capital (RCCS), which allows companies to deduct from its taxable profits a part of the capital contributions made by shareholders.

However, Law No. 75-B/2020, of December 31 (which approved the State Budget for 2021) introduced an extraordinary and transitory regime of incentives to maintain jobs, that limits or conditions access to the described incentives. 

This new regime was regulated on July 23 2021, through the Ministerial Order No. 295/2021, and is applicable to employers headquartered or with effective management in Portugal, as well as non-resident employers with permanent establishments in Portugal, (i) whose main activity is of a commercial, industrial or agricultural nature; (ii) which are not considered micro, small or medium companies; and (iii) which have registered a positive net profit in 2020. 

According to this Ministerial Order, in 2021, access to the referred public support and tax incentives by certain companies will be conditioned to the maintenance of the employment level observed on October 1 2020. 

The ‘maintenance of the employment level’ is observed whenever, by the end of the month preceding that of the application, use or formation of the public support or tax incentive, the company has an average number of employees in its service equal to or greater than the number that effectively existed in October 2020. 

For this purpose, there shall only be considered the employees and independent workers who are economically dependent on the company or have been assigned to it; those who have terminated their contracts on their own initiative, those whose fixed-term contracts have ceased, as well as those who died, retired or were dismissed for a reasonable cause, shall not be taken into account.

On the other hand, companies are also prohibited, until December 31 2021, to dismiss employees under collective dismissals, to extinguish work positions, or to dismiss employees for unsuitability reasons, under the penalty of immediate termination of public support “with the consequent restitution of all amounts already received” plus compensatory interest, and the “suspension of the right to enjoy tax benefits for the tax period starting on or after January 1 2021”. 

Beneficiary companies are also obliged to maintain an average number of employees of no less than the one registered on October 1 2020 until December 31 2021 (to be eligible for public support), or until the last day of the tax period beginning on or after January 1 2021 (to be eligible for tax incentives).

Two critical remarks immediately arise. Firstly, it is surprising that the benefits granted to the RCCS are now conditioned to the maintenance of employment. This is an incentive to reduce the indebtedness of companies and to their capitalisation, which now appears to be instrumentalised by the purpose of not making dismissals. Investment and capitalisation are necessary factors for medium and long-term employment growth, so it does not seem to make much sense to make them dependent on a very short-term variable (maintaining jobs until the end of 2021).

Secondly, it appears that, in practice, this condition of maintaining employment is only required from large companies which have not reported losses in 2020. This legislative choice seems difficult to understand, and it may lead to undesirable results. In fact, it is not easy to accept dimension as a criteria which conditions the access to the referred incentives. For example, a large company operating in one of the most affected sectors by the pandemic may have faced extreme difficulties while making only a marginally positive profit. Is it therefore less worthy of the incentives or support systems without employment conditions? Why should large companies, which are responsible for the majority of job positions and the stability of employment, be particularly burdened with obligations to maintain employment, simply because they have managed to achieve a minimum profit regardless of the respective rate or margin?

In our opinion, we fear that these new criteria will discourage a wide range of companies that are absolutely crucial to the successful recovery of the Portuguese economy, simply because of an apparent prejudice against dimension.


Francisca Marabuto Tavares

Associate, Morais Leitão


more across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The EU and OECD may be breaking with the arm’s-length principle in favour of limited formulary apportionment, but businesses will still be able to achieve tax efficiency.
The Brazilian government may be about to align the country’s unique system with OECD standards, but this is a long-awaited TP reform and success is uncertain.
Two months since EU political agreement on pillar two and few member states have made progress on new national laws, but the arrival of OECD technical guidance should quicken the pace. Ralph Cunningham reports.
It’s one of the great ironies of recent history that a populist Republican may have helped make international tax policy more progressive.
Lawmakers have up to 120 days to decide the future of Brazil’s unique transfer pricing rules, but many taxpayers are wary of radical change.
Shell reports profits of £32.2 billion, prompting calls for higher taxes on energy companies, while the IMF warns Australia to raise taxes to sustain public spending.
Governments now have the final OECD guidance on how to implement the 15% global minimum corporate tax rate.
The Indian company, which is contesting the bill, has a family connection to UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak – whose government has just been hit by a tax scandal.
Developments included calls for tax reform in Malaysia and the US, concerns about the level of the VAT threshold in the UK, Ukraine’s preparations for EU accession, and more.
A steady stream of countries has announced steps towards implementing pillar two, but Korea has got there first. Ralph Cunningham finds out what tax executives should do next.