Brazilian Federal Revenue Service revives controversy over the PIS/COFINS taxable basis

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Brazilian Federal Revenue Service revives controversy over the PIS/COFINS taxable basis

Sponsored by

logo.png
TERNOPIL, UKRAINE - MAY 20, 2022: Comprovante de arrecadacao - proof of collection report with Brazilian Receita Federal logo. Receita Federal is Brazilian federal revenue service agency

Gabriel Caldiron Rezende of Machado Associados discusses a highly questionable manoeuvre by the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service to boost tax collection, despite a decision by the Federal Supreme Court

As previously discussed, in 2017 the Brazilian Federal Supreme Court (STF) ruled that the inclusion of the state VAT (ICMS) on the social contributions on gross revenue (PIS and COFINS) taxable basis is unconstitutional.

In the case, the STF held that even though ICMS amounts are charged by the seller as part of a product’s price, the amounts will be transferred to the state treasury and therefore they will not be added to the company’s assets and will not fall within the legal concept of gross revenue, which is the taxable basis for PIS and COFINS.

Although the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service (RFB) did not duly accept the decision, the attorney general of the National Treasury ended up issuing binding opinion SEI 7698/2021/ME, accepting the outcome of the judgment, and provided guidance for the RFB to comply with the decision.

Furthermore, in 2023 the PIS and COFINS laws were amended to expressly determine that the ICMS levied on transactions should be excluded from the contributions’ taxable basis.

Nevertheless, on March 28 2024, the RFB issued COSIT Ruling 61/2024, stating its interpretation that the ICMS rate surcharge for financing the state fund for combating poverty and social inequality (FECP) should be included in the PIS and COFINS taxable basis, as such amounts do not have the same legal nature as the ICMS.

To clarify, the Brazilian Federal Constitution provides that, as a rule, ICMS revenues cannot be linked to any entity, fund, or public expense and thus must be destined for the general public budget. However, exceptionally, the states are authorised to create funds for combating poverty and social inequality, and finance it by means of the revenues arising from a surcharge of up to 2% on the ICMS rate. The FECP has been instituted by several states, each one with their own particularities and list of products to be surcharged.

In view of this, the RFB understood that as the FECP revenues are linked to a specific fund, it would not bear the same legal nature as the ICMS, as the revenues arising from this tax are destined for the general public budget. As a result, the RFB concluded that the legal provision and STF judgment – in the sense that the ICMS is not included in the PIS and COFINS taxable basis – should not apply to the FECP.

Nevertheless, this approach is highly questionable, as it disregards that the FECP is only an ICMS rate surcharge and is subject to the same rules, such as those concerning a tax-triggering event, the taxable basis, and the liable party. To this effect, the destination of the tax revenue should not be a key factor in determining the legal nature of the FECP, especially because the Brazilian Federal Constitution provides for the destination while addressing the FECP as an ICMS rate surcharge.

In any case, the RFB will likely begin to broadly impose the interpretation found in COSIT Ruling 61/2024, and controversies will arise. However, as commented before, there are strong legal arguments to challenge this interpretation.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

The threat of 50% tariffs on Brazilian goods coincides with new Brazilian legal powers to adopt retaliatory economic measures, local experts tell ITR
The country’s chancellor appears to have backtracked from previous pillar two scepticism; in other news, Donald Trump threatened Russia with 100% tariffs
In its latest G20 update, the OECD also revealed tense discussions with the US where the ‘significant threat’ of Section 899 was highlighted
The tax agency has increased compliance yield from wealthy individuals but cannot identify how much tax is paid by UK billionaires, the committee also claimed
Saffery cautioned that documentation requirements in new government proposals must be limited if medium-sized companies are not exempted from TP
The global minimum tax deal is not viable without US participation, Friedrich Merz has argued
Section 899 of the ‘one big beautiful’ bill would have spelled disaster for many international investors into the US, but following its shelving, attention turns to the fate of the OECD’s pillars
DLA Piper’s co-head of tax for the US and Latin America tells ITR about her fervent belief in equal access to the law, loving yoga, and paternal inspirations
Tax expert Craig Hillier agrees with the comparison of pillar two to using a sledgehammer to crack a nut
The amount is reported to be up 57% from the £5.6bn that the UK tax agency believes was underpaid in the previous year
Gift this article