Uncertainty remains around tax treatment of Brazilian current account structures

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

Uncertainty remains around tax treatment of Brazilian current account structures

Current account structures enable companies in the same economic group to make cash available to each other, generating reciprocal obligations of booking the amounts corresponding to withdrawals and disbursements of cash, without one being considered a creditor or debtor of the other.

The balance recorded in the current account will only be required of either party upon settlement of the transaction, when it will be verified as withdrawals and disbursements of cash and the eventual settlement of the difference due among the parties.

Such transactions are commonly used in Brazil to simplify operational relations of the parties involved which require joint administration and control of the cash due to each other, which is duly offset when the current account is settled.

From a tax perspective, current account transactions should be neutral, not resulting in the assessment of any tax in Brazil – however, the tax authorities think differently.

They believe that current account transactions should be treated as a loan subject to a tax on financial transaction (IOF) due at a daily rate of 0.0082% on the outstanding balance, plus a surplus tax of 0.38%. If we consider that, in general, the current account transactions do not establish any precise amount nor deadlines, the IOF at daily rates may effectively represent a significant contingent liability.

In our opinion, the transactions are completely different, especially because in the current account there is no definite figure of the creditor and debtor reciprocally assuming rights and obligations, at least while the transaction is not settled. Also, there are no deadlines and no conditions that are generally agreed upon for loan transactions.

Obviously any argument as to the distinction of these transactions will be fruitless if the reciprocal financial flows are not properly booked at all entities involved in the current account transaction so as to reflect clearly and accurately its nature.

This issue is quite controversial; there is no common understanding stated so far at administrative and judicial courts. We notice, however, that there is a slight tendency of the courts to refuse the assessment of IOF in such transactions, provided that the main characteristics of the current account are fulfilled as stated herein.

Either way, it is expected that the Supreme Court will eventually resolve the impasse; the problem is knowing when. In the meantime, uncertainty remains for business groups that adopt this type of mechanism as a way to facilitate the transfer of cash among its companies.

Antonio Carlos Marchetti Guzman (guzman@mattosfilho.com.br) is a partner at Mattos, Filho, Veiga Filho, Marrey jr e Quiroga, a principal tax disputes correspondent for International Tax Review.

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