Brazil: Tax authorities confirm treatment of foreign reimbursements related to partner-administrators or expatriate costs
International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Brazil: Tax authorities confirm treatment of foreign reimbursements related to partner-administrators or expatriate costs

Sponsored by

sponsored-firms-pwc.png
Courts in India have generally given a wide connotation to the expression

Alvaro Pereira and Mark Conomy of PwC Brazil explain why the RFB’s publication of SC 2006/2020 has confirmed favourable outcomes for certain transactions although the consequences concerning the broader treatment of foreign reimbursements remains controversial.

The Federal Brazilian Tax Authorities (RFB) on August 25 2020 published Solução de Consulta DISIT/SRRF02 2006 (dated July 20 2020) (SC 2006/2020). It confirms that the reimbursement by a Brazilian entity of certain costs originally supported by an entity in the same group located abroad should not be subject to withholding tax (WHT), or other contributions that are applicable on cross-border payments. Furthermore, it confirms that such amounts should be treated as deductible for corporate income tax purposes where such expenses are necessary to the business activities of the Brazilian entity.



By way of background, the reimbursement of costs to foreign related parties has been a controversial issue over the years. In addition to common cost-sharing issues faced by taxpayers in foreign jurisdictions relating to adequate allocation and documentation criteria, the RFB has recently released decisions providing that international cost-sharing arrangements should generally be treated similarly to the importation of technical services.



This triggers the application of WHT, as well as other federal contributions, being the contribution for the social integration programme (PIS), contribution for social security financing (COFINS) and contribution for intervention in the economic domain (CIDE). The heavy taxation of such import operations often lead to distortionary treatment and practices in international cost-sharing arrangements.



SC 2006/2020 considers reimbursements made by a Brazilian entity to foreign headquarters or a foreign entity within the same group, in relation to supported costs associated with partner-administrators or expatriates resident in Brazil, up to the amount perceived abroad. In summary, SC 2006/2020 considers:

  • The amounts remitted are not subject to WHT as they should not be characterised as income of the foreign company;

  • For the purpose of calculating Brazilian corporate income taxes and contributions (IRPJ and CSLL), the amount reimbursed by the Brazilian company to its foreign headquarters or related party via an invoice should be deductible, provided that such expenses are necessary for the activities of the Brazilian entity for the maintenance of its income production source and is considered usual for the line of business;

  • The amounts remitted are not subject to PIS/COFINS-importations, as they should not be characterised as consideration for services rendered by the foreign company; and

  • The amounts remitted are not subject to CIDE, as they should not be characterised as consideration for the provision of technology, provision of technical assistance, technical services or administrative assistance.


The decision refers to earlier decisions from August 2017 to September 2017, including Solução de Consulta - Cosit 378 dated August 23 2017 (SC 378/2017) and Solução de Consulta - Cosit 469 dated September 21 2017 (SC 469/2017).




While a Solução de Consulta does not represent law or legal precedent, it does provide further support and guidance for Brazilian entities in relation to how the RFB is treating arrangements under consideration.



It is important to highlight that the decisions referred to above contemplate costs passed to the Brazilian entity relating to partner-administrators or expatriates. However, the rationale adopted by the tax authority in coming to its decision appears aligned with previous guidance issued by the RFB supporting the non-application of transaction taxes in the context of international cost-sharing agreements (i.e. that the reimbursement does not constitute income in the hands of the foreign entity).



In the context of international cost-sharing arrangements, the recent trend of decisions by the RFB has been to characterise such remittances as income, consideration or remuneration for technical services (depending on the particular tax or contribution). As such, while the decision is favourable for certain operations, the treatment of broader international cost-sharing arrangements remains controversial.

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

Despite the relief, Brazil’s government has also presented a bill which seeks to re-impose a tax burden on companies’ payroll, one local tax specialist told ITR
Jeremy Brown arrives at the firm after a near 16-year career with Deloitte
PwC could elect a woman into the senior leadership position for the first time; in other news, KPMG Australia has extended its CEO’s term
The Senate report into PwC’s scandal is titled ‘The cover up worsens the crime’
Law firms that are conscious of their role in society are more likely to win work, according to a survey of over 23,000 in-house professionals
The firm’s tax business generated a quarter of HLB’s overall revenues in 2023
While successful pillar two implementation will require collaboration across all units, a combination of internal and external tax advice is at the centre of the effort
Binance has also been accused of manipulating foreign exchange rates via currency speculation and rate-fixing
Six individuals should have raised questions over information they received but did not breach professional standards, according to the firm
The partnership of KPMG UK has installed Holt for a second term as CEO and senior partner; in other news, a Baker McKenzie partner has sued the IRS
Gift this article