Brazilian Judicial System – Part 3

Publicado 03/04/2013 por olavobernardes
Categorias: Sem categoria

c) Particularities of the Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF

As we have mentioned, the Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF (Supreme Federal Court) is the highest court for constitutional matters.

Retirement age for all Supreme Federal Court Justices is at the age of seventy (70). In fact, seventy is the maximum retirement age predicted in the Federal Constitution for all civil servants in the country, including all state and federal judges (article 40, § 1º, II, Federal Constitution – CF).

There are some controversies over that dispositive, since with advancements of medicine, seventy is not such an early age. Besides, all judges who retire are entitled to a full pension.

The highest public salary in the country is of a STF Justice (article 37, XI, CF).

As we’ve mentioned, Justices from the STF and STJ are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Federal Senate. All judges (federal, state, labor, etc.) are admitted by an open exam (concurso público). Other members in the Judiciary such as public prosecutors (state and federal), public defenders, court clerks, etc., are also admitted by an open exam.

Judges of the State Courts of Appeal (Desembargadores) and of the Federal Regional Courts (known, informally, as desembargadores federais) come from the regular ranks of the judicial system and are promoted by merit and antiquity.

Nevertheless, one-fifth (1/5) of those desembargadores and desembargadores federais are nominated by members of the State and Federal Attorney’s Offices (Ministério Público Estadual e Federal) and by members of the legal community and are selected by the head of the Executive Power (the Governor or the President). This is the so called quinto constitucional (constitutional fifth) predicted in the Federal Constitution (article 94, CF).

Until recently, decisions made by the STF as an appellate court were not binding to lower courts.

As a result, and given that our Constitution is much longer than the US Constitution (250 articles), the 11 STF’s Justices (Ministros) used to rule on more than 5.000 cases a year, which is humanely impossible, many times relating to claims of no social importance – there is a famous tale of a Justice that had to rule on the dispute between neighbors over a parrot, since it involved environmental and property law.

Another flaw in such system was that the STF used to hear similar cases, repeatedly.

A party always has to appeal to both higher courts (STF and STJ) if it wants to have its claim heard.

Other requisites for a case to reach the Supreme Federal Court are the so called prequestionamento (all topics have to be stated in the decision made by the lower court) and the exhaustion of all other types of appeals (exaurimento de recursos).

As previously mentioned, the appellant has to demonstrate a direct violation to the constitution.

Two changes were introduced in 2004 by EC 45/2004. The, already mentioned, súmula vinculante – to be written by two-thirds (2/3) of STF’s Justices (7 Justices) and the so called repercussão geral (general repercussion), that came to be regulated by Law 11.418/2006.

With the repercussão geral, STF became more of a constitutional court. Now, the first topic the presiding Justice will analyze before accepting to hear the claim, is whether that particular case presents a general repercussion to society affecting it socially, legally, politically or economically.

The Appellant has to demonstrate that its claim surpass its personal interest. Also, the STF (and the STJ, since 2008) will hear only one of the claims and their decision will apply to all claims of the same matter.

Therefore, if the STF declines to hear a case, all similar cases will be dismissed. But, if decides to hear that particular claim, it shall produce effects to all other claims pending trial.

Also, measures as the amicus curiae were introduced in the system, a couple of years ago (since 1999) and were better regulated with the repercussão geral. The amicus curiae (friend of the court) allows for social or political groups to file a brief before STF supporting their particular position on the matter.

Many amicus curiae were filed, for instance, by different organizations on the case regarding the constitutionality of affirmative actions, based on different claims filled by students that had their admission refused in federal universities, even when having significant higher grades than students admitted by the quota system.

The Attorney General (Procurador-Geral da República) and the Solicitor General (Advogado Geral da União) also file a brief with their opinion on those cases.

All the briefs previously mentioned are non-binding and only serve as reference to the Justices hearing the claim.

Brazil adopts the German Constitutional model and has two forms of constitutional control. They are:

The difuso, when a claim goes all the way to Supreme Federal Court after all appeals have been made, and when, incidentally, the constitutionality of a norm may be challenged – same as in the US, but in Brazil the decisions are only bidding to the parties in that particular claim (inter partes) , and,

The concentrado, when only certain political and legal entities – as the Attorney-General, the Federal Bar Association, Political Parties with national representation, National Entities… (See article 103 of the Federal Constitution) – file a specific remedy (ADIN, ADECON, ADPF) directly before the Supreme Federal Court and what is discussed is the constitutionally or unconstitutionality of the statute in dispute, not a specific case. Their decision is bidding to everyone – erga omnes.

In recent years, there have been some changes, by legislation and jurisprudence, and the Supreme Federal Court has been amplifying the effects of its decisions in the difuso method, not to have similar cases heard over and over again, such as granting them efeitos gerais (general effects).

What the STF’s Justices normally do is to have a claim (i.g. affirmative actions, gay civil unions, stem cell research) supported by an entity enlisted in article 103 so they can grant erga omnes effects to their decision.

The results, with a reduction of 50% in the cases heard by our Supreme Court, start to show up.

Plus, the cases that are reaching that court tend to be more interesting. Nevertheless, there are still approximately 8.000 cases waiting to be heard by Brazil’s Highest Court.


Brazilian Judicial System – Part 2

Publicado 27/03/2013 por olavobernardes
Categorias: Sem categoria

b) Emenda Constitucional no 45/2004 (Constitutional Amendment 45/2004) and Administrative Agencies

1. Introduction

As previously mentioned, after thirteen years of discussion, the Congresso Nacional Brasileiro (Brazilian National Congress) finally passed a constitutional amendment that changed a couple of rules in the Brazilian Judiciary (Emenda Constitucional no 45 de 2004 – EC 45/2004).

Hence that, for a Constitutional Amendment to be approved it need to be voted twice by three fifths (3/5) of both Houses, the House of Representatives (Câmara dos Deputados) and the Federal Senate (Senado Federal). The Brazilian Federal Constitution, with no more than 25 years, already has 71 amendments.

2. Brief History of the Brazilian Constitution

There have been seven Constitutions since Brazil’s independence (1824, 1891, 1934, 1937, 1946, 1967 and 1988). The current Constitution (Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil) has been approved after the end of the Brazilian Military Regime (1964-1985). It is known as the Carta Cidadã (Citizen Chart) for its strong emphasis on human rights.

For its critics, however, it is a long, contradictory and confusing document. In order to guarantee every possible protection, the Original Constitutional Legislator (Legislador Constituinte Originário), represented by different political parties in the National Congress, some more of the left, others more of the right, of the political spectrum, has drafted a document that try to predict all sort of constitutional protections and regulations.[1]

The Brazilian Constitution is extremely programmatic and guiding (programática e diretiva) and specifically predicts, among other things, how the tax system is going to function, how political parties are going to operate and how the distribution of federal funds among the states and municipalities is going to take place.

3. Changes brought by the Constitutional Amendment 45/2004

In 2004, Congress passed a constitutional amendment that changed a couple of rules to try to speed up the Judiciary (EC 45/2004).

Now, Labor Courts rule not only on employment relations, but also on work relations (for example, independent contractors). The last was, prior to 2004, competence of Federal Courts.

The amendment also requires that Law Bachelors have a minimum three years experience in juridical activities in order to be admitted into certain careers, such as judges and public prosecutors (articles 93 e 129, CF). For public defenders, however, there is no such obligation.

There have been some conceptual changes, as the immediate distribution of proceedings in all levels of jurisdiction (article 93, XV, CF).

Besides, Brazil now is submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (article 5o, § 4º, CF) – the ICC, based in The Hague, Netherlands, prosecutes individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression.[2]

The new amendment, likewise, elevated treaties and conventions on Human Rights to the category of constitutional amendments, if approved at each House of the National Congress, in two rounds, by three fifths (3/5) of the votes of their respective members (article 5o, § 4º, CF).

Also, since 2004, the STF can write binding enunciates (súmulas vinculantes).

All higher courts write súmulas – which are enunciates of their understanding on some major topic (i.g. how a state tax shall be applied) –, but only the STF can write binding ones. Nevertheless, since 2006, the Brazilian Civil Procedure Code (CPC) allows for a judge to refuse admitting an appeal when its decision was based on a súmula from the STJ or STF (CPC, 518 § 1o). Naturally, the appellant can always appeal from such decision arguing that the presented súmula does not apply in that case.

The EC 45/2004 has also created a new admissibility standard, similar to the US Supreme Court, for cases reaching the Supreme Federal Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF) on extraordinary appeal (when STF is the court of last degree), the so called repercussão geral (general repercussion). We shall deal more deeply with this important mechanism in our next article.

Finally, another important innovation was the creation of the Conselho Nacional de Justica (CNJ) – (article 103-B, CF), which oversees the judicial system by making recommendations, enacting rules, etc…

There was some controversy about its creation. Many in the judiciary perceived it as a police body, but, at the end, most of the judicial community accepted its existence.

The CNJ is comprised of fifteen members from the judicial branches (the Department of Justice, the Public Prosecutor’s Office, by Federal and State Judges, etc.), who are recommended by their peers, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Its Chairman is the STF’s Chief Justice. In Brazil, unlike the United States, every two years a new Chief Justice is nominated by antiquity.

4. Administrative Agencies (Agências Administrativas)

One final observation. Brazil has several administrative agencies, as the Receita Federal do Brasil (Brazilian IRS) and the Instituto Nacional do Seguro Social – INSS (Brazilian Social Security Department).

Claims challenging administrative acts, such as fines, can be filed at those agencies. However, if a party chooses to do so, given the interpretation of different súmulas, its claim has to go all the way up to the last administrative court of appeals, before that party can file another claim before regular courts.

However, a party can always file an urgent measure before regular courts, as a writ of mandamus, if any of its rights are being violated by an administrative court (i.g. a resolution by the INS that mandates a party to deposit 20% of the value of the fine, if a party wishes to appeal an administrative ruling – a possible violation of due process and the right to appeal).

The right to always appeal before regular courts was brought by the Princípio da Inafastablidade do Judiciário (which can be translated as the redressability principle), a fundamental right, written in the Brazilian Constitution.

Brazil also has Sports Courts (Tribunais Desportivos), which are constitutionally predicted, and that are not part of the regular Judicial System (article 217, § 1º and § 2º, CF). We shall deal more extensively with them in a separate article. Regular courts rarely reverse a sports court ruling and when they do it, it is normally only because of a gross technical mistake. Regular courts show much deference to the sports courts system.

Article 5o, XXXV, Federal Constitution – “the law shall not exclude any injury or threat to a right from the consideration of the Judicial Power;”

To read the Brazilian Federal Constitution in English, please access (

[1] In respect check the article “Limitations on Foreign Investments in Brazil”, by this author in cooperation with José Samurai Saiani, from Machado, Meyer, Sendacx e Opice.

[2] Site – Cour Pénale Internationale/ International Criminal Court (

Brazilian Judicial System – Part 1

Publicado 19/03/2013 por olavobernardes
Categorias: Sem categoria

a)      Structure of the Brazilian Judicial System

There is no legal conference around the country, where Justices (Ministros) from both the Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF and the Superior Tribunal de Justiça – STJ, the highest courts in the country for constitutional and non-constitutional matters, respectively, don’t complain about the amount of case load they are submitted to. Several measures, both by courts legal construction, and by law, have been made to change this scenario.

The Judiciary in Brazil is divided in an ordinary branch (justiça comum) and a special branch (justiça especial).

The ordinary branch is divided into federal and state courts. Those courts may be criminal or civil.

The federal courts are different from the state courts, because (as in the US) a federal first degree court normally will comprise a certain region, normally several towns in a certain state (as the US District Courts) and the Federal Regional Courts (Tribunais Regionais Federais – TRFs) have jurisdiction over several states (as the US Circuit Courts).

The special branch is divided in Labor, Electoral (which rule on misconducts practiced at federal, state and municipal elections) and Military Courts (which rule not only on misconducts by members of the Armed Forces, but also on the conduct of the States Military Police, the largest police force in the country). All those courts have appellate courts (TRT, TRE, TJM) and special superior courts (STM, TSE, TST), which are the highest courts in those matters (the constitutionality of their decision may be challenged at the STF).

In the ordinary branch, the highest court for non-constitutional matters is the Superior Tribunal de Justica – STJ, the highest court in most cases. The Superior Court of Justice, STJ, was created by the 1988 Federal Constitution to help lowering the number of cases that reach the Supreme Federal Court, STF.

For a claim to reach the STF the party has to demonstrate the case deals with a direct violation to the Federal Constitution. Most civil procedure matters, for instance, a domestic arbitration dispute, will only reach the STJ, because even though they may deal with a violation to the Constitution (i.g. due process), such violation is indirect.

A party always have to appeal simultaneously to both higher courts (STJ and STF) if it wants to have its claim heard by those Courts. The STJ will hear the claim first. Unless the case deals with a direct constitutional matter, STJ’s decision shall be final.

It is interesting to observe that the Tribunais de Justiça dos Estados – TJs (States Courts of Appeal) and the Tribunais Regionais Federais – TRFs (Regional Federal Courts) can have original jurisdiction over some matters. The STF and STJ also have original jurisdiction on several topics (Article 102, I, and 105, I, Federal Constitution – CF).

In this sense, a crime (either a felony or a political crime) committed by the President, Vice President or by a member of the National Congress is judged by the STF; a crime committed by governors and members of higher courts is judged by the STJ; a crime committed by mayors and local judges is judged by the TJs, and, a crime committed by federal judges is judged by the TRFs.

The STF and STJ may also have appellate jurisdiction, instead of extraordinary and especial jurisdiction, respectively.

In this sense, a first degree final ruling in a political crime is appealed directly to the STF, instead to a federal court of appeals (artigo 102, II, b), CF).

In the same fashion, a first degree decision that deals with a foreign state or a foreigner entity versus Brazilian municipalities or Brazilian residents is appealed directly to the STJ (artigo 105, II, c), CF).

Despite this very broad court system, historically, the number of appeals that reached the Supreme Federal Court in its capacity as an extraordinary courts of appeals were extremely high (more than five thousand up to five years ago).

Among other reasons, we could cite the vast number of procedural measures and the largeness of the Brazilian Federal Constitution (which has 250 articles and, so far seventy-one amendments). Also, historically, STF’s decisions were only bidding to the parties (inter partis), allowing for several similar cases to reach that court.

As we’ve discussed, several articles within the Brazilian Federal Constitution allow for cases to start directly at Brazil’s Highest Constitutional Court – i.g. as already mentioned, the STF has original jurisdiction to rule on any type of crime (political or felonies) committed by members of the National Congress, by the President, the Vice-President, State Ministers and the Attorney General (article 102, I, b), CF). This original jurisdiction overflows the 11 Supreme Court Justices who could be occupied with other topics.

In 2004, Congress passed a constitutional amendment that changed a couple of rules to try to speed up the Judiciary (EC 45/2004). We shall see about it in our next article.

Treaty Shopping

Publicado 27/02/2013 por Thiago P. Louro
Categorias: Brazilian Double Tax Treaty Network, Português, Tributário

Tags: , , , , ,

Recentemente, em 8 de novembro de 2012, a Suprema Corte da Espanha (Audiencia Nacional) decidiu sobre a aplicação da Diretiva Europeia quanto à distribuição de dividendos de uma sociedade a sua acionista estrangeira (EU Parent Subsidiary Directive 90/435/EEC). [Decisão ROJ: SAN 4408/2012]

No caso, as quotas da sociedade espanhola (“A”) eram detidas por uma sociedade residente no Reino Unido (“B”), que por sua vez, suas ações eram de propriedade de uma pessoa física residente em País não membro da União Europeia.

Quando da remessa de dividendos da sociedade A para B, a primeira pleiteou pela aplicação da alíquota de 0% referente ao Imposto de Renda que incide na fonte, frente ao disposto na Diretiva Europeia. Contudo, a autoridade fiscal negou, exigindo o recolhimento da exação à luz do Tratado para Evitar a Dupla Tributação assinado entre as duas Nações envolvidas, que limita a alíquota do IRFonte à 10%.

A Corte Espanhola entendeu que, a sociedade B não preenchia as condições básicas para usufruir do benefício fiscal europeu (IRFonte 0%). Pois: (i) não exercia atividade econômica, no Reino Unido, compatível com a exercida por sua controlada; (ii) não possuía funcionários ou elemento material (p.ex. estoque); e (iii) a justificativa de sua constituição se dava somente pela existência de norma tributária mais benéfica – critérios ordinariamente chamados safe harbor.

A decisão da Audiencia Nacional é um importante marco para a comunidade internacional, visto que pode nortear, como fonte doutrinária, os posicionamentos de outras Cortes acerca da necessidade de fundamentação econômica nas escolhas dos Países, ou Regiões, sede, em estruturas societárias complexas, quando enfrentarem julgamentos que envolvem acordos ou convenções internacionais, no âmbito tributário.

Interessante ressaltar, que a AN criou um paradoxo. Isso porque, o fundamento da ausência de razões econômicas na relação societária é base tanto para afastar a aplicação da Diretiva Europeia quanto para afastar os termos do Tratado Internacional. Um pouco de sorte ao contribuinte acionista da sociedade B.

Para as empresas Brasileiras, o importante é manter atenção em relação à jurisprudência dos tribunais dos Países que recebem seus investimentos. Assim, evitam-se surpresas.

Brazilian Tax System and Taxation of Foreign Corporations – General Aspects

Publicado 21/06/2012 por olavobernardes
Categorias: Corporate, English, Taxes

Tags: ,

a)      Introduction

Brazil is well known for having a complicated tax system that intrigues and annoys the local and international community, not necessary in that order.

The country adopts all major principles regarding tax, as annuity, a new tax shall be only applied the next fiscal year, and avoidance of double taxation. In this sense, municipalities, state governments and the federal government may not impose taxes that incur on the same taxable event (i.g. two rural property taxes). However, there might be some exceptions to both rules. Annuity may be restricted to a 90 days period, in some cases (reduced annuity), and taxes on the same taxable event may be allowed by constitutional permission.

b)      Federal Taxes

In terms of competence to produce taxes, article 153 of our Federal Constitution defines as federal taxes the ones on “importation of foreign products (I); exportation to other countries of national or nationalized products; (II); income and earnings of any nature (III); industrialized products (IV);
credit, foreign exchange and insurance transactions, or transactions relating to bonds or securities (V); rural property (VI) and large fortunes( VII)” – the last still has to be regulated by law. The country, as of today – 2012 –, has no taxes on large fortunes. The income tax, which is solely federal, is applied on a graduate scale both for companies and individuals. The maximum bracket is of 27,5% for individuals and 15% or 25% for legal entities, depending on their tax structure.

The federal government also has exclusive competence to impose compulsory loans, in case of a national emergence (art. 148, CF) and social contributions, contributions of intervention in the economic order and contributions of interest of categories of employees or employers (art. 149, CF).

Contributions are important, since in many situations an employer may face having to pay several obligatory ones to employees over their salaries or due to their companies’ economic activity.

The last compulsory loans were imposed more than twenty years ago, many people still fighting in courts for their proper restitution. Given the achieved economic stability of the country is hard for new loans to be imposed. Nevertheless, the constitution permission is there and nothing forbids the government to impose new ones by law.

c)       State and Municipal Taxes

States and the federal district have competence to produce taxes on: I) transfer by death and donation of any property or rights; II) transactions relating to the circulation of goods and to the rendering of interstate and inter-municipal transportation services and services of communication, even when such transactions and renderings begin abroad and III) ownership of automotive vehicles (article 155, CF).

Transactions related to the circulation of goods and services taxes (ICMS), as taxes over industrialized products (IPI), incur in every changeable event, meaning the circulation of the product from place A to place B, or transformation of the product (i.e. wine in barrel to bottled wine). They are also non-cumulative , meaning there is a compensation for what was due in each operation related to the circulation of products or rendering of services with the amount due in the previous one by the same State, other or the Federal District (article 155, § 2.º, CF).

Several states lead a fiscal war by imposing taxes lower than others and granting benefits for companies wishing to invest in their home turf.

Finally, the municipalities have the competence to institute taxes on: I) urban buildings and urban land property; II) inter vivos transfer, on any account, by onerous acts, of real property, by nature or physical accession, and of real rights to property, except for real security, as well as the assignment of rights to the purchase thereof; III) services of any nature (article 156, CF).

The municipalities get the smaller chunk of the pie in terms of taxes and many are dependable on the federal government, who redistributed a percentage of certain taxes among those federal entities.

The country has also a national tax code (Código Tributário Nacional) that better specifies how taxes, their denominations, types, taxable events, how they shall be applied and in which brackets.

d)      Taxation for Foreign Entities – Important Aspects

If a company or individual, national or foreign, wish to send payment abroad, they are subject to the so called withholding income tax (highest bracket 25%). Withholding happens as anticipation for the payment of the tax. In that case, the responsible for paying the tax, is the individual/ entity that generated the payment, not the one who receives it, as it is normally is. Such phenomenon also happens when payment of salaries are due by employers to employees (all monthly social contributions are also due at that moment). As mentioned in previous articles, international treaties to avoid double taxation, may allow for the tax to be taxed only once, normally at the country the money is coming from.

Hence that Brazil and the US do not have a Double Taxation Treaty, but the US government may unilaterally grant credits for a certain percentage of taxes already paid.

All payments produced inside Brazilian territory have to be converted to Brazilian Reais (Superior Court of Justice’s – Superior Tribunal de Justiça – interpretation), as well as any money detained in bank accounts inside the country has to be in the national currency.

If foreign companies wish to remit profits and dividends abroad, they may do so without limitations as long as done after all proper taxes and contributions have being properly paid and profits have been distributed (as mentioned, depending on the company’s statutes or by-laws, the distribution of profits and dividends may be anticipated. Brazil’s fiscal year follow its calendar year beginning in January and finishing in December). Also, as mentioned, given the double taxation rule, remittances abroad are not taxed when leaving the country, since they have been taxed before when of the distribution of profits and dividends.

It is worth mentioning that given the current stability achieved by the country, the government may not impose new Provisional Measures – a sort of government decree that produces effects even before being voted by the National Congress – on “pluriannual plans, budgetary directives, annual budgetary law, additional and supplementary credits; levy or retention of assets, popular savings or any other financial assets” (Article 62 I, d) and II, Federal Constitution).

This is to avoid the drastic last minute measures to fight inflation government took in the 80s, early 90s that scared investors and produced capital flight and more economical instability as a result.

Future articles will deal with copyright protections.

217 Million Reasons for Brazilian Companies to Structure their Foreign Investments

Publicado 08/05/2012 por olavobernardes
Categorias: Corporate, English, News

Tags: , , , ,

Written by Quinn Smith – posted on Blog of Smintlaw

Original Posted: Wednesday, 02 May 2012 14:14

Yesterday, Ecuador announced a 217 million USD settlement with Petrobras for payment of assets nationalized in 2010. This is the kind of news that all Brazilian investors should remember when investing abroad–there’s value to structuring the investment properly.

As many readers know, Brazil has not ratified any bilateral investment treaties, and it is not a member of the Washington Convention, which established the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes and handles many claims between investors and states. The only way to bring an investment arbitration claim against a state is through valid consent by both the investor and the state to arbitration. Usually, this consent comes through an investment treaty, and unless the investor is a national of a country with any investment treaty, the investor cannot bring an investment arbitration claim against a state. So if Brazil is not a party to a bilateral investment treaty, how did Petrobras file a notice of dispute with Ecuador and proceed on the path to investment arbitration? And why does it matter?

According to news reports, Petrobras started the process for bringing an investment claim by filing a notice of dispute under the Ecuador-Argentina bilateral investment treaty (or “BIT”). This means that Petrobras likely initiated its investment through its Argentine subsidiary, which is a national of Argentina and can benefit from the protection of the BITs Argentina has ratified. This is likely how Petrobras put itself in the position to be able to start an investment arbitration. In negotiations with a state, this can matter, sometimes quite a lot.

Like many negotiations, the final outcome is often a result of the bargaining power of the parties. While there are many moving pieces, one of the key elements is the ability to seek redress for nationalization of assets. Without an investment treaty providing for arbitration, this means a lawsuit in the courts, usually the courts of the country where the investment is located. Because of the difficulties inherent when bringing a large claim against a country in its own courts, the investor can find itself at a disadvantage when negotiating with a state relative to nationalization of assets. One of the ways to tip the scale a little bit in the favor of the investor is to have the possibility of starting an investment arbitration claim. From news reports, it appears Petrobras used the possibility of an investment arbitration to help in its negotiations. If the news reports are true, Ecuador moved its inital offer of $168 million to a final settlement at $217 million, a sizable amount.

The mechanics behind the settlement are likely far more complicated, and one can only guess at the details. There are many factual distinctions that can determine the strength of Petrobras’ potential claim, including its ability to use the Ecuador-Argentina. But it appears that Petrobras pursued a clever path in this instance, which other Brazilian companies should study for their investments.

Brazilian Tax System and Taxation of Foreign Corporations – General Aspects

Publicado 08/05/2012 por olavobernardes
Categorias: English, Taxes

Tags: ,


%d blogueiros gostam disto: