Posted tagged ‘Brazil’

Treaty Shopping

27/02/2013

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.

Anúncios

Brazilian Tax System and Taxation of Foreign Corporations – General Aspects

21/06/2012

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

08/05/2012

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

08/05/2012

adf

Mudanças no Tratado com a Bélgica

06/04/2009

Prestes a encerrar o ano de 2007, no dia 31.12, foi editada a Convenção Adicional para Evitar a Dupla Tributação da Renda entre Brasil e Bélgica, que passou a vigorar em 2008.

 

As principais mudanças no Tratado são:

 

– Dividendos: inclusão de uma participation exemption, que limitará a 10% a alíquota do IRFonte incidente sobre a remessa de dividendos, quando o respectivo beneficiário detiver 10% ou mais de participação no capital da sociedade pagadora dos dividendos. Para fazer jus a tal benefício, deverá ser observada a Diretiva Européia nº. 12, incorporada pela legislação Belga, que determina que a participação seja mantida por período mínimo de 12 meses.

 

Vale, aqui, o mesmo alerta feito por César Moreno no artigo referente ao Tratado Brasil x Rússia, publicado neste Boletim: atualmente, não haverá repercussões, uma vez que os dividendos são isentos. No entanto, caso voltem a ser tributados, a alíquota prevista no Tratado prevalecerá sobre aquela que vier a ser aplicada internamente.

 

– Royalties: redução de 25% para 20% do limite da alíquota do IRFonte nas remessas de royalties decorrentes de uso de marca de fábrica ou de comércio apenas. Para os royalties decorrentes das demais hipóteses, o limite permanece inalterado para os pagos pelo uso ou concessão de propriedades intelectuais (10%) e nos demais casos não especificados pelo Tratado (15%).

 

– Remuneração de Diretores ou de Técnicos: a competência para exigir IR sobre tais rendimentos passa a ser do Estado no qual é exercida a profissão, e desde que o Diretor/Técnico lá permaneça por mais de 183 em cada ano fiscal.

 

 

– Métodos para Evitar a Dupla Tributação: inclusão das seguintes modalidades para eliminação da dupla tributação da renda:

 

a)    Exemption with Progression: Quando um residente na Bélgica receber rendimentos do Brasil (exceto dividendos, juros, ou royalties), tais rendimentos serão isentos do IR Belga, mas serão somados aos demais rendimentos do contribuinte para determinação da alíquota do IR Belga;

 

b)    Tax Sparing: Até 01.01.2012, a Bélgica concederá crédito fiscal ficto equivalente ao IRF brasileiro acrescido de cinco pontos percentuais, relativamente a dividendos, juros e royalties  (exceto os royalties pagos pelo uso de marca industrial ou comercial) oriundos de investimentos belgas diretamente ligados a projetos de desenvolvimento industrial, comercial, turístico ou agrícola no Brasil, ainda que este último isente tais rendimentos.

 

c)    Participation Exemption: Com o objetivo de atualizar o Tratado de acordo com a Diretiva Européia nº. 12, incorporada pela legislação belga, a Bélgica isentará até 95% dos dividendos pagos pela sociedade brasileira. Da mesma forma, será necessário manter o investimento por, pelo menos, 12 meses para fazer jus ao benefício; e

 

d)    Compensação de Prejuízos Fiscais: dividendos oriundos do Brasil não serão isentos do IR Belga quando a sociedade brasileira que os distribuir não pagar IR no Brasil, em virtude da utilização de prejuízos fiscais.

 

– CSLL: inclusão da CSLL no rol de tributos abrangidos pelo Trtado; e

 

– Assistência Técnica ou Serviços Técnicos: os pagamentos por tais serviços passam a ser considerados como royalties, e, portanto, protegidos pelo teto de 10% para alíquota do IRFonte incidente quando da sua remessa.

 

Ante o exposto, fica clara a intenção do governo brasileiro em aumentar o fluxo de investimento belga no Brasil, e vice-versa, especialmente no que se refere à busca por novos investimentos em projetos de desenvolvimento industrial, comercial, turístico ou agrícola aqui.


%d blogueiros gostam disto: