Cesar Peres Dulac Müller logo

CPDMA BLOG

Category:
Date: May 13, 2022
Posted by: CPDMA Team

CARF Decides that the delay in paying the AFAC does not de-characterize the operation and excludes the incidence of IOF

Professional pressing a calculator key on the table on which the word IOF is highlighted.

The Third Panel of the Higher Chamber of Tax Appeals (CARF), by casting vote, understood that the delay in paying up the share capital in the Advance for Future Capital Increase operations - AFAC does not characterize the operation as a loan and, therefore, removes the incidence of IOF.

AFAC is an operation that allows companies to receive resources from partners or shareholders in order to increase the capital of the business. In practice, it is a type of internal loan that can be converted into shares or greater participation in the institution's quotas.

In the operation examined by the CARF, the taxpayer entered into a contract for the advance of financial resources that would be destined for the future capital increase on a date to be agreed by the parties, which took place two years after the advance.

The issue revolved around the necessary time that the taxpayer should have carried out the capital increase, which, according to the understanding until then, was a maximum of 120 (one hundred and twenty) days. According to the inspection, the lapse of two years between the availability of funds and the effective increase in capital stock, without any justification, characterizes the operation as a mutual, attracting the levy of IOF under the terms of art. 13 of Law No. 9. 779/99.

The Reporting Councilor, whose vote was defeated, argued that, although there is no deadline for paying up the capital stock, the inspection could not remain inactive waiting for an indefinite period until the capital stock is paid up. In this way, the Counselor accepted the arguments of the National Treasury to de-characterize the AFAC transaction and recognize that it is a loan transaction, a triggering event for IOF.

However, Councilor Tatiana Midori Migiyama opened a divergence and, under the terms of her vote, established that there is no express legal limit for capital increase, since Normative Opinion CST 17/84 and IN SRF 127/88, which provided for the payment term of 120 (one hundred and twenty) days, were revoked. Thus, even if two years have elapsed between the advance and the payment, the operation cannot be characterized as mutual and, therefore, the possibility of levying IOF is absent.

Based on this decision, there is a change in CARF's position on the issue, this because, in Decision No. 3301-002. 282, presented by the National Treasury Attorney's Office as a paradigm of the divergence established, the Council understood that the AFAC would be uncharacterized by the lack of payment of the advance at the first opportunity, recognizing the incidence of IOF.

It is important to note that for a contribution of resources to be effectively considered as AFAC, it is necessary that its purpose is clearly, obligatorily and irrevocably the increase of the capital stock, regardless of the term in which this payment takes place.

Therefore, the decision is prestigious for removing the IOF levy on AFAC operations even when a time lapse between the advance and payment of capital has elapsed, interpreting in the best way the current legislation and stimulating an important instrument for financing business activities.

By Bruna Nunes de Quadros

CPDMA Team - Tax

Return

Recent posts

Misuse of a trademark by a former partner can be recognized not only as unfair competition, but also as bad faith.

On February 14, the newspaper "Valor Econômico" published an article in which it was pointed out that the São Paulo Court of Justice had recognized unfair competition in the improper use of a trademark by a former partner. The article, however, does not give the number of the case in which it would be possible to analyze more details of the decision, but it does inform that the individuals had signed a [...]

Read more
The first sanctions applied by the National Agency for the Protection of Personal Data (ANPD) were a wake-up call for companies: the LGPD is a serious law and must be complied with.

The General Personal Data Protection Law - Law No. 13,709/18 (LGPD) was published in 2018 and came into force in 2020. This deadline was given to public and private legal entities (processing agents) that collect, store or process the personal data of individuals, in Brazil or abroad, in order to [...]

Read more
Business position on the recent STF decision that ruled that it is constitutional for trade unions to charge assistance contributions

Recently, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) unanimously ruled that unions can collect an assistance contribution, including from non-member employees, in ARE 1.18.459 (Topic 935 of the General Repercussion), as long as the worker is guaranteed the right to object, establishing the following thesis: "it is constitutional to establish, by agreement or [...]

Read more
The new chapter in the legal dispute involving the term "HELLES", registered as a 'trademark'.

Recalling the case... It all started at the beginning of 2019, when the brewery Fassbier gave extrajudicial notice to a series of breweries in Rio Grande do Sul for the alleged misuse of the term HELLES, claiming to have exclusive use of the expression, given that the word was registered as a trademark. Not satisfied with [...]

Read more
Suspension of labor executions against companies in the same economic group

In a recent decision, the STF suspended the processing of labor executions that discuss the inclusion, in the execution phase, of a company that is part of an economic group that did not participate in the knowledge process. In labor proceedings, when the execution phase is reached and the main debtor does not have enough assets to pay the debt, many [...]

Read more
STJ decides that the legal personality of a civil association can be disregarded, but limits liability to the directors

The 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ) [1] dismissed a special appeal filed by the directors of a civil association, which had its legal personality disregarded in a case involving the improper use of a trademark. The Court, in a judgment drafted by Justice Marco Aurélio Belizze, held that the disregard of [...]

Read more
crossmenuchevron-down
en_USEnglish
linkedin Facebook pinterest youtube lol twitter Instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter Instagram