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

Discover the asset class - INDUSTRIAL DESIGN

In our series of posts explaining the differences between classes of intellectual assets, today we're going to look at INDUSTRIAL DESIGN. Industrial Design is the ornamental plastic form of an object - for example, the design of a product or the set of lines applied to a product, such as a print - that gives it [...]

Read more
Learn about the asset class - PATENTS

A PATENT is a title of ownership granted by the State over an unpublished invention (invention patent) or one derived from an existing one (utility model patent). The application for registration is made to the INPI, granting the holder the right to prevent third parties from manufacturing, using or offering for sale [...].

Read more
Corporate name: get to know this asset class

Continuing with our series of posts explaining the differences between the classes of intellectual assets, today we'll look at the BUSINESS NAME. Although trademarks - the nature of which has already been described in the previous post - can sometimes be confused with business names, they are distinct legal institutes. The business name identifies the company by [...]

Read more
PERSE: legislative changes in the emergency program to revive the events sector

Law No. 14,859/2024: amendment of the Perse rules for the period 2024 to 2026. The Emergency Program for the Resumption of the Events Sector - Perse was created in 2021 with a view to helping companies linked to the events sector - the activity most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, by reducing [...]

Read more
The extent of insurance cover in floods

The rains that have hit Rio Grande do Sul in recent weeks have destroyed farms, properties and vehicles. Even if they have insurance, car or property owners should check the coverage of their policies to see if they can get compensation. Basic insurance for cars and properties does not usually cover floods. Insurance against electrical breakdown, [...]

Read more
The agreement to sell the most famous slimming drug of the moment

It was recently reported that the Brazilian company BIOMM has signed an agreement with the pharmaceutical industry BIOCON to distribute in Brazil a drug similar to Ozempic, indicated for the treatment of diabetes, but used mainly to treat obesity. However, this will only be possible because the patent holder of the drug has certainly authorized, through a [...]

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