Integra_16062011 - Instituto Brasileiro de Direito Tributário

MESA DE DEBATES DO IBDT DE 16/06/2011
Integrantes da Mesa:
Dr. Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira
Dr. Luis Eduardo Schoueri
Dr. Gerd Willi Rothmann
Dr. Salvador Cândido Brandão
Dr. Paulo Celso Bergstrom Bonilha
Dr. Jan De Goede
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Bom dia a todos. Vamos dar
início, aqui, à nossa reunião. Temos, aqui, a grata alegria de termos presente o
professor Jan De Goede, que está dando aula no nosso curso de Direito
Tributário Internacional. Então, vamos ter a presença dele, e ele vai nos falar
um pouquinho, alguma coisa, provavelmente, sobre “Thin Capitalization and
beneficial owner”.
Mas, antes de tudo, vamos, pelo menos, os dois primeiros assuntos da pauta,
que estão, já, há bastante tempo. Hoje, com a alegria de termos, também, o
Hiromi aqui conosco.
Paulo, você tem um assunto solicitado, aqui, mas vamos procurar encaixar
dentro da possibilidade de tempo, para não perdermos a oportunidade de
ouvir o professor, aqui, tá?
Um pequeno expediente, alguma comunicação? Não temos comunicação.
Orador não identificado [0:01:40]: Felizmente, não.
Sr. Luis Eduardo Schoueri: Ontem, saiu a decisão do Supremo, ou não?
Orador não identificado: Só maconha.
Orador não identificado: Então, tá.
[risos]
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Mas foi unânime, essa.
Orador não identificado [0:01:53]: Foi unânime.
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Não teve briga?
Orador não identificado: É, mais ou menos. Foi até as oito e meia da noite,
só maconha. O Marco Aurélio(F) falou assim: “Baseado em quê?”.
[risos]
Orador não identificado [0:02:05]: Até a passeata.
Orador não identificado: Ele falou: “Baseado no quê?”.
[risos]
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Você está acompanhando o
julgamento do art. 74, você tem alguma previsão? Porque, ontem, eu vi um
comentário de dois colegas que estão acompanhando, que disse que a
perspectiva não está boa.
Sr. Luis Eduardo Schoueri: É o Ayres Britto. Não tem perspectiva, ainda.
Orador não identificado: [pronunciamento fora do microfone].
Sr. Luis Eduardo Schoueri: Sim, mas não há notícia? Exatamente como está,
a perspectiva não está... Está exatamente igual, então?
Orador não identificado [0:02:35]: Como diz o Sampaio, não é tudo igual.
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Pois é, mas o desconfiômetro,
então, era o palpitômetro. O palpitômetro do Sampaio, eu não sei qual é o
dele, mas o dessa pessoa que estava conversando comigo, dois, é que a coisa
não está boa, não. A tendência é confirmar o art. 74.
Orador não identificado: [pronunciamento fora do microfone].
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Ok. Vamos, então... Hiromi. O
assunto do Hiromi é um assunto que já vem se desenvolvendo dentro do
Conselho de Contribuintes, agora do CARF, e ele está manifestando, eu
acredito, uma inconformidade com a jurisprudência uniforme do Conselho. A
variação cambial de equivalência patrimonial de controlados no exterior, vale
para coligadas também. Hiromi, faz favor.
Sr. Hiromi Higuchi: É, eu queria que tirasse, porque já fazia tempo que eu
não podia vir, sabe? Mas, como eu continuo, eu vim, hoje.
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Então, nós mantivemos o assunto
pelo interesse dele, e também em homenagem a você, que sempre contribui
para os nossos debates aqui.
Sr. Hiromi Higuchi: Obrigado. Eu entendo que a jurisprudência, tanto do
Conselho de Contribuintes como do CARF, atualmente, para mim, eu acho
que não está correta, sabe? Porque as decisões do Conselho de Contribuintes,
tem várias, aí, que eu tirei xerocópia, lá diz que a variação cambial de
investimento em controlada ou coligada no exterior, pela equivalência
patrimonial, não é tributável.
O Conselho de Contribuintes dizia que precisa de lei para tributar a receita. A
despesa é indedutível, mas a receita diz que precisava ter lei. E aí, nesses
acórdãos, sempre baseia naquele artigo que foi vetado. Lá, dizia que a despesa
era dedutível e a receita tributável. Agora, aquele artigo, se não fosse vetado,
tinha consequências só para a despesa, porque despesa não é dedutível.
Agora, se com aquele artigo, a despesa tornaria dedutível. Agora, a receita
sempre foi tributável.
O Conselho de Contribuintes diz que precisa de lei. Não precisa de lei. Será
que podia colocar...? Aí não tem? Art. 249 e 250 do regulamento do Imposto
de Renda. Porque o art. 250 do regulamento do Imposto de Renda... Porque a
variação cambial obrigatória é só de crédito financeiro. Por exemplo, se uma
empresa tem um depósito no exterior, aí é obrigada a fazer, em cada ano, fazer
a variação cambial. Se tem uma aplicação financeira, tem que fazer, porque é
um crédito financeiro. Agora, no caso de investimento em controlada ou
coligada, ou mesmo tendo um imóvel no interior, não há lei que obrigue fazer
a variação cambial. Faz se quiser, é uma mera liberalidade. Por isso que a
despesa não é dedutível, porque se não obriga a fazer a variação cambial de
investimento no exterior em controlada ou coligada, se ele faz, por mera
liberalidade, a despesa é indedutível.
Agora, a receita é diferente. O art. 250 do regulamento do Imposto de Renda...
Porque quando faz a variação cambial, débito de ativo vai para o crédito de
resultado. Ele não pode... Essa é a regra contábil. Agora, para excluir do lucro
contábil, o art. 250 diz que precisa ter lei. Para excluir, precisa ter lei. Então,
se não tem lei que permite excluir esse resultado de variação cambial ativa, ele
é tributável. Mesmo que não seguisse a regra contábil e lançasse diretamente
para patrimônio líquido, o art. 249 diz que se não passou pelo resultado e foi
direto, constituiu uma reserva ou distribuiu, aí ambos têm que fazer, de
qualquer forma, de contabilização, é tributável.
Então, eu acho que essas várias decisões no Conselho de Contribuintes, para
mim, eu acho que não é correta, porque se faz a variação cambial de
investimentos, que não é obrigatória, faz por mera liberalidade. Agora, se faz...
Se dá despesa, ela não é dedutível, porque é mera liberalidade. Agora, quando
é receita é tributável, porque não há lei que permite fazer a exclusão.
Agora, no caso do CARF, essa decisão do CARF diz que a variação cambial faz
parte da equivalência patrimonial. Então, aí, também, eu acho que há um
equívoco, porque na época que tinha correção monetária do balanço, a Receita
Federal baixou uma instrução normativa... Pela Instrução Normativa, acho
que é 98, de 1987, por lá, investimentos no exterior, primeiro fazia a
equivalência patrimonial, com base no lucro ou prejuízo; depois, faz a correção
monetária. E, depois, a instrução normativa fala que isso não é obrigatório.
Faz a variação cambial, mas depois de feita a correção monetária do balanço,
porque correção monetária do balanço entrava como receita tributável. Agora,
eu acho que há um equívoco, também, dessa instrução normativa. Lá dizia
que essa diferença de variação cambial, e depois da correção monetária do
balanço, não é tributável. Para mim, eu acho que não há base legal para dizer
que não é tributável.
Agora, essa variação cambial não faz parte da equivalência patrimonial. Não
faz. Porque a equivalência patrimonial... Primeiro faz a equivalência
patrimonial e depois faz a variação cambial. A CVM baixou a Instrução
Normativa 170, de 1992. Lá dizia assim, que será considerado como resultado
operacional de equivalência patrimonial o valor da diferença entre a variação
cambial de investimento no exterior e a correção monetária do balanço.
Depois, viu que não estava correto, expediu a Instrução CVM 247/96. Lá fez
assim, que a equivalência patrimonial é só apurada com base no lucro ou
prejuízo da controlada ou coligada, e a variação cambial passou a ser
considerada receita ou despesa operacional, fora da equivalência patrimonial.
Então, essa variação cambial nunca fez parte da equivalência patrimonial.
Agora, pelo exemplo, dá para demonstrar que a variação cambial não faz parte
da equivalência patrimonial. Por exemplo, se uma empresa aplica, adquire ou
constitui uma controlada no exterior, 100%, de 1.000 dólares, e a taxa
cambial de dólar está R$ 1,50. Digamos que, no ano, não deu lucro e nem
prejuízo, o resultado foi zero. Então, a variação cambial... Não, a variação
cambial, não, a equivalência patrimonial é zero também, porque se não deu
lucro e nem prejuízo, a equivalência patrimonial... Agora, se no período, no
encerramento do ano, se a taxa cambial estiver R$ 1,70, se a empresa fizer
essa variação cambial de R$ 0,20, não está compondo a equivalência
patrimonial. Então, isso daí é receita ou despesa operacional tributável. Por
isso que eu entendo que tanto as decisões do Conselho de Contribuintes, que
são inúmeras, e agora a CARF está seguindo o mesmo caminho, para mim, eu
acho que não está correto.
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Schoueri.
Sr. Luis Eduardo Schoueri: Eu não gosto muito de dizer que é uma decisão
não é correta. Eu posso, simplesmente, dizer que não é a mais adequada e não
seria a que eu tomaria. Ou seja, do que eu aprendi de contabilidade, do pouco
que aprendi de equivalência patrimonial - e eu me lembro da minha época de
trabalhar em auditoria, em que era muito importante identificar o que é
equivalência patrimonial, o que é variação cambial, até porque eu estou
falando de uma época que havia lucro da exploração e que tais era importante
identificar -, eu lembro que sempre em uma insistência em que a variação
cambial não ocorre, não é rendimento do exterior, é rendimento que ocorre
aqui, pelo fenômeno que aconteceu dentro do país, que foi a variação da
moeda, e não do exterior. Essa lógica que também eu tinha para identificar
um e outro, quando a Lei 9.249 versa sobre rendimentos do exterior, que é
outra natureza, é algo que eu ganhei lá fora. E o exemplo que o Hiromi dá, que
também é clássico, se eu tiver um investimento, a empresa está simplesmente
parada, não tem sentido falar em equivalência patrimonial, embora eu possa
ter uma variação cambial por conta do meu investimento. Então, nesse ponto,
me parece que a subsunção à regra da equivalência patrimonial para o bem
ou para o mal não me parece a mais adequada.
Agora, o Hiromi pensou em um segundo elemento, que me apareceu
interessante, que ele diz: “Eu não sou obrigado a contabilizar a variação
cambial”, e, depois, ele continua: “Mas se eu contabilizo, eu devo tributá-la”.
Eu gostaria de dar o foco nesse segundo elemento, porque aqui nós temos um
problema de renda realizada, ou seja, a variação cambial da moeda me parece
renda realizada; a variação cambial de um investimento, eu tenho sérias
dúvidas se eu posso falar que eu já adquiri a disponibilidade daquele ganho,
no conceito de disponibilidade, quero insistir, do Decreto-Lei 1.598. Àqueles
com quem eu tenho discutido, eu tenho dito que, no meu ponto de vista, o
Código Tributário Nacional não exigiria que se entendesse por disponibilidade
um conceito idêntico ao do Código Civil. No entanto, a minha divergência, com
relação a outros, para no âmbito do Código, porque eu reconheço, no 1.598,
uma opção presente do legislador por um conceito de Direito Privado para a
disponibilidade.
Insisto, não seria o único, mas foi o positivado pela lei ordinária, e até que eu
tenha outra decisão do legislador ordinário, me parece que eu devo ter uma
efetiva disponibilidade para que eu possa tributar. E a mera variação cambial
de um investimento, me parece muito pouco para que eu leve à tributação. E o
argumento que o Hiromi me traz, primeiro com uma confirmação de algo que
eu suspeitava, e agora ouvi dele e acredito, que eu não sou obrigado a
reconhecer a variação cambial do investimento. Eu tinha essa dúvida, e o
Hiromi parece que não tem a dúvida de que eu não seria obrigado. Ou seja, eu
não teria uma autuação se eu simplesmente deixasse o meu investimento no
exterior ao valor histórico, sem variação cambial. Eu tinha dúvida disso, e o
Hiromi me deu isso como uma informação.
Agora, partindo desta informação do Hiromi, a segunda posição dele, dizendo:
“Se eu optei por reconhecer, eu devo tributar”, eu não penso que a mera opção
pelo lançamento contábil seja suficiente para ocasionar a tributação, ou seja,
o fato gerador não é um lançamento contábil e não pode ser o lançamento
contábil. A contabilidade em si não é fato gerador de Imposto de Renda. A
pergunta sempre é: existe ou não a disponibilidade daquilo que o legislador
entendeu como suficiente para a tributação? E eu penso que a mera variação
cambial de um investimento não poderia ser tributada enquanto não
realizada.
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Hiromi, eu queria só
complementar, aqui, se me permite, para não ficarmos muito distantes. Dando
sequência ao que você estava mencionando, eu queria, talvez, sair um
pouquinho do princípio da realização da renda e descer um pouquinho mais
na legislação propriamente dita, além do 1.598 que você citou. Eu não sei se
eu entendi bem, o 1.598, quando você citou, é o art. 18, das variações
cambiais, que ele, realmente, dá uma perspectiva de eu poder ou não poder
reconhecer a variação cambial. Seria bom, até, se pudesse entrar nele, aqui.
Eu queria só lembrar, aqui, que o professor Luiz Mélega tem artigo... Mais de
uma vez se manifestou, mas tem um artigo em que ele defende, enfaticamente,
que não era obrigatória a contabilização da variação monetária positiva, que
ela só deveria ser reconhecida quando fosse, efetivamente, realizada, que é o
que o professor Schoueri acaba de mencionar.
Agora, eu quero ficar um pouco antes disso. Eu quero ficar um pouquinho
antes disso, para introduzir um elemento na sua linha de consideração, que é
observar que a norma do art. 18, para o bem ou para o mal, quer dizer, seja
negativa ou seja positiva, se refere a direitos de crédito do contribuinte. Eu
tenho direito de crédito, eu posso ter variação monetária positiva ou variação
monetária negativa, depende da taxa de câmbio, na qual está incluída,
também, a variação cambial. O que eu quero colocar aqui, Schoueri, é: eu
tenho um direito de crédito?
Sr. Luis Eduardo Schoueri: No investimento?
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: No investimento.
Sr. Luis Eduardo Schoueri: Perfeito.
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Essa é a primeira coisa. Eu queria
lembrar, também, que o art. 9º, da Lei 918, determina que as variações
monetárias sejam consideradas receitas financeiras, dentro do novo sistema
nominalista em que foi abolida a correção monetária. Lá, também, fala em
direito de crédito. Então, está é a segunda consideração que eu queria fazer na
linha do que o Schoueri... Estendendo o que o Schoueri nos trouxe aqui.
E queria, também, lembrar e dizer o seguinte: esta opção de fazer a
contabilização é uma opção um pouco inexistente, na realidade, porque se eu
tenho algum valor em moeda estrangeira, dentro do meu patrimônio, eu tenho
que fazer uma conversão. E a regra diz que eu tenho que fazer a conversão
pela taxa... A regra geral, a conversão pela taxa de câmbio da data do
levantamento das demonstrações financeiras. É assim que é exigido,
contabilmente. Não tem como eu congelar o investimento. Ainda que ficou
zero, eu não tive lucro e nem prejuízo, mas eu tenho um investimento que
valia... O patrimônio líquido, por equivalência patrimonial, valia "X" dólares no
ano passado, vale "X" dólares esse ano, mas eu tenho uma variação em real,
pela variação da taxa de câmbio. Não tem como eu congelar na taxa do ano
passado ou em uma taxa inicial. Então, não tem muito essa opção.
E, por fim, eu queria dizer que o Conselho de Contribuintes, eu acho que todo
mundo sabe, aqui, mas eu acho que é importante a gente não esquecer, nessa
discussão, que o Conselho de Contribuintes estava, e agora o CARF está,
levando em conta uma história do trato legislativo dessa questão específica da
variação cambial de investimentos no exterior, e que duas vezes, por medida
provisória, se tentou fazer a variação cambial tributável ou dedutível. A
primeira vez, o próprio Presidente da República mandou uma nova medida
provisória que revogava aquela que nem sequer estava aprovada pelo
Congresso; e, a segunda, eu não sei a ordem se é essa, mas uma delas foi o
próprio presidente voltou atrás, e, a segunda, ele vetou. E nós sabemos que o
veto foi porque, naquela ocasião, os efeitos para a arrecadação iam ser
daninhos, porque havia uma inversão de taxa e ia haver muita perda cambial
dedutível.
Eu tenho para mim que o Conselho está fazendo uma leitura correta. Por quê?
Se eu não tenho uma disposição legal que diz que este tipo de variação
cambial, que não é direito de crédito, é tributável ou dedutível, ficou um vazio
na legislação. Semana passada, nós discutimos, aqui, o problema de lacuna.
Esta me parece ser uma lacuna muito clara e que teria que ser preenchida de
alguma forma.
Orador não identificado [0:21:44]: Por lei.
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Calma. Teria que ser preenchida,
de alguma forma, por lei, se fosse para criar fato gerador, o que foi tentado e
foi voltado atrás. Então, isso significa que... Agora eu estou chegando à
conclusão do Conselho, que, neste vácuo legislativo, não há norma que
preveja tributação e não há norma que preveja dedução, se for prejuízo.
Então, nesse sentido, eu só estou... Eu não quero nem, aqui, entrar em debate
com o Hiromi, ele trouxe uma visão interessante, mas eu estou só colocando
mais elementos aqui na discussão. O Hiromi tinha pedido. Você quer falar
alguma coisa?
Sr. Luis Eduardo Schoueri: Posso falar? Só para que o Hiromi considere,
talvez, Ricardo, não haja um vácuo. Simplesmente, eu não tributarei a
equivalência... Desculpe, não tributarei a variação cambial, lançarei
contabilmente e não tributarei. No entanto, se, amanhã, eu me desfizer desse
investimento, eu tenho norma sobre ganho de capital, ou seja, eu também não
posso considerar esse acréscimo no custo do investimento. Eu diria: aquilo
que acresce ao valor do investimento a título de equivalência patrimonial tem
a isenção ou tem o tratamento tributário próprio da Lei 9.249. Aquela
diferença positiva ou negativa, do ponto de vista tributário, é neutra. Então,
na hora de computar o custo, eu considero aquele valor.
Como eu agiria em um caso como esses? Se eu lançasse a variação cambial
por opção, ou por exigência do meu auditor ou o que fosse, eu faria uma
exclusão do valor, por ser não tributável, mas controlaria na parte B do
LALUR. Em compensação, na hora que eu alienasse aquele investimento, eu
consideraria aquele valor da variação cambial, no sentido positivo ou negativo,
para recompor o custo.
Dúvida que me surge agora, Ricardo, e que, certamente, não foi objeto da
decisão do Conselho e que depois que o Hiromi falar, eu pediria que nós
entrássemos nisso, é se com, agora, FCONT, se eu tenho uma mudança nesse
entendimento, tendo em vista que agora as normas contábeis também são
diversas. Eu solto essa indagação, como tratar, pós-FCONT, essa mesma
questão, porque, até agora, nós discutimos é sempre antes.
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Hiromi, faz favor.
Sr. Hiromi Higuchi: Bom, acontece que essa variação cambial é feita pelas
empresas de capital aberto, porque a CVM obriga a fazer essa variação
cambial. Mas a instrução da CVM não tem efeitos fiscais, efeito tributário.
Mesmo mandando fazer, para efeitos tributários, é facultativo. Agora, o
problema é que, no fundo, a perda, em bens de capital aberto, não faz, porque
não tem interesse. Agora, se quando dá positivo, na época em que, por
exemplo, a inflação mensal era de dois dígitos, já pensou a variação cambial
ativa que não seria tributável? Agora, o problema é que a empresa faz a
variação cambial ativa, exclui da tributação, mas distribui esse lucro. Para
mim, não está certo. Se é uma coisa que é um valor diferido para tributação
futura, não poderia distribuir.
Eu quero, aqui, fora desse assunto, situação idêntica ocorre, que é muitas
empresas grandes... Teve até uma empresa, banco, que creditou aquele
prejuízo fiscal compensável no futuro... Debita um ativo de crédito de imposto
e lança no resultado e exclui. É coisa de centenas de milhões de reais, sabe?
Tem um banco que creditou mais de dois bilhões e distribuiu. Então, acontece
a mesma coisa. Essa variação cambial, as empresas de capital aberto, quando
é perda, não têm interesse em fazer, porque é opcional. Agora, no caso de
capital aberto, a CVM manda fazer.
Para mim, eu continuo com a ideia de que para excluir, pelo art. 250 do
regulamento do Imposto de Renda, qualquer valor contabilizado no resultado,
para excluir, tem que ter lei. Se não tiver lei, é um exclusão ilegal.
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Hiromi, eu acho que você trouxe
esse ponto que é fundamental, realmente. Você está se batendo nele. Eu não
estou nem negando a validade do seu faturamento. Eu acho que não existe...
Primeiro, é uma regra de caráter geral, ela pressupõe uma segunda regra,
aquela que autorize ou não autorize. O problema é que esta segunda regra, no
caso específico, ela está meio escondida na história da legislação. Nós vamos
ficar, agora, discutindo isso o resto da vida e não vamos... São dois pontos,
realmente, completamente opostos.
Eu acho que a visão que o Conselho está tendo é uma visão mais aberta, mais
ampla. E eu queria, só, também, recordar que o fato de haver distribuição de
dividendos, supondo que haja caixa para a distribuição de dividendos relativos
à variação cambial não realizada, vamos deixar bem claro isso, não realizada,
não acho que interfira com a legislação. Nós estamos sabendo aqui, por
informação de auditores, que 90% dos casos, em 2010, apontaram que o lucro
real será inferior ao lucro líquido, de acordo com as novas normas contábeis.
Nem por isso, eu tenho que trazer a tributação... Porque haverá distribuição
de dividendos sobre um lucro maior do que o lucro real, eu teria que trazer a
tributação ao nível da distribuição de dividendos. Eu acho que são coisas que
temos que separar.
Eu arrisco dizer, em uma primeira pensada do assunto, aqui, até porque eu
estou querendo passar a palavra para o professor, mas em uma primeira
pensada no assunto, que o FCONT não altera o que nós estamos dizendo aqui,
não. Se você puder especificar mais onde que você está pensando.
Sr. Luis Eduardo Schoueri: Na verdade, o que eu estou pensando é que como
agora, na nova contabilidade, eu vou avaliar o investimento pelo seu valor
justo, ou seja, se eu teria a oportunidade de, via FCONT, de estornar toda a
variação cambial, e, assim, desapareceria o próprio problema. Porque como o
Hiromi disse, e parece ser a opinião dele, era opcional, era quase uma
exigência dos auditores que eu lançasse a variação cambial. Como, agora, eu
tenho... Com a nova contabilidade, eu já terei o valor justo do investimento,
talvez eu tenha uma oportunidade para, via FCONT, estornar integralmente
qualquer efeito de variação cambial, porque não há exigência para... Ou seja,
se é verdadeiro que a legislação tributária não exigia a contabilização da
variação cambial, eu também poderia, agora, via FCONT, estornar
integralmente a variação cambial e, a partir dali, fazer a equivalência
patrimonial, e já desapareceria o próprio problema. Também, em uma
primeira... Eu vou dizer... Em uma primeira assentada, os juízes dizem; eu
diria a primeira pensada, que foi o seu termo, que eu gostei.
Sr. Hiromi Higuchi: Mas, quando faz o lançamento pela FCONT e livro,
porque a partilha é dobrada. Então, partilha dobrada, então aquela receita de
variação cambial deixa... Elimina no resultado. Mas, para distribuir o lucro
isento de Imposto de Renda, é depois de feito o FCONT, não é aquele lucro
apurado no... Não. Aí...
Sr. Luis Eduardo Schoueri: Hiromi, aí é outro tema. Eu quero só registrar, eu
discordo integralmente. Eu distribuo lucros com base no Direito Societário.
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: É assim até no lucro presumido.
Bruno, quer falar?
Sr. Bruno: Bom dia. Só um acréscimo quanto à jurisprudência do CARF, a
gente não tem acesso a todas as decisões, não tem a segurança de que a gente
tem controle de tudo o que está sendo decidido lá, mas a informação que eu
tenho, aqui, 100% dos acórdãos que foram proferidos sobre essa matéria são
no sentido de que não há previsão legal para a tributação da variação cambial,
e todos por unanimidade, todos. Quer dizer, é uma discussão que eu reputo,
lá, no meu acompanhamento da jurisprudência do CARF, absolutamente
pacífico. Não há sequer uma decisão da Câmara Superior a respeito da
matéria, porque não tem divergência para subir. Então, só para acrescentar,
também, que a posição do CARF está superpacificada nesse sentido; pelo
menos, pelo que a gente tem conhecimento.
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Brandão.
Dr. Salvador Cândido Brandão: Realmente, tudo que tem falado, Hiromi,
sinto muito eu discordar de você, que, aliás, é difícil eu discordar de você, mas
nós estamos aqui diante de um quadro de passivo ou ativo contínuo; no caso,
um ativo contingente. Assim como o passivo contingente ou a provisão tem
efeitos contábeis e não tem efeitos fiscais, o ativo contingente, também, no
caso... Esse ano, nós não temos esse problema, nem no ano passado, porque o
dólar está lá embaixo, mas, de qualquer maneira, se você tem uma variação
cambial positiva e ainda não realizada, você tem um ativo contingente, que
poderá se realizar no futuro. É resultado contábil, mas não tem efeito fiscal.
[falas sobrepostas]
Dr. Salvador Cândido Brandão: Principalmente. Inclusive, é base de cálculo
do endividamento do Thin Capitatization.
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Olha, o assunto, eu acho que está
muito bem discutido. Foi muito boa, a oportunidade que o Hiromi nos trouxe.
Eu queria, antes de passar a palavra para o professor Jan, fazer uma
referência a um evento que vai ocorrer, agora, na segunda-feira, não é?
Sr. Luis Eduardo Schoueri: Segunda e terça.
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Segunda e terça, no Tribunal
Regional Federal, aqui de São Paulo: Solução Alternativa de Resolução de
Conflitos - Arbitragem em Direito Tributário. É organizado pelo próprio
Tribunal e outras entidades. O nosso instituto foi convidado e está, também,
dando apoio. Evidentemente, o apoio científico. Nós vamos ter a presença de
dois nossos professores aqui, Schoueri e Gerd. E a pauta é muito interessante,
e os palestrantes são de altíssimo nível. Vários ministros do STJ,
desembargadores aqui de São Paulo, o professor Diogo Leite Campos também,
de forma que eu faço essa referência para... As inscrições são gratuitas, mas
parece que estão esgotadas. Então, quem tiver interesse, precisa,
eventualmente, ficar dependendo de uma vaga. Mas o assunto é muito
interessante.
Sr. Luis Eduardo Schoueri: Você falou... Tem outros nomes também, eu vejo
aqui Antonio Cedenho; um nome que me interessa mencionar é Adolfo
Jimenez, que é catedrático da Universidade de Cádiz, na Espanha. Eu estive,
há pouco, em Madri, ouvi o professor e fiquei admirado com o conhecimento
dele. É jovem, muito, muito interessante. Então, além do professor Diogo, a
presença do professor Adolfo me entusiasma ainda mais pelo evento.
Orador não identificado: Professor Diogo?
Orador não identificado: Diogo Leite Campos.
Orador não identificado: Exatamente, porque [ininteligível - 0:34:40] créditos
[ininteligível], não é?
Orador não identificado: É.
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: A temática é interessante e,
certamente, será tratada por pessoas que estão preparadas para falar sobre o
assunto.
Professor Jan, it's a pleasure for us to have you with us, and we are anxious
to hear what you have to say.
Sr. Jan De Goede: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would
like to thank you for the hospitality. It's the third time now that I'm in São
Paulo to teach to the students, and I feel very comfortable in this room
because this is where I do the teaching. The only difference is that usually I
am speaking more, and this time I had to listen. And some of you may have
noticed occasionally a mysterious look in my eyes. Don't mistake that for
learnedness, which you could expect from a Professor. It is more my mental
struggle with the fact that I master four languages, French, German, English
and Dutch, and I understand a tiny, little bit of Spanish and Portuguese. So, it
was more an internal wrestling process, do I understand what they are saying
or don't I understand?
I did take the last thing of a conference that will be held on arbitration, which
is very interesting. And I heard that a professor from Santiago de Compostela
will speak on that. In a way, I am a kind of messenger for him because, those
who know can recognize that I'm wearing a tie of Santiago de Compostela.
[palmas]
Orador não identificado: And I'm wearing your tie.
Sr. Jan De Goede: I have noticed that. But, you know, you should leave the
advertizing to someone else. But I am here emphasizing Santiago de
Compostela. I bought this tie when I was at the European Tax Law Professor
Conference in Santiago, where I was speaking about exchange of information,
efficiency of exchange of information.
When I am in another country, I go, of course, primarily for tax, which I will
subsequently talk about. But for me, it's also a challenge to learn more about
the country. And I will tell you one small anecdote before going into the
serious business of taxes, which unites us here, of course. And that is, on the
first morning when I had breakfast in the hotel where I'm staying, which is the
Park Hotel Jardins, I looked down on São Paulo, because it's on the 28th floor.
For a Dutchman, rather remarkable because our life is normally rather down
to earth in a flat country with not many sky scrapers. And while looking
around, I noticed a beautiful building. I thought it was a place. Beautiful. And
behind it, a beautiful forest. And so, anxious as I am during a small walk, I
went to the building and this palace didn't turn out to be a palace but a
school. It is the Dante Alighieri School. And, of course, I'm always interested in
how these things work, so I asked the next day to the students, can you visit
the school? No, you cannot. It is just a school. So, yesterday, I went there and
I talked to some of the mothers and the guides, the watchman and, in the end,
I was received by the Director General, and I had a guided tour in Dante
Alighieri School.
Why do I tell this? Because I think it is very interesting when you visit another
country to learn more about the country, the habits, the customs, etc.
Particularly when you are an international IBDT dealing with colleagues from
other countries, it's always good to know a bit more of the background.
Now, talking about some topic, I was asked yesterday by Professor Schoeuri to
join you and whether I would like to say something about the topic which is
rather topical, let's say, recent news. And today also I heard that you are
talking about thin capitalization. I will also say something about that.
Not being knowledgeable of any details of Brazilian tax because, at IBDT, we
cover the world and we have our experts for the various countries. Now, what
is the topic I selected to say something about primarily, and then I will say
something about thin capitalization is this: A very new report of OECD -- and
you don't need to worry, it's only a few pages. Normally, these reports are very
big. But, nonetheless, the topic addressed is very interesting because the title
of the report reads, "Clarification of the meaning of beneficial owner in the
OECD tax convention." A discussion draft. The draft was only published 29
April and is up to be commented on until the 15th of July. So, it's a brand
new document on which people can comment.
What I would like to do is say a few words about the background of this thing
and then say something about international cooperation and, time permitting,
make some general remarks because I cannot follow your detailed discussion
on Brazilian law on thin capitalization.
Now, you know the notion of beneficial ownership in 1963, when the first
OECD model was published, 3-D entitlement existed if income arising in the
state, different from interest/royalty, was paid to a resident of the other state.
And that was a principle enough for claiming 3-D benefits, residency, which is
a rather formal criterion. Already, pretty soon after that, it was discovered that
there were cases where money was paid to someone else, but that that person
may not be taxable on that income at all, and the most obvious and clear case
was the case of, for instance, a bank. A bank, so I take a person having
invested in Brazil receiving dividends from Brazil, but being, for instance a
resident of Germany, but having a number of accounts with a Dutch bank. So,
what would happen, the dividends would be paid from Brazil to the
Netherlands. So, paid to a resident of the Netherlands, which is the bank, but
of course the bank, acting solely in that capacity as an intermediary, would
not be liable to tax on it because it only provides the service of collecting the
dividend, and hopefully passing it on to the resident of Germany, who is the
owner of the shares.
So, in order to cope with that problem, one introduced the notion of beneficial
ownership in the 1977 OECD model. And the commentary only explains this
case about the pure intermediary. Now, then you see what happens if you
introduce a notion like that in international tax law, which is a notion which,
in a number of countries, is not known at all in their domestic law, and
certainly not in the 1970s when it was introduced. Meanwhile, a number of
countries have legislated on this thing because it is in the tax treaties and
because it has a meaning or should have a meaning for that reason.
So, what did we further see? One became aware of the problem of 3-D
shopping and OECD published the Conduit Company report and then the
commentaries were changed in 2003 to not only exclude the pure
intermediaries, who have no ownership of the income as they're only passing it
on to the real owners, but they expand the notion to cover cases where the
person receiving the income was legally the owner of the income but was
under an obligation to pass that income on to someone else. So, that was
actually a great expansion of the notion. And, of course, you can already
discuss, is this something which is appropriate to do in a commentary or, if
you want things like that, should you change a tax?
Well, the confusion, I think, afterwards became bigger and bigger because a
number of issues emerged in litigation in various countries. One big
controversy was, since the word, beneficial ownership, is not explicitly defined
in the treaty, can you, in principle, just apply domestic law to explain what it
means?
Now, one of the countries which is very strong in favor of that view is the
United States. Because, of course, always, when possible, they like to explain
things according to their laws, and the rest of the world should better learn
about their laws if you want to know what your tax position is. So, that is a
strong statement for a number of countries, including the US. On the other
hand, there was a group stating that beneficial ownership should be given an
international meaning. In other words, which could deviate from the meaning
under the source state domestic law. That was one area of big controversy.
The other area of controversy was, is beneficial ownership only meant to be a
technical term, talking about who receives, so who can claim the benefits
because he receives the income, or is it a far broader anti-abuse concept? And
the problem with the latter is that it is then a kind of... So, the one thing you
can try to define and keep limited, but if you say it is a very broad anti-abuse
concept, where does it start and where does it end? So, it becomes like I
already illustrated the change in the commentary. So, any time the
commentaries may be changed to further stretch it out as an anti-abuse
provision.
Now, you know there were some old cases which deal with matters close to
this, like American Aken case and SDI case. But later on, it was followed by
much more intellectual kind of treaty shopping devices. And I refer to the
cases of the market maker decided in the Netherlands Supreme Court in
relation with the U.K. of market makers in which the Supreme Court rejected
a certain interpretation of beneficial ownership. In the case where coupons of
shares were sold and dividends were cashed on the coupons, the question
arose whether the coupon holder was the beneficial owner or not. That was an
interesting case. Later, we had the “food case”, a very interesting case, where
clearly the outcome was that beneficial ownership should have an
international meaning.
We had the very interesting Royal Bank of Scotland case. That is a case
decided by the French Supreme Administrative Court in relation to the U.K.
and the U.S. This was a setup... So, that was an approach, I think, a bit more
from the perspective of an abuse of law, an abuse of treaties. Although, of
course, in the end, they also mention that the true beneficiary of the dividends
was still the U.S. shareholders. And then we have one of the last important
cases, the so-called Prevost case, decided by Canadian courts. There is a bit of
a discussion in the literature on which basis the Prevost case was decided, but
there are several scholars and particularly also Canadians who say that, in
the end, the Canadian judge took domestic Canadian law as the rule for
deciding what beneficial ownership was.
So, in other words, what we see is a total mix of use, uncertainties and lots of
litigation. So, what does this OECD paper now do? The OECD paper, to
summarize it very briefly, states that beneficial ownership should be given an
international meaning because the notion was introduced with purpose to
clarify the notion "pay to" so that it should be given an international meaning
and subsequently the meaning they give is this narrow one, that it is only
dealing about who receives the income. So, what they say, and I just quote
that sentence, that the beneficial owner is the person who has the full right to
use and enjoy the income, unconstrained by contractual or legal obligation to
pass the payment received on to another person. And then they also say that if
such an obligation should not only be recognized in the case of legal
documents, like contracts, to pass it on, but it also may be decided on the
basis of facts and circumstances. So, even if there is no visible contract on
that, and they also said that you have to distinguish the ownership of the
income from the ownership of the underlying asset.
Of course, this would be a bad message for countries like the U.S. and other
countries who want to interpret this notion in a far broader sense. And OECD
is, of course, an organization which has to meet the wishes of 35 member
states. So, they make a very interesting turn afterwards. So, first you have
this, in my view, rather narrow interpretation; but then they say we should
then realize that this approach only tackles a very specific kind of abuse,
which is based on this passing on of the income but there are other kinds of
treaty shopping which do not follow this pattern. And I already mentioned to
you the construction of the use of fraud with coupons and others, which
probably cannot be combated on the basis of this approach. But then they say
this, of course, does not mean that countries cannot apply their general antiabuse doctrines in the case of treaty shopping. And then they refer to the
commentaries on Article 1 of the OECD model, which since 2003 provides
much more scope to countries to apply general anti-abuse concepts, of course,
always still within the context of the treaty.
So, what you see is they partly clarify and partly put the ball again on the
table of the problem of general anti-abuse which should, of course, stay within
the context of the treaty. So, this is, therefore, maybe not too bad news for
countries who have such clauses and can rely on such concepts. If you don't
have such concepts, then the narrow interpretation may be seen as less
satisfactory.
Now, what I want to generally say further about this is international
cooperation. So, how is it possible in international tax law that you have a
notion which is introduced by countries which are really thinking about these
matters and OECD in 1977, and it must take 30 years, more than 30 years, to
get such a notion clarified. Because it's not sure, this is a discussion
document, whether this will be the end of the story or whether they will have
such critical comments that they have to revise the approach and the report.
So, the question is, how can this happen and are there ways that these things
could be dealt with in a better way? And then I want to say a few words about
international cooperation.
What we see here is that the countries apparently have not been able to deal
with it in a period of 30 years creating a lot of uncertainty and litigation, but
that also the views of the judges in the various countries are quite different.
And then I would like to point to one of the initiations of the IBDT as founding
father of the International Association of Tax Judges, which was just
established and had its first meeting last year. Of course, it is an utopia to
think that judges from different states can be directly influenced by each
other. Of course, each has their own legal background, but it is very important
I think for creating a more general understanding and agreement of issues if
at least these judges are aware of each other's decisions and the arguments
used. So, in that context, this international association of judges could play a
very important role. And what I would like to do -- that's why I used this
opportunity -- to appeal also to Brazilian tax judges to become a member of
that association.
IBDT has agreed to provide the very valuable, expensive data base at very
favorable conditions or sometimes even for free to these judges of this
organization, to help in a way, to get more cooperation and understanding on
these issues.
The other area I would like to mention of international cooperation is also an
initiative which we took a few years ago, and that is to establish the European
Association of Tax Law Professors. I've already pointed out that I was a
speaker at all of the conferences wearing the tie. And an interesting thing -- I
was speaking to Professor Schoueri just a day ago, at high levels, because we
were having drinks on this 28th floor, so that is where you get your ideas. And
Professor Schoeri said that he was trying to develop an academic network
because the governments have their networks -- they have the UN, they have
the OECD. Now, the Judges will gradually have this and this is the other idea.
So, maybe if this is further elaborated, IBDT could also play a role like we did
with the European Association of Tax Law Professors to support, for instance,
an association of Latin American tax law professors or, if you have a broad
mind, not only Latin American but even Uncle Sam might be invited. I don't
know. That's up to these people.
So, those are my remarks about a topical issue, beneficial ownership, and a
document which is on the table and on international cooperation. If the
Chairman allows, I will say a few minutes something about thin capitalization.
Orador não identificado [00:55:28]: Yes, please.
Sr. Jan De Goede: And then you can take up anything you want for
discussion.
I was involved in the matters of thin capitalization already many years ago
because I worked for 19 years -- not 90. I may look a bit older, but I mean 19
years -- for the Dutch government and then I was a member of Working Party I
at the time OECD was dealing with thin capitalization problems.
Now what is the problem of thin capitalization? Is it a domestic problem? Is it
an international problem? It is partly a domestic problem, so generally not
because the core of thin capitalization is the difference between tax treatment
between equity capital and loan capital where, generally in countries,
dividends are not tax deductible from the profits whereas interest paid on
loans is. In other words, you can use that financing to reduce the taxable base
of a company. If you do that within your country, it means transfer of taxable
profit from one corporation to another so you would say, well, that makes no
sense because you know then you have a deduction against a corporate tax
rate of 30% here and you pay 30% there. But that is not entirely the case. It
may still be domestically interesting if, for instance, one company of a group
makes a profit and the other makes a loss and you don't have a system of
fiscal consolidation or group consolidation. Then you can, for instance, use
thin capitalization to make use of the losses which you have in one of the
companies. So, there could be domestic reasons as well to use high-debt
financing.
The big issue, however, is, of course, in an international context when you are
able to erode the tax base in one country by transferring profits by means of
deduction of interest in one country and transfer it to income in the other
country. And that is the type of base erosion which was worrying a lot of
countries. Now, when does that operate? When can you apply it if it is just
plain interest. The next step is if you transfer it abroad, what is the
withholding tax on the interest? What are the conditions of any treaty with the
recipient to reduce the withholding tax and, of course, secondly, for it to be
attractive, what is the taxation in the country of receipt of the interest?
And, in the primitive setups, that would be a taxation, a country with a
general low tax, but of course there were a lot of measures to combat that. It's
rather easy. So, it became more sophisticated. So you could transfer the
interest to a country which is a high taxing country -- maybe 30-40%
company tax -- but you would either have compensatory losses there or, for
instance, you would borrow the money again from somewhere else so you do
have a taxable base of the interest received, but you equally have a deduction
for interest paid. So, maybe you tax in the resident state 40%, but 40% of a
margin of almost nothing is nothing. 40% of nothing is nothing.
So, the more recent, more sophisticated ways to deal with these matters is not
with these, but it is to use hybrid financing instruments so that in one
country you can present it under the laws of that country as a loan so you can
deduct the interest; whereas in the other country, you could qualify it as a
contribution of capital and consider the same interest paid in one country as a
tax-deductible interest and in the other country, for instance, as a dividend.
And if you then select a country which applies a participation exemption, then
it means deduction here and no tax in the other country.
Now, there are a few countries, and I just heard a few minutes before our
meeting, that Brazil has a system where you can also have a deduction on
your taxable income in the case you use equity capital. If that is true, and I
know one other example of Belgium, that was the first country in Europe
which introduced something like this. I must make a small correction. That is
not entirely true. They gave it this format. In the past, when there was still
high inflation in Europe, there were also systems to reduce taxable income on
the basis of anti-inflation measures. So, it was not like interest in loan capital
given as a general deduction because of the use of capital, but then there were
certain tax breaks given to compensate for the fact that tax law usually has a
system of counting on a nominal basis for tax purposes, which would not do
justice to the economic principles of continuity of the business, which would
actually, from an economic perspective, require accounting taking into
account inflationary attacks, which you should not tax. So, it was not the first
time that something like that was done, but in this form, for Belgium, it was a
special case.
So, does that now mean, if you have a system like that, that thin capitalization
is not relevant anymore? That is a difficult question. At first glance, because I
say the root of the problem of thin cap is the difference in treatment between
equity and loan capital, at first glance I would have the impression that it
takes away a lot of the problem and the importance of thin capitalization
problem. The only reason why I gave you my long introduction speaking about
deductibility here, treatment under treaties and treatment in the other
country is that I cannot just overview in a few minutes -- like I just was
informed about this deductibility of part of remuneration on equity capital
briefly before our meeting -- I cannot fully grasp yet whether there could still
be cases where you could still exploit, if there is no thin capitalization rule, the
deductibility in the source state in combination with requalification and things
in the other state. I cannot yet oversee that. I did not give that problem
enough thought yet.
So, this is my small contribution to your meeting, and I would like to stress,
too, that I like this very much. I like this setting, I like this format that you
have these regular meetings with an open exchange of views. And I think a lot
of countries and people would be envious of an IBDT and its Board and its
members who are such active people on tax. Mr. Chairman.
(Applauses)
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Schoueri.
Sr. Luís Eduardo Schoueri: I would first like to say, thank you for being here
because, as I told you, your concrete evidence of the cooperation between
IBFD and IBDT, that this cooperation is much longer than that... Your
presence is very important, but also in our library we have here a full
subscription of IBFD since 2002. Several of our members did not have the
opportunity of knowing that data base that you mention is for free to the
associates here in the library and whoever once entered our library and
entered the data base, I'm certain that they would do this again and again and
again because it's very good. We are very proud of being a donor of IBFD in the
scientific projects and I am also very glad that your presence here for three
times shows that IBFD also believes in IBDT and that this cooperation will go
longer.
Talking about more scientific issues which you mentioned, the second one just
mentioned is the idea of the cap. I would like to mention that there may be
some space for thin cap rules, since our interests on owned capital, as we call
it here, has an advantage. I mean, you're really not paying as much as you
wish, so there is some space. On the other hand, pleasantly considering the
interest rate in Brazil compared to Libor rates, which are international, it does
not seem convenient for a good tax planner to make a loan inside of Brazil
instead of having owned equity because owned equity would be remunerated
and deducted to 6% a year while, if you would apply Libor, it would be 3% a
year. So, pleasantly, I would say that these rules with complication for actual
operations and it makes no sense for those who would make some kind of a
tax arbitrage. So, I mean, pleasantly, it was on the best occasion for him to
introduce such a complication. You just brought compliance rules, compliance
costs with no sense. It was done, and I criticized it very much, and especially
for these reasons.
But I would like to use the first lesson, this idea of beneficial ownership, and
try to bring this to our case. First, I would say I was very glad with this paper
with what you call a narrow concept of beneficial owner, which I'm
reproducing here for everybody to know that beneficial owner of the dividends,
the thing you'll find for ages with regard to royalties because the provision is
very alike. One has the full right to use and enjoy the dividend unconstrained
by contractual or legal obligation to pass the payment received to another
person. This is very straight and, of course, most of treaty shopping operations
would pass through such a test, a stepping stone company and so on, they
would pass through this test meaning that treaty shopping is not an issue to
be achieved through the beneficial ownership, according to this position. And
the OECD says that countries may use their internal rules, which I do not
agree. I must say I do not agree that internal rules might be applied to avoid
applying a treaty. I believe that if you want to constrain treaty shopping, you
should have rules in the treaty. If you want -- I want to say something -- if you
want, because there is an Argentinean decision which says it may be even
interesting -- I mean, it's not clear for me and it was almost 20 years ago. I
made my doctorate with Professor Rothmann here where I sustained that
treaty shopping is not necessarily an issue to be combated. It could be
interesting.
But nevertheless, I'd like to hear you and to exploit that about the
interpretation within the time, I mean dynamic versus static interpretation.
So, meaning if you have a concept now, whether or not you may apply this
concept to treaties which were celebrated where this agreement did not exist.
Perhaps you could mention something about this. Of course, we know OECD
believes in dynamic interpretation. But I would like to hear what your
scientific position is concerning dynamic interpretation.
Second question: We know that Article 3 (2) of the OECD treaty say that
internal law may play some role, at least if you are the source state. My
question now, if I'm allowed to, would you apply this new approach to a case
in which the source country would decide whether somebody who is a resident
of the residence country is the beneficial owner. The new approach is clear to
say that the source country is the one to decide, but is it not also in the case
in which you are deciding about a qualification of somebody who is not in the
source country but rather in the residence country?
Third question...
Sr. Jan De Goede: How many questions? There is a time limit, you know. At
some stage, it's over.
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: But the third question (because
they are combined): We have now in Brazil a definition in tax law, Article 26 of
Law 12249 providing for the definition of beneficial owner. And it's an even
narrower definition if you compare it to OECD. This is tax law, this is Brazilian
tax law. This has to do with the deduction of expenses to tax payments. It
doesn't have to do with tax treaties. But my question is, when Article 3 (2)
says you apply internal definitions of tax law, is this also true in the case of a
definition not specific for the treaties but it's for another context, would you
apply it also?
Sr. Jan De Goede: Can I please answer that before taking other questions
because, otherwise, the questions pile up a little bit too much.
First of all, your remark about treaty shopping. Well, you are talking to a
Dutchman. A Flying Dutchman occasionally. And you know my country is
used for very bona fide and very good economic reasons. We have very large
companies, etc. But it is also used for things like treaty shopping because we
have a very good international tax treaty network. And so we are confronted
many times also with attitudes of countries which are a bit hippocras, like the
U.S. They are the champion of fighting treaty shopping, but for many years
there was a very favorable way of treaty shopping via the Dutch Antilles and
even after they formally ended that treaty, they allowed a grandfather for 1015 years simply because it was too advantageous for their own companies to
attract money and favorable circumstances.
You know there was a case which I didn't mention, which is the Mill case in
Canada, where one of the courts even explicitly said treaty shopping is okay.
It's the behavior or a normal businessman. If you do your shopping -- and I
hate shopping, actually -- but treaty shopping is something which I make an
exception for. So that's why I was very worried when my suitcase didn't arrive
in São Paulo. Because the idea, even if they would give me money like that,
that I would have to go shopping to buy all new clothes made me very
unhappy. But so in the Mill case, it is even expressed that treaty shopping is a
normal economic behavior.
Now, about dynamic and static interpretation, of course it depends very much
on how you see the rule of law and how you see the importance in society of
law. So, theoretically, you would be inclined to look at the static interpretation
first. At first glance, at the time the treaty was concluded, certain notions had
a certain meaning and you based partly your agreement and your treaty upon
the expectation of how these notions would be interpreted at that time. On the
other hand, and that's where I say something which, for a person who is a
professor, is maybe a curse, but tax law is on the one hand a science, because
we take complexity to an intellectual level. But on the other hand, it is also a
pragmatic tool for governments to levy taxes. So, it should also be practical
and, if you then realize that if you would really apply a static approach and
then realize that the life cycle of treaties, because of the complexities of
negotiating them, is very long, 20-30 years, then it would in practice be almost
impossible to apply tax treaties because many notions in treaties inevitably
cannot be defined in the treaty. So, you have to partly rely and partly accept
that there are changes which you take into account, not to freeze and to make
the things too static.
Of course, and that is very important in the context of Article 3 (2), there are
these words which a number of countries don't want to read. So, I am
lecturing many times all over the world, and then they say -- recently, I had
some experiences like that and maybe not to be quoted anywhere because it's
a very big country, where I was faced with Chinese people saying: 3 (2), we can
just apply our domestic law anyway. And then I said, I beg your pardon. It
says within the context of the treaty. And there is clear wording in the
commentaries that the context is the other thing, is the background, etc, but
also has an underlying principle of reciprocity.
So, I give always a simple example because Dutch people are very down-toearth people. In the Netherlands, we have cows and we have horses. And the
smallest child in the Netherlands can distinguish between what is a cow and
what is a horse. So, what is not allowed under 3 (2), because it is more
advantageous for treaty allocation to say, as from today, all horses under our
law are considered to be cows and then apply a treaty on cows.
But this is what effectively has happened in a country like Malaysia with
technical service fees. And, as I understand, effectively also the position in
Brazil in a number of cases, technical services are not part of business profit.
It is a separate category, and then I can simply apply Article 21. So, I agree
that also the theoretical idea is that there should be some flexibility to make it
work and, in the end, treaties are made not to put over your bed as an
achievement, this is what I concluded, they must be able to be operated in
practice. But we must not forget this requirement of the context.
So, I told the Chinese guy, unfortunately, I have to tell you -- I hope he doesn't
recognize me. There are many Chinese, you know. If they turn against you,
you don't stand much of a chance. But it doesn't give a “carte blanche”. It does
not give a full “carte blanche”.
Then I think I have also tackled a bit your question about 3 (2). The one is a
matter of the dynamics of the commentary. Basically, I think the same type of
consideration applies. For time's sake, I will not go into that much detail.
Then about domestic definition, narrower or broader, you have a definition
which is narrower. The Dutch introduced, after the two market maker case
law decisions of the Supreme Court, which were unfavorable for the tax
exchequer, a far broader notion of beneficial owner, an anti-abuse legislation,
which in fact in wording is speaking about if there is a set of transactions
whereby, effectively, a payment is made to an owner of income which
temporarily transfers the income somewhere else but, in the end, remains
entitled to the underlying assets, that, in that case, the person collecting the
income is not considered the beneficial owner.
So, actually, that is more a kind of codification of an abuse-of-law concept. So,
your theoretical question about what legislation does the source state apply if
it is really the only 3 (2), then in principle one can look at whether the
definition of beneficial owner is defined under domestic law. So, then you
would be inclined to take a look at where it is defined, and you know the idea
of 3 (2) is that maybe it may not be in your company tax law, but it may even
be in another law, you take the most specific law for that purpose. Now, if it is
not on this very particular item, then you can even go to other legislation. You
might even go to the idea of pension to social security legislation if you don't
have a definition in your tax law.
Now, I interpret the paper, however, in such a way that if this is accepted and
spelled out -- and I, indeed, will be one of the parties to give a formal comment
on it -- if it is explained as it is, then only the narrow definition would apply
because OECD claims this is not a matter of 3 (2) anymore. We now say that
beneficial ownership has an international meaning and they explain the
context to be the narrow one.
So, this narrow provision would fit in. But the Dutch one which I just
mentioned probably could partly be seen as too broad a definition of beneficial
ownership, which means that the Dutch could fight on the basis of beneficial
ownership the pure case of contractual obligation or legal obligation to pass on
the income. So, that part could be covered. But other cases, like the one of the
market maker, where the ownership of the coupons was sold, and it was a
matter whether the person collecting the difference on the coupons it had
acquired ownership of, I think that that could probably not be combated
under this new OECD approach. And then the only possibility to fight it, if you
want to, would be under this general anti-abuse, which, as I said, formulated
in Dutch law, already comes close to a kind of wording of a substance-overform approach.
But I agree with you, and in that sense we will criticize this document, also,
that it seems to provide guidance, and it does in this narrow definition of
beneficial ownership, but by immediately on the other hand stressing that the
countries are able to apply in specific types their more broad anti-abuse
legislation, you create a new area of uncertainty because they question will
then be the commentary on Article 1 is nice, it sounds nice, but if I have to
explain to the students, I can explain to them how beautifully lawyers can
draft wording like on the commentary on Article 1. But the other question is,
what does it exactly mean? And I think it may create a lot of uncertainty in the
application of international treaties. So, I hope this has given some answers or
some ideas on your question.
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Okay. I would like to ask you a
very simple question, but we are dealing with some problems with the tax
authorities in Brazil about the holdings. I am not talking about abuses. Let's
think about a regular one, vis-à-vis the beneficial owner. Do you have some
comment?
Sr. Jan De Goede: Well, if you ask a Dutchman, a holding is a holding. And if
it is a real holding in the sense that it holds the shares of a company, then, in
principle, under our case law and under our perception, that is a valid
economic operation. Because if you have a group company, you must organize
it and you must be able to control the various subsidiaries. So, in our view, a
regular holding company, which holds the shares of various group companies,
performs a valid economic function.
You can even see that -- and that's a rather special thing. You know, we are
very kind people and we have to be because we're too small to be nasty. We
cannot afford the times of the 17th century when we sent fleets to countries
where we didn't agree to. Those times have passed, you know. Although we are
again in NATO fighting pirates in the African seas like we did a few hundred
years ago, so it seems times have not really changed. But, okay, we cannot
afford to be so nasty.
But in our negotiation with the United States, to witness our view of holding,
we are the only country, as far as I know, which has been able to negotiate in
the LOB provisions a very specific provision granting treaty benefits to holding
companies. I think we're the only one. But it does not mean a holding
company with one subsidiary or two. There are very strict rules that it really
must be a regional holding company. So, of course, as compromise with the
U.S., you need to have a holding which has a certain number of subsidiaries
within certain regions of the world so that you can really say this is an
operation in a group company, it's not a pure tax-motivated single holding
company. So, in that sense, I think there should be room to accept that
holding companies can be the beneficial owners of income.
And I would like to take this opportunity that you say you tried to talk with
the tax administration, an organization like ICC are also a bit worried about
certain aspects of Brazilian law, particularly cross-border situations. So, I
know that they are looking into the possibility to get into a dialog with the
Brazilian tax authorities about a number of issues. And I don't know, I have to
be very careful, I'm here as a guest and I don't know enough about your
country, but my impression from the outside is that your tax authorities are
very difficult to approach and that they even hide behind walls and it's very
difficult to get over the wall, it may be dangerous because you don't know
what's on the other side of the wall.
So, I think that is certainly an issue to be taken into account for the future
because, when we talk about international cooperation, when we talk about
interpretation of treaties and it's inevitable that you must leave your own
castle and go to the open and those countries leave their own castle and there
is a playing ground. It doesn't mean that you always have to agree with each
other. If you hit the person on the nose and you have a black eye, maybe you
safely return to your castle. But in the end, shooting at each other from
castles doesn't solve the problem. So, I hope there will be possibilities to create
a more safe environment because I think that's what you need for the tax
authorities. Don't invite them in an aggressive atmosphere because then they
will immediately -- I was working for the government for 19 years. So, I got a
bit of the psychology of it. Don't force them to make policy statements on the
spot. Don't go to them aggressively, even if you don't like what they do
because then they will immediately go back to the castle. So, I think you
should have a kind of peace talk in a relaxed atmosphere. You cannot be
bound immediately by whatever you say as a first start of getting more familiar
with more open talks with each other.
Orador não identificado: [pronunciamento em outro idioma – 1:27:16]
Sr. Gerd Willi Rothmann: Only as a last issue, I know about the Brazilian tax
authorities, and their castle is called “sovereignty”. We can't talk because we
are a sovereign state and our officials have no possibility to dispose or to make
some concessions or things like that. That's a big problem. So, you have no
basis today to discuss with -- mainly, one of the reasons of the termination of
the tax agreement with Germany. They simply didn't discuss it. They were not
willing to sit together at a table and discuss the issues. So, we are speaking
about arbitration and so on. It's poetic, but not practical. It has no practical
basis to get to an international arbitration or anything like that if you even are
not willing to sit at the table.
Sr. Jan De Goede: Let me say something about that. You say the argument is
sovereignty. Well, do you think the U.S. doesn't consider itself a sovereign
state or the Netherlands or Germany or whatever country? The fact that you
are a sovereign state doesn't mean that you cannot talk with other people and
the sovereignty does not only mean that you do things only your own way but
it is the same sovereignty in constitutions and in treaties which allows you to
compromise and to find ways to bridge the gap. Because, as I tell you, if
everybody stays in the castle and keeps shooting at each other, you will never
solve the problem. That's one issue.
The other issue is there was a time that you were safe in your castle. So, you
just closed the doors and you were in your castle and you could feel safe. I can
tell you anybody today who still feels safe in a castle is actually telling a fancy
story to himself because the times are far gone that you can lock yourself up
in your castle. There are many more ways of international globalization,
digitalization of information, delivery of products even via the internet,
communication. There are so many things today which are not compatible
with the idea of the castle that I think it is just a matter of time that you
realize that you are not in a castle. And then, yes, a lot of countries take then
a more pragmatic view.
So, maybe you don't like the position of the country, you're even absolutely
against it. You can understand when we negotiated with the United States on
the revision of the tax treaty, that took 25 years of negotiation. But you do it
in mutual respect.
And I must say that I was in these negotiations and sometimes they were very
tough, really tough, that we really had to show the U.S. maybe we are small,
but if we've got the better arguments, we can still beat you in some respects.
But still today, after so many years, when I meet people who were in the
negotiations, we greet each other as friends because you respect each other's
arguments and you just try to find a workable compromise for business, for
taxpayers and for government. So, it is really something I like to visit castles
very much, very interesting. But to be locked up in a castle, no. Not for me.
Sr. Gerd Willi Rothmann: It's very interesting, what you said about this
negotiation with the States. But I think that they haven't realized what is the
meaning of a tax agreement. Because a tax agreement means that we must
speak about our sovereignty. And if we signed the convention, we gave up
some part of our sovereignty. So, when there is some doubt about
interpretation, how can you say, no, we can't sit down because this affects our
sovereignty? I think it's nonsense. It's simply nonsense.
When I expressed my opinion for a higher official of the tax administration,
and I told you must think using your image of a castle, now you are mainly a
source country. But the investments, Brazilian investments, are increasing
and you are growing, you are becoming a resident country with your
subsidiaries. What will happen then? You must change your position.
Nowadays, we are still more a source country than a resident country. When it
will change, we will change our mind. Okay. That's legal interpretation of
Brazilian tax authorities. And the discussion ends with this.
Sr. Jan De Goede: Well, I can make the example much more dangerous than
the castle if you need to discuss it with people. What about your marriage? So,
now I am coming to the core matters in life. Did I have sovereignty as a man?
Did my wife have sovereignty as a lady? Why on earth did I get married? Why
did I give up so much of my sovereignty? And I did get some things in return,
you know. I'm married for 28 years. So, you don't hear me complaining. And I
want this to be noted clearly, to not have a misunderstanding, but why do you
give up some kinds of sovereignty? Because you can see at some stage the
mutual benefit of doing it. And that is the same. So, I don't only use the castle,
which is maybe a bit aggressive kind of image, but I also look at the marriage.
So, why do you marry with one person and not with another one? Because it
takes two to tango and you think together you can do a beneficial deal. Look
at the European Union. We had one of the countries in Europe we could not
make a tax treaty with. One of the only ones in Europe. Which country?
Portugal. Portugal, because Portugal was insisting on a source-based taxation.
Okay. It's up to them, until a certain period of time. Now, it's over in the
European Union. But what did they do? They granted certain treatment to the
U.S. and then we were negotiating with the Portuguese and we said, okay, we
want this, too. No, you don't get it. Then we said, impossible. Never a treaty.
We will not go to Parliament with a treaty with another European state which
is less favorable than what you granted to the United States. So, it was a nogo.
Well, that was really for years a big controversy between the very sourceoriented people, and in the end, the castle is destroyed because we have the
parent subsidiary interest and royalty directed. Why did countries surrender
in that respect to their sovereignty? Because, economically, it was shown that
the European Union as a whole would grow substantially economically if these
barriers were taken away.
So, another example where economic effects show that giving up some of your
sovereignty doesn't only mean a loss but you can make a profit out of it as
well.
Sr. Presidente Ricardo Mariz de Oliveira: Unfortunately, we are running out
of time. I'm very glad to have you with us. Thank you for your lessons.
I would like to remind my fellow countrymen that, unfortunately, we had the
chance very recently to hear about this bullshit -- excuse me about the word,
but bullshit -- in the Supreme Court very recently on a known tax matter. We
have a research made by our association about the international cases
regarding the beneficial owner. It's publishing our review number, tax review
23. So, we can read the details and I would like to hear from you in the near
future about your experience. It would be very good for us.
Thank you very much. We will meet next week, we will have a holiday. But we
have the last meeting of this term on the 13th. Okay?
FIM
Eu, Paulo Torres, estenotipista, declaro que este documento, segundo minhas maiores
habilidades, é fiel ao áudio fornecido. Revisado por ACV.
Texto sem revisão dos autores.
A presente transcrição apenas visa a ampliar o acesso à
Mesa de Debates, dada a natureza informal dos debates e a
falta de revisão.
O INSTITUTO BRASILEIRO DE DIREITO TRIBUTÁRIO não
recomenda que seja a transcrição utilizada como fonte de
referência bibliográfica.