Categoria: English

  • STF Resumes Trial on ITBI Tax Immunity for Real Estate Companies

    STF Resumes Trial on ITBI Tax Immunity for Real Estate Companies

    The STF (Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court) recently resumed the trial regarding tax immunity from the Municipal Real Estate Transfer Tax (ITBI). The focus of the analysis is the application of this tax rule to property transfers used to pay up share capital in real estate companies.

    The Background of the Discussion

    Capital contribution occurs when an investor or partner transfers an asset, such as real estate, to a company in exchange for equity. The current debate before the STF centers on whether municipalities can levy ITBI when this transaction involves companies whose main activity is real estate, such as real estate management and brokerage firms.

    Business leaders are closely monitoring the court’s decision, as it directly impacts structuring and reorganization costs for businesses focused on real estate assets and holding companies.

    Next Steps

    With the resumption of the trial, the market awaits further developments and the court’s final ruling. The decision is expected to establish clear guidelines and bring greater legal certainty regarding the limits of municipal taxation on the incorporation and expansion of companies in this sector.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • STJ Excludes Withholding Tax from the Base Limit for Deducting Interest on Equity (JCP)

    STJ Excludes Withholding Tax from the Base Limit for Deducting Interest on Equity (JCP)

    The Superior Court of Justice (STJ, Brazil’s highest appellate court for non-constitutional federal matters) issued a ruling with a direct impact on corporate tax practices. The court determined, by majority vote, that Withholding Income Tax (IRRF) borne by the legal entity must not be excluded from the calculation base that limits the deduction of Interest on Equity (JCP).

    What are JCP and IRRF?

    Interest on Equity (Juros sobre Capital Próprio – JCP) is a mechanism to remunerate partners and shareholders in Brazil. For the distributing company, this amount can be deducted for tax purposes, subject to a statutory limit based on the company’s profits.

    On the other hand, IRRF is the tax withheld at the time of payment. The dispute before the court was whether this tax amount, when assumed directly by the distributing company, should be deducted from the profit that serves as the ceiling for JCP deductibility.

    The STJ Decision

    The majority of the justices concluded that IRRF should not be subtracted from the profit used as the base for this limit. In practice, the decision clarifies how companies must calculate their deductibility ceiling, offering guidance for the financial planning of businesses that use JCP to distribute earnings to investors.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • STJ exempts booking platform from liability for inn fire

    STJ exempts booking platform from liability for inn fire

    The 3rd Panel of the Superior Court of Justice (STJ, Brazil’s superior court for non-constitutional federal law) issued a relevant decision for the technology and tourism sectors by exempting the platform Booking from liability for losses suffered after a fire at an inn.

    Limits of intermediation services

    The case analyzed by the court addressed the scope of liability for companies operating in the digital environment that connect consumers to physical service providers. According to the judges of the 3rd Panel, the damage caused by the fire occurred exclusively during the stay.

    The core rationale of the decision is that the incident had no relation to the service provided by the platform. In this scenario, the technology company’s role was limited to booking intermediation and did not cover the operation of the physical establishment or the safety guarantees of the inn’s facilities.

    Impact for digital platforms

    The ruling reinforces the distinction between digital search and booking services and the final service actually consumed. For investors and executives of digital platforms, the precedent demonstrates an analysis by the STJ that confines liability to the exact scope of the economic activity performed by the tech company, avoiding liability for events outside its operational control.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • End of the Import Tax Exemption for Small Parcels: Platforms Held Liable for Fraud

    End of the Import Tax Exemption for Small Parcels: Platforms Held Liable for Fraud

    Brazil’s National Congress approved the end of the levy popularly known as the “taxa das blusinhas”, which applied to certain low-value international purchases. The decision brings significant changes not only for consumers, but primarily for the operations of domestic and foreign e-commerce companies active in the country.

    Liability of Digital Platforms

    A central aspect of the congressional approval is placing a higher compliance burden on technology companies. The approved text establishes the direct liability of e-commerce platforms in cases involving fraud or piracy.

    In practice, this means companies intermediating cross-border purchases will need to reinforce internal controls and seller verification mechanisms. The goal is to ensure a secure digital environment where listed products comply with intellectual property regulations and commercial anti-fraud laws.

    Periodic Review and Protection of the Domestic Market

    The approved tax exemption is neither absolute nor permanent. The new rule establishes a safeguard mechanism for domestic industry and retail, requiring periodic assessments of the practical economic impact of the exemption in Brazil.

    If these evaluations demonstrate that the domestic market is being negatively affected by the inflow of tax-exempt foreign goods, the Ministry of Finance holds the legal authority to reinstate the tax. This flexibility allows the government to adjust fiscal policy according to economic dynamics and competition between local retailers and cross-border sellers.

    E-commerce platforms and foreign investors in digital retail should establish robust anti-fraud and anti-piracy policies to mitigate operational risks in Brazil, while closely monitoring upcoming reviews by the Ministry of Finance.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • Cade Denies Keeta’s Request Against 99Food Exclusivity Agreements

    Cade (Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense) denied a request submitted by Keeta against 99Food. The case involves a dispute over exclusivity contracts in the delivery app sector.

    Deepening of the Investigation

    Despite the denial of the initial request, the matter will remain under review by the antitrust authority. The reporting commissioner ordered Cade’s General Superintendence to deepen the investigation into the contracts at issue.

    The measure aims to enable a more detailed assessment of the practices adopted, seeking to understand the impacts of these agreements on the digital platform market.

    Scrutiny on the Tech Sector

    Scrutiny over exclusivity agreements demonstrates ongoing attention to commercial arrangements in the app sector. The proceedings conducted by the General Superintendence will help clarify the principles applied to antitrust analysis in this market segment.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • Illegality of using personal data for real estate prospecting

    Illegality of using personal data for real estate prospecting

    The use of individual information for commercial purposes requires caution and compliance with applicable regulations. A report published by legal news outlet Consultor Jurídico highlights that processing personal data for real estate prospecting is an illegal practice.

    The intersection between data and the real estate sector

    Real estate prospecting consists of actively searching for potential property buyers, sellers, or tenants. Historically, this activity relied on collecting contact details and profile information to target offers. However, the processing of personal data—which encompasses the collection, storage, and use of such information—is subject to strict limits.

    When companies or professionals in the real estate sector use databases to approach individuals without proper legal backing, the practice crosses the line of legality. Classifying this conduct as illegal reinforces the need for transparency and respect for data subjects’ privacy.

    Impact on commercial outreach

    The determination that using personal data for real estate prospecting constitutes an illegality serves as an alert for the market. The sector must structure its marketing and sales campaigns to avoid violating data protection rules. This means customer acquisition must occur through methods that do not rely on the irregular use of personal information.

    Real estate firms, developers, and brokers must evaluate the source of the contact lists they use and their commercial outreach methods, ensuring that their operations do not depend on improper data processing to offer properties.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • FTC and States Sue Amazon Over Hidden Ad Fees

    The US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), together with Attorneys General from 22 US states, has filed a lawsuit against Amazon. The legal action challenges the company’s pricing model in its digital advertising auctions.

    Allegations of Deceptive Practices

    The core of the lawsuit brought by the FTC and the states centers on allegations that Amazon engaged in unfair and deceptive business practices. According to regulators, the company concealed charges within the pricing system of its digital ad auctions.

    The lawsuit alleges that this secret fee scheme resulted in the artificial inflation of prices paid by advertisers. In e-commerce platforms, search auctions (the mechanism where advertisers bid to appear in search results) are crucial for product visibility. The complaint asserts that the lack of transparency in this mechanism harmed participants by covertly raising costs.

    Transparency in Advertising Auctions

    The case reflects growing regulatory scrutiny over transparency across digital platforms. The ad auction model is widely used across the tech sector and requires clear rules so that advertisers can understand the breakdown of charges.

    When platforms operate with opaque pricing mechanisms, advertisers lose the ability to accurately assess the real return on their media investments. The FTC’s initiative indicates that regulatory agencies are willing to closely scrutinize the financial architecture of these advertising systems to ensure a fair business environment.

    Practical Considerations

    For executives, marketing professionals, and technology investors, the action against Amazon serves as a cautionary tale regarding digital platform governance. Companies managing advertising inventory and auction systems must prioritize clarity in their terms of service and in how they communicate their fee structures.

    • Cost Clarity: It is essential that all fees and variables that make up an ad’s final price are understandable to corporate users.
    • Regulatory Compliance: Constantly reviewing pricing practices helps mitigate the risk of investigations into unfair practices.
    • Operational Transparency: Openness strengthens the relationship between the platform and advertisers, ensuring predictability for the business model.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • iFood files complaint with Cade against Keeta for predatory pricing

    iFood files complaint with Cade against Keeta for predatory pricing

    Competition in the delivery market

    The delivery app market in Brazil is subject to new regulatory scrutiny. As reported by legal news portal Migalhas, iFood has filed a complaint with the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (Cade — Brazil’s antitrust authority) against competitor app Keeta. The central accusation involves alleged predatory pricing practices.

    The role of Cade

    Cade is Brazil’s national antitrust authority. Its role is to ensure free competition in the market by investigating and sanctioning conduct that may harm the business environment. When a company identifies potential anticompetitive behavior by a competitor, it may petition the authority to investigate the facts.

    The concept of predatory pricing

    Under antitrust law, predatory pricing occurs when a company sells products or services at artificially low prices, often below operational costs. The purpose of this strategy is to drive competitors out of the market. Once a monopoly or dominant position is secured, the offending company raises prices, ultimately harming end consumers.

    The complaint brought by iFood against Keeta will require Cade to examine market conditions and cost structures to determine whether there is an actual violation of the economic order or merely an aggressive market entry strategy.

    Regulatory perspectives

    This case illustrates the ongoing regulatory attention on the technology and digital platform sector in Brazil. Scrutiny from antitrust authorities is a key consideration for investors and companies operating or planning to enter the Brazilian market, requiring compliance with local competition rules.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • NNN Agreements and Manufacturing Contracts in China: How They Work

    NNN Agreements and Manufacturing Contracts in China: How They Work

    Companies seeking to manufacture custom products in China often face a contractual question when structuring their international operations: is it necessary to execute an NNN Agreement (Non-Disclosure, Non-Use, and Non-Circumvention) or a Manufacturing Contract? In most cross-border operations, the answer is that both are necessary, but applied at different project stages to ensure operational security.

    The role of the NNN Agreement in the evaluation phase

    An NNN Agreement must be put in place before any sensitive information is shared with prospective factories under evaluation. During the selection process for a manufacturer in China, disclosing sufficient data for the factory to assess costs and technical feasibility is inevitable.

    This data may include designs, specifications, prototypes, formulas, or client lists. The NNN Agreement ensures that the factory not only maintains confidentiality (Non-Disclosure), but is also prohibited from using the information for its own benefit (Non-Use) or circumventing the buyer to sell directly to clients (Non-Circumvention).

    The Manufacturing Contract after selecting the factory

    Once the ideal manufacturer is selected, the Manufacturing Contract comes into play. This document must be executed before paying for tooling or molds, sending deposits, or beginning production. It governs critical operational aspects such as quality standards, delivery timelines, ownership of tooling, intellectual property protection, and penalties for non-compliance.

    In some situations, a single contract can fulfill both functions. If the factory has already been selected and a comprehensive Manufacturing Contract can be executed before sensitive data is disclosed, the protective NNN provisions can be integrated into it, making a separate agreement unnecessary. On the other hand, for low-volume purchases of off-the-shelf products where nothing of value is revealed, the required contractual complexity may be lower.

    Properly identifying the Chinese company

    Before drafting any clause, it is essential to identify the correct legal entity to be bound by the contract. Foreign buyers often make the mistake of negotiating with an English-speaking representative, a sourcing agent, or a Hong Kong-based trading company, assuming they are dealing with the actual factory.

    Often, the mainland entity that receives the technical designs and runs the production line is a distinct legal entity and has signed no documents. This creates severe risks, such as holding a contract with one company while another retains the molds and technical files necessary to transfer production elsewhere.

    To avoid this scenario, the mainland company must be identified by its exact registered Chinese name and registration details, including the Unified Social Credit Code. An English name on an invoice, an e-commerce page, or a website does not necessarily identify the operating legal entity.

    The importance of the company chop and the risks of generic templates

    For mainland Chinese counterparties, the verified entity must affix its official seal (company chop) to the contract. It is necessary to confirm that the Chinese name on the chop matches the verified company. This provides the best evidence that the company itself agreed to the terms and eliminates future disputes regarding signatory authority.

    In this context, using contract templates downloaded from the internet carries significant risks. A generic English-language Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) may seem adequate, but it often binds the wrong entity, omits essential non-use and non-circumvention protections, and submits disputes to forums with no practical connection to the factory or its assets.

    Practical takeaway

    Structuring industrial operations in China requires technical precision in identifying the counterparty and selecting the appropriate timing for each contractual instrument. The coordinated, sequential use of NNN Agreements and Manufacturing Contracts establishes a solid legal foundation for protecting intangible assets, managing quality control, and ensuring the operational continuity of overseas production.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.

  • ITBI on Capital Contributions Using Real Estate

    The Dynamics of Capital Contribution

    Structuring new businesses or expanding companies in Brazil requires the formation of share capital. This capital represents the resources that partners and investors deliver to the company so it can operate. The delivery of these resources is known in the corporate environment as capital contribution (integralização de capital).

    Although it is common for this transaction to occur through financial transfers, practice allows partners to use physical assets, such as real estate properties, to compose their equity interest in the company. This is a frequent strategy for both local founders and foreign investors allocating assets in the country.

    The Role of ITBI in Real Estate Transfers

    In Brazil, the transfer of real estate ownership between individuals or companies usually triggers the levy of the Municipal Real Estate Transfer Tax (ITBI, Imposto sobre a Transmissão de Bens Imóveis).

    However, capital contribution operations have specific rules. As reported by the legal portal Consultor Jurídico, a clear guideline indicates that ITBI does not apply to the difference in property value during the capital contribution process.

    What Does the Difference in Value Mean?

    In corporate practice, a property may have different values depending on the metric used. There may be the historical acquisition value, the declared value, and the updated market value.

    When the property is transferred to the company, the non-incidence of ITBI on this difference in value provides greater predictability for the operation. This means the tax should not be levied on the margin exceeding the value effectively used for the paid-in quotas or shares of the company.

    Impact for Investors and Founders

    For executives, managers, and investors structuring operations in Brazil, a proper understanding of transaction costs is fundamental. The non-imposition of tax on the difference in value of properties used to form corporate capital directly affects corporate financial planning.

    This guideline offers a clearer scenario for using real estate assets in corporate transactions, avoiding unforeseen costs during the capitalization phase of the business.

    This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For guidance on specific matters, consult a qualified lawyer.