EN 
BR 
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hello, Douglas! Thank you for contacting us!
From our practical experience with American rules, yes, rental income from Brazil is taxable in the United States for those who are considered tax residents there. The US tax residency rules are very different from ours, and have to do with US citizenship, type of visa for non-citizens and length of stay in US territory. By reciprocity, the 15% of tax in Brazil can be deducted from income tax federal American tax, but not state or municipal tax, if any. It's worth checking where you'll be living to get an idea of the total income tax.
Feel free to contact us by email or WhatsApp if you need our work.
Hello, Priscilla! Thank you very much for your interest!
Thinking first about double tax residency without an international agreement, each country will calculate its own income tax using the progressive table, according to the rules in Brazil and the other country. If there is reciprocity, the tax paid in one country can be used as a credit to reduce the tax in the other. In Brazil, you have to report the foreign income and the tax paid abroad in order to take the credit.
When it comes to the international agreement, it's the same thing, but the agreement in question can bring extra benefits that Brazilian law hasn't provided for. To this end, all agreements include an article with "tie-breaker rules", precisely to solve problems of double tax residence. It then depends on the situation envisaged in the agreement between Brazil and the specific country.
I hope I've helped! If you need support, just contact us by WhatsApp or email!
Hello, Victor! Thank you for your interest!
This is a very common situation, precisely because the IRS doesn't provide good guidance on how to comply with the proxy rules. What's more, the law was made in the 1940s, when what you're doing (preparing and paying a DARF form via Internet Banking, in real time) wouldn't even have been possible to imagine.
Legally, the tax obligation is extinguished if the taxpayer has fulfilled the task that would have fallen to the tax substitute (the attorney). So I'd say there are no problems. The important thing is to make sure that you are paying the DARF form using the correct non-resident code and to know if the amount of income requires you to submit the Dirf (Withholding Tax Return).
If you need support, just contact us by WhatsApp or email!
Hello, Don!
The Supreme Court has concluded its ruling that when the donor is domiciled abroad, and not in Brazil, the state cannot charge ITCMD on the donation. This should last as long as there is no complementary law allowing this. In this respect, I would say that this point is positive. Exchange remittances on donations received from abroad are also subject to IOF.
Regarding the account issue, the best recommendation is usually to talk to the bank or broker's foreign exchange desk beforehand, to confirm what documentation they will ask for in order to feel comfortable intermediating the remittance. It is at this point that questions may arise from the point of view of Central Bank regulations. In principle, if you can prove that it is a donation, that the assets donated by your relative are of lawful origin, and that you and your wife are married, I don't see any difficulties. But of course the bank or brokerage house may demand other things. You can only be sure in a specific situation.
If you need our support, just contact us by WhatsApp or email!
Hello, Marlene!
Thanks for your interest and compliments!
Fortunately, there is some light on the horizon. The Foreign Exchange Bill should soon become law, and an opportunity will open up for the Central Bank to correct these regulatory problems. I'm due to write a post on this subject. Let's hope so!
Hello, Juliene!
I understand that if there is a legal dispute about the payment of the pension and there is a court order to open the account, the bank will be obliged to comply. But it's common for there to be restrictions, either from the bank's internal policy or from other formalities, which create practical difficulties. I don't know the difficulties you're experiencing, but at first, the lawyer handling your case may be able to help you overcome the obstacles the bank is imposing.
Robson, I apologize for not being able to reply to you.
We've had to adapt to the high demand we've had as a result of dealing professionally with some of the topics you've read about, often for the first time. This has forced me to give up replying to comments. We're organizing for that to change from now on.
Hello, Vitor,
thank you for your interest. This is really an issue that was not foreseen by the legislation, as it was created at a time when there was no possibility of paying tax via Internet Banking from abroad.
It is possible to understand that the law created the attorney as a tax substitute. In this case, if the taxpayer spontaneously pays the tax, the tax obligation is extinguished. In order for the IRS to "match" the payment of income tax with the person's situation, however, it is advisable in this case to send the Dirf informing the payment of income tax. In this case, it would be a Dirf prepared by the taxpayer himself. The consequence of this is to say that the taxpayer withheld tax from himself and paid it, and informed the tax authorities that he had paid it.
If you need support, just get in touch with the team via WhatsApp or email!
Hello, Fernanda! Thank you for your interest!
PGBL and VGBL deserve a separate text. Non-resident taxation is quite different: 25% for PGBL and 15% for VGBL, according to the Revenue Solution. But for this to happen, you need to notify the source of payment (pension institute) BEFORE they pay you the benefit. We've already had experience of clients who have had problems with data cross-referencing with the IRS because they didn't do this.
With regard to the CDE, it can normally be used to receive the value of redemptions from any plan. If the value of the transfer exceeds R$ 100,000, the bank operating the CDE must require documentation of the redemption, in order to comply with Central Bank compliance.
If you need our support, just get in touch with the team via WhatsApp or email!
Hello, Cassiano!
Thank you for your interest in our publications. If I understand correctly, you provided services as an individual (self-employed) for an institution in England, and received these amounts in dollars, correct?
If that's the case, then you should use the "carnê leão". It has its own form for "self-employment", where you can enter the amount you received. A few deductions are also allowed there, depending on how you provided the service. It is also worth checking whether any income tax has been withheld in England to offset the amount in Brazil.
With regard to the fine, if you correct and pay the carnê leão, there will be a late payment fine of 20% of the tax due and interest on the late payment (simple SELIC). Adding it to this year's return and treating it as an adjustment is possible, the return accepts it. However, the law allows the tax authorities to demand an ex-officio fine of 50% of the tax bill not paid at the time, which I have never experienced in practice.
I hope I've helped. If you need a more in-depth analysis, you can contact our team by WhatsApp or email to make an appointment! Cheers!
Hello, Aeneas!
Thank you for your interest in our work. We can help you open accounts or at least refer you to a financial institution that can do the job for you. But we need to understand the problem better before we know how to help (your statement was a bit vague).
My suggestion is to get in touch with our team by WhatsApp or email, so we can see how we can best help your client.
Cheers!
Hello, Franklin!
Thank you for your interest in our content.
The STF has recognized the general repercussion of the discussion on the (in)constitutionality of withholding the 25% from pension and retirement income of non-residents. The current situation can be seen here: http://portal.stf.jus.br/processos/detalhe.asp?incidente=6179161
Nothing has happened since October. It's normal for the Supreme Court to take a long time (years) to rule on an issue after recognizing its general repercussion. There is no deadline. This discussion has more pro-tax arguments than other recent victories (such as the ITCMD). For the time being, the only way to avoid the 25% of IRRF is to go to court.
On the second point, I understand that the company of which you are president is located abroad, pays pro-labore and dividends abroad and you are not a tax resident in Brazil. If I understand correctly, then there is no income tax in Brazil (Brazil does not cover this income, as it is neither the state of the source of the income nor your tax residence). For this type of situation, there would only be IOF on the remittance of funds to Brazil, not income tax.
I hope this information has helped you. If you need our support, feel free to talk to our team via WhatsApp or email!
Hello, Marcela!
Thank you very much for your interest.
A foreigner who pays rent for a property in Brazil (i.e. is a tenant) does not, in principle, have a specific obligation to comply with the Brazilian tax authorities.
The landlord of the property is the one who owes income tax on the rent, and the landlord's status as a tax resident in Brazil or not determines how the tax should be calculated and paid to the Receita Federal.
I hope I've been able to resolve your query. If you need any more information, feel free to contact our team by email or WhatsApp!
Hello, Rodrigo!
Thank you for your interest! The simplest and quickest way to talk to us about appointments is to click on the "Contact Us" button or the WhatsApp button and talk directly to our team. They'll ask you a few questions to get a better understanding of your needs and advise you on making an appointment in my schedule. You can also do this by sending an e-mail to contato@tersi.adv.br.
In any case, I can ask them to contact you by e-mail if you prefer.
A big hug!
Hello, Maria Helena!
Thank you for your interest in our content. You could say that for those who left the country in 1998 it would be the same as under the current rule. IN SRF 208/2002 regulates much older laws. The main law dealing with permanent departure is Law 3.470/1958 (http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/L3470.htm#art17). The previous Normative Instruction, IN SRF 73/1998 (http://normas.receita.fazenda.gov.br/sijut2consulta/link.action?idAto=14244&visao=anotado) said more or less the same thing as the 2002 Normative Instruction.
I hope I've been able to answer your question. If you need our support, just contact our team via WhatsApp or email!
