<\/p>\n
In a unanimous decision, the 2nd Panel of the Higher Chamber of the Administrative Council of Tax Appeals (CARF)<\/strong> upheld the Personal Income Tax (IRPF) levy<\/strong> on the assignment of athletes’ image rights received through a legal entity. The case involved Cristiano Esp\u00edndola de Avalos dos Passos<\/strong>, a football player who, at the time, played for Sport Club do Recife<\/strong>.<\/p>\n During the tax assessment process, the tax authorities<\/strong> concluded that the taxpayer (a professional athlete)\u2014whose sources of income as an individual taxpayer in 2007<\/strong> primarily included the sports entities S\u00e3o Caetano and Santos<\/strong>, and in 2008<\/strong>, Gr\u00eamio Barueri<\/strong>\u2014had established the legal entity AVALOS & CIA ASSESSORIA DE ATLETAS LTDA<\/strong> to receive earnings from the licensing of his image rights in a simulated<\/strong> manner.<\/p>\n According to the tax authorities:<\/p>\n \u2714\ufe0f The legal entity did not declare any financial activity in 2008<\/strong>; At the voluntary appeal stage<\/strong>, the CARF initially canceled the tax assessment<\/strong>, ruling that, at the time of the events, there was no legal requirement for formal contracts for the assignment of image rights<\/strong>, as this obligation was only introduced in 2011<\/strong> by Lei Pel\u00e9<\/strong> (Article 87-A of Law No. 9.615\/1998<\/strong>).<\/p>\n Additionally, CARF recognized that while image rights are inherently personal<\/strong>, they also possess a patrimonial aspect<\/strong>, allowing them to be licensed to third parties for economic exploitation.<\/p>\n However, this interpretation was recently overturned<\/strong> in the Higher Chamber<\/strong>.<\/p>\n The Reporting Counselor, Leonam Rocha de Medeiros<\/strong>, noted that, in theory, there would be no legal-tax irregularity<\/strong> in assigning the right to exploit an athlete’s image to a legal entity. However, upon analyzing the factual context<\/strong>, he determined that there was simulation due to artificiality<\/strong>, justifying the requalification of tax liability to the individual taxpayer<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Absence of a contract<\/strong> between the football player (individual taxpayer) and his legal entity; With a different rationale, the position of Counselor Mauricio Nogueira Righetti<\/strong>, designated writer of the winning opinion<\/strong>, prevailed.<\/p>\n He ruled in favor of the special tax appeal<\/strong>, stating that only with the enactment of Law 12.395\/2011<\/strong>, which added Article 87-A to Law No. 9.615\/98<\/strong>, did specific regulations on the assignment of image rights come into force.<\/p>\n Even in that period, taxation should still fall on the individual owner of the right<\/strong>, as it constitutes income of a personal nature<\/strong>, subject to taxation at the individual level.<\/p>\n The administrative discussion is not yet definitively closed<\/strong>, as the case awaits judgment on the filed motions for clarification<\/strong>.<\/p>\n We are available to assess how this decision may impact other cases related to the assignment of image rights within CARF.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" In a unanimous decision, the 2nd Panel of the Higher Chamber of the Administrative Council of Tax Appeals (CARF) upheld the Personal Income Tax (IRPF) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":556,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-554","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-noticias"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
\nTax Assessment Context<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\u2714\ufe0f Payments from the Gr\u00eamio Barueri sports club<\/strong> were deposited directly into the player’s individual account<\/strong>;
\u2714\ufe0f The tax authorities disregarded the assignment of the economic exploitation of the player’s image rights to the legal entity, requalifying the facts<\/strong> and determining that taxation should apply to the individual<\/strong>.<\/p>\n
\nInitial CARF Decision<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\nReversal of Understanding in the Higher Chamber<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\nFactors Leading to the Conclusion of Simulation by CARF’s Higher Chamber<\/strong><\/h3>\n
The legal entity did not declare financial or accounting activity<\/strong> during the assessment period;
Arena rights and image rights payments<\/strong> for the Panini sticker album<\/strong> were paid directly to the player as an individual<\/strong>, without intermediation by the legal entity;
The player’s legal entity billed exclusively for the club he was playing for at the time<\/strong>, with no other recorded operations.<\/p>\n
\nPosition of the Majority Opinion<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\nNext Steps<\/strong><\/h3>\n