By unanimous vote, the panel upheld the collection of social security contributions, understanding that the regime applicable to agribusinesses should cover all of the legal entity's gross revenue, without the possibility of segregation by activity. In this case, Adami SA argued that the collection of contributions on revenue should only occur in relation to the timber industry, while the paper industry would remain subject to contributions on payroll.
The panel followed the vote of the rapporteur, Marcelle Rezende Cota, who considered that the contribution regime foreseen for agribusinesses applies to legal entities classified under this condition, encompassing all of their gross revenue, even if the company develops other economic activities. According to the council member, the substitution of the contribution on payroll for the contribution on revenue does not allow for the segregation of the calculation bases between distinct activities. Thus, for her, the exercise of other economic activities does not preclude the company from being classified as an agribusiness.
The defense argued that what was being taxed was not the company's rural production, but the sale of paper and packaging. According to the company, although it has two activities under the same CNPJ (Brazilian tax identification number), one in timber and the other in paper production, only the first one would be considered agro-industrial. It further stated that the classification as agro-industry occurred by virtue of a regulatory rule that considers the company's main activity and maintained that this criterion alone could not extend the contribution regime based on revenue to other activities.
The company cited a decision by the TRF4 (Regional Federal Court of the 4th Region) that allegedly supported the segregation of activities by recognizing only the timber unit as being of an agro-industrial nature. However, the rapporteur understood that to avoid classification as an agro-industry, it would be necessary to demonstrate that the company does not industrialize its own rural production, which was not proven. She further added that there are decisions from both the TRF3 (Regional Federal Court of the 3rd Region) and the Superior Chamber of the CARF (Administrative Council of Tax Appeals) that contradict the company's position.
Source: JOTA