Por unanimidade, a 1ª Turma da 3ª Câmara da 2ª Seção do Conselho Administrativo de Recursos Fiscais (Carf) manteve a cobrança de contribuições previdenciárias ao entender que o regime aplicável às agroindústrias deve alcançar toda a receita bruta da pessoa jurídica, sem possibilidade de segregação por atividade. No caso, a Adami S.A. defendia que o recolhimento da contribuição sobre a receita deveria ocorrer apenas em relação à atividade de madeireira, enquanto a atividade papeleira permaneceria sujeita à contribuição sobre a folha de salários.
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.
O processo tramita com o número 17095.720258/2024-01.
Source: JOTA