By five votes to three, the counselors of the 3rd Panel of the Superior Chamber of Carf understood that the bonuses and discounts granted by suppliers to the supermarket Carrefour Com\u00e9rcio e Ind\u00fastria Ltda have a counter-performance nature, constituting revenue. Therefore, the collection of PIS and Cofins on the amounts was maintained.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Discounts and bonuses were granted for reasons such as product positioning in the store (for example, the supplier granted a discount so that its product was in a more visible location) or reimbursement for the costs that Carrefour had with distribution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Wednesday's decision (3\/15) represents a reversal of understanding in the group, which in September 2022 decided a similar case by breaking the tie in favor of the taxpayer. The position had been taken in process 10480.722794\/2015-59, of Bompre\u00e7o Supermercados do Nordeste Ltda.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In defending the exemption from the charge, Carrefour's lawyer, Giancarlo Matarazzo, from Pinheiro Neto, stated that the triggering event for PIS and Cofins is to obtain revenue. The discounts, in his view, would not have the characteristics of revenue, since they are not related to Carrefour's corporate purpose.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to Matarazzo, the company is engaged in the purchase and resale of goods, and does not provide services to its suppliers. According to the defense attorney, the discounts recorded represent price formation elements and are cost reducers, not fulfilling the legal concept of revenue. The attorney noted that, even if it were revenue, it would be financial revenue, subject to the zero PIS\/Cofins rate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Consideration<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The rapporteur, counselor Vanessa Marini Cecconello, granted the taxpayer's appeal. The judge followed a well-known position, according to which discounts and bonuses are not considered revenue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Councilor Rosaldo Trevisan dissented. For the judge, the crux of the issue is the consideration nature of the bonuses. According to him, they are not unconditional discounts, since they are linked to issues such as reimbursement for distribution, profit margin guarantee and store opening and renovation. The majority of councilors agreed with this understanding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In September of last year, in the Bompre\u00e7o case trial, the vote that led to a tie was cast by former Carf president Carlos Henrique de Oliveira, who voted in favor of the taxpayer. The tiebreaker rule in favor of the taxpayer, which was still in force, was then applied. The rapporteur of the case, Valcir Gassen, understood that the bonuses constitute revenue and voted in favor of taxation, even though he is one of the counselors representing the taxpayers in the panel.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On Wednesday, Gassen repeated his pro-tax vote. Councilors Vanessa Marini Cecconello, Tatiana Midori Migiyama and Erika Costa Camargos Autran, also representing the taxpayer, were defeated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The process runs under number 16561.720008\/2012-12.<\/p>\n\n\n\n