Parket bij de Hoge Raad, 07-11-2025, ECLI:NL:PHR:2025:1284, Bijlage 25/01723 25/01725 en 25/01726

De IBFD Country Tax Guide over corporate taxation in Brazilië¹ vermeldt het volgende over de IoNE:

“1.4.9.3. Interest on net equity

In addition to dividends, a company may elect to make a payment of interest on net equity (juros sobre capital próprio, JCP). JCP is a statutory remuneration to be paid to the shareholders, based on the net equity amount of the company. It has similarities to a dividend in terms of the legal procedures for its distribution (profit existence dependency, resolution on shareholders’ meeting, etc.) but it is subject to specific regulations.

The election to make a JCP payment can be made at the end of the year or during the year on an interim basis. The amount of JCP that is available to be paid out by a company is calculated by multiplying the company’s net equity balance by an official remuneration rate (TJLP) announced quarterly by the Central Bank of Brazil.

Under Laws 9,249/1995 and 9,430/1996, the Brazilian legal entity is allowed to deduct from its CIT base the JCP amount paid or credited to the shareholder. (...).

In decision 2102-003.593, of 4 February 2025, the CARF² held that interest on equity paid in disproportion to each partner’s shareholding in the company’s capital has the nature of indirect compensation for services (pro labore), intended to remunerate work.

(...).

De IBFD Country Tax Guide over individual taxation in Brazilië⁴ vermeldt over de IoNE dat die ‘some dividend features’ heeft, maar dat zijn fiscale behandeling ‘similar’ is met die van rente:

“1.5.1 Dividends

(...). In addition to the payment of dividends, Brazilian legal entities may also remunerate resident and non-resident shareholders through the payment of a hybrid form of income named “interest on equity” (Juros Sobre o Capital Próprio). Although this type of income has some dividend features, a tax treatment similar to the one of interest is applicable under Brazilian legislation (...). (...)

Het IBFD heeft op op 6 mei 2019 vragen van het ministerie van Financiën beantwoord over de Braziliaanse behandeling van IoNE.⁵ Voetnoot 1 van het IBFD-memo vermeldt:

“Among the main reasons for the creation of IoNE in 1995 are mitigation of the effects of the difference between debt and equity and reduction of the adverse effects of the prohibition of monetary adjustment of financial statements in a context of high inflation.”

Het IBFD-Memo vermeldt dat het Ministerie het IBFD de volgende vragen heeft gesteld:

“The definition in article 11 dub 4 of the treaty refers to “income that is assimilated to to income from money lent”.

1. What are the similarities and/or differences between the rules for taxing interest and IoNE as income in Brazil on the basis of the Brazilian corporate income tax (...)?

2. What is the legal basis for the deductibility of IoNE, and what are the similarities and/or differences with the legal basis for the deductibility of interest?

3. Brazil levies a 15% withholding tax on IoNE payments, which is the same percentage as the withholding tax on interest payments. What is the legal basis for the withholding tax on IoNE? What are the similarities and/or differences with the legal basis of the interest withholding tax?

4. Given the answers to the questions above, please explain whether loNE, in the opinion of IBFD, does or does not qualify as "income that is assimilated to income from money lent" by the taxation law of Brazil and thereby for treaty purposes.”

Aan deze vraagstelling valt op dat (i) de mogelijkheid van kwalificatie als dividend nergens genoemd wordt, (ii) niet gevraagd wordt naar de Braziliaanse behandeling van dividend, noch naar een vergelijking tussen die behandeling en de behandeling van IoNE, noch naar een vergelijking tussen de Braziliaanse behandeling van dividend en interest, en (iii) het slot van vraag 4 de gewenste uitkomst (nl. dat Braziliaans recht de Nederlandse verdragskwalificatie bepaalt) als vanzelfsprekend aanneemt: “... by the taxation law of Brazil and thereby for treaty purposes” (curs. PJW). Het IBFD begint zijn antwoord op vraag 4 dan ook veiligheidshalve met de expliciete mededeling: “The answer below is restricted to the position of the Brazilian tax authorities.”

Het IBFD-Memo vermeldt onder meer:

“Introduction

In addition to dividends, Brazilian companies may pay interest on net equity-IoNE (jurossobre capital próprio, JCP) – which is a statutory remuneration paid to shareholders based on the net equity amount of the company.⁶ Despite having similarities with dividends in terms of legal procedures for distribution (e.g. the existence of profits is a requirement forthe payment of IoNE, the payment needs to be agreed at the general shareholders' meeting, etc.), the tax treatment applicable is similarto that of interest in the sense that the income is taxed in the hands of beneficiaries and is a deductible expense for the purpose of corporate income tax of the paying company – as opposed to the tax treatment of dividends (i.e. exempt from income tax in the hands of the beneficiaries and not deductible for the paying company). The amount of IoNE paid out by a company is calculated by applying a long-term interest rate (taxa de jurosa longoprazo, TJLP)⁷ to the company's net worth. The payment of IoNE is also conditioned on the existence of net profits in an amount equal to or exceeding two times the amount of IoNE paid (article 9, §3 of Law 9,249/1995 and article 355, §1 of Decree 9,580/2018).”

Op vraag 1 antwoordde het IBFD:

“IoNE paid to resident persons is subject to corporate income tax collected at source (i.e. a withholding tax) at the rate of 15% (...). For corporate taxpayers receiving IoNE, this withholding tax is considered an advance payment whichis creditable against the final tax liability. (...). For individual taxpayers receiving IoNE, the withholding tax is final and the IoNE is not included in the taxable base for individual income tax purposes (....).

Non-resident persons are subject to a final withholding tax at the rate of 15% on outbound payment of IoNE. (...). An increased rate of 25% applies in cases in which the non-resident beneficiary is located in a low-tax jurisdiction (...).

IoNE received by corporate taxpayers is also subject to the levy of the contributions to the employees' profit participation programme (contribuigaoparao programade integragaosocial, PIS) and to social security (contribuigaoparaofinanciamentoda seguridade social, COFINS). IoNE is subject to PIS and COFINS under the non-cumulative regime as financial revenue, but at the special combined rate of 9.25% (therefore not to the combined rate applicable to financial revenue in general, i.e. 4.65%) (article 1, §2 of Decree 8,426/2015).

(...).

Interest paid to resident persons, including interest on ordinary loans or any other fixed income investment, is subject to corporate income tax collected at source (i.e. a withholding tax) at regressive rates ranging from 22.5% to 15%, depending on the lifetime of the transaction⁸ (article 790 of Decree 9,580/2018). (...). For corporate taxpayers, this withholding tax is considered an advance payment whichis creditable against the final tax liability. (...). For individual taxpayers, the withholding tax is final and the interest is not included in the taxable base for individual income tax purposes (...). However, special tax treatments may apply, depending on the type of interest or type of investment.⁹

Non-resident persons are subject to a final withholding tax at the rate of 15% on outbound payment of interest (...). (...). Some exemptions and zero rate benefits may also apply to outbound payment of certain types of interest.¹⁰ An increased rate of 25% applies in cases in whichthe non-resident beneficiary is located in a low-tax jurisdiction. However, interest derived by non-resident persons in connection with investments in Brazilian financial and capital markets are subject to different specific rules (article 85 of Normative Instruction 1,585/2010 and article 743 of Decree 9,580/2018). Accordingly, such interest is generally subject to the same rules applicable to resident persons (i.e. generally taxed at regressive rates ranging from 22.5% to 15%, with other specific rules applying, depending on the type of investment or investment fund involved) (articles 788 to 889 of Decree 9,580/2018). However, investments made according to the rules set forth by the Brazilian National Monetary Commission are subject to a more beneficial treatment, provided the beneficiaries are not located in a low-tax jurisdiction (i.e. final withholding tax at the general rate of 15%; other rates may, however, apply, depending on the type of investment)¹¹ (articles 88 to 99 of Normative Instruction 1,585/2010). Interest is also subject to the levy of PIS and COFINS under the non-cumulative regime at the general combined rate of 4.65% applicable to financial revenue in general (article 1 of Decree 8,426/2015).

Comments

IoNE and interest are both subject to corporate income tax levied through a withholding system. For both types of income, the withholding tax is levied on the gross amount and is generally an advance payment creditable against the final tax liability of corporate taxpayers and a final taxation in the case of individual taxpayers. The rates applicable to interest vary considerably, depending on the type of investment and on whether beneficial treatment is available, while the rate applicable to IoNE is a single rate. The rules applicable for non-resident persons are, however, similar, in the sense that they are both charged as final withholding tax at the rate of 15%, although some special treatment and benefits may apply for some types of outbound interest. IoNE and interest are both subject to PIS and COFINS as financial revenue, but interest is subject to the combined rate applicable to financial revenue in general, while IoNE is subject to a different combined rate applicable specifically to IoNE.”

Op vraag 2 luidde het antwoord:

“The amount of IoNE paid out by a company is calculated by applying the TJLP to the company's net worth. The payment of IoNE is conditioned on the existence of net profits in an amount equal to or exceeding two times the amount of IoNE paid (...). The IoNE paid is deductible for the purpose of corporate income tax (...). Two criteria must be observed for purposes of calculating and deducting IoNE expenses. The first criterion refers to the amount payable as IoNE. Such amount must be determined based on the TJLP applied to the equity accounts of the corporate taxpayer. Under the second criterion, the deductibility of IoNE expenses is limited to the higher of (i) 50% of the current year's net profit; or (ii) 50% of the company's total retained earnings accounts (...).¹²

As a general rule for all outbound remittances made from Brazil, payments made to persons located in a low-tax jurisdiction or benefiting from a privileged tax regime are only deductible if (i) the identification of the beneficial owner of the payment is provided; (ii) proof that the beneficiary carries out the activity for which it is paid is provided; and (iii) documents that can indicate the payment and the receipt of the good, service or right are provided (...). However, this limitation does not apply to outbound payments of IoNE (article 252, §2 of Decree 9,580/2018). (...).

Interest

Companies may deduct, as operational cost or expense, the interest due calculated on a pro rata basis in accordance with the accrual basis (...). The deductibility of interest is subject to the general deductibility conditions.¹³ Under Brazilian transfer pricing rules, interest payments made to non-resident related parties or to persons located in a low-tax jurisdiction or benefiting from a privileged tax regime are only deductible up to the amount calculated on the basis of the rates established below, in addition to a spread determined by the Brazilian Ministry of Finance (...):

- the rate of Brazilian sovereign bonds issued in USD in foreign markets in cases of transactions in USD subject to a fixed interest rate;

- the rate of Brazilian sovereign bonds issued in BRL in foreign markets in cases of transactions in BRL subject to a fixed interest rate; and

- the London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) for the period of 6 months in all other cases.

In addition to transfer pricing rules, under Brazilian thin capitalization rules, interest payments made to non-resident related parties (neither located in a low-tax jurisdiction nor benefiting from a privileged tax regime) are only deductible if the expense is necessary for the company's activities (general deductibility requirement) and (i) in situations in which the related party holds an interest in the Brazilian entity, the value of the indebtedness towards such creditor does not exceed two times the value of the equity stake held by said investor in the equity of the Brazilian subsidiary; (ii) (...); and (iii) in all aforementioned cases, the overall indebtedness of the Brazilian company towards related parties abroad does not exceed two times the equity value stake of the Brazilian company held by all related parties. (...).

Also under thin capitalization rules, interest payments made to (related or unrelated) persons located in a low-tax jurisdiction or benefiting from a privileged tax regime are only deductible if (i) the expense is necessary for the company's activities (general deductibility requirement); and (ii) the amount of the Brazilian company's indebtedness towards all entities located in low-tax jurisdictions or benefiting from privileged tax regimes does not exceed 30% of the equity of the Brazilian company (...). In addition, the general rule for all outbound remittances to persons located in a low-tax jurisdiction or benefiting from a privileged tax regime also applies, i.e. they are only deductible if the three beneficial owner-related conditions are met¹⁴ (...). Interest paid or credited to controlled or affiliated companies in an amount equivalent to the profits which were not distributed by controlling foreign companies is not deductible (...).

Comments

In terms of deductibility, the tax treatments applicable to interest and IoNE are similar, in the sense that both payments are deductible and these deductions are subject to limitations. However, the applicable rules (and legal bases) on limitation of deductibility are different. IoNE has its own special rules on limitation of deductibility (Law 9,249/1995, article 355 of Decree 9,580/2018 and article 75 of Normative Instruction 1,700/2017). The general requirements for deductibility in respect of all types of remittances (including interest) to persons located in a low-tax jurisdiction or benefiting from a privileged tax regime are not applicable to IoNE. Likewise, the limitations under thin capitalization and transfer pricing rules applicable to interest do not apply to IoNE.”

Op vraag 3 antwoordde het IBFD:

“Brazil levies a 15% withholding tax on IoNE payments made to resident and non-resident persons (see answer to question 1). The withholding tax rates applied on interest depend on the type of interest paid (or type of investment) and whether the payment is made to resident or non-resident persons (see answerto question 1). However, the general withholding tax rate applicable to interest payments to non-resident persons is 15% (and is therefore equal to that applicable to IoNE), though note that some exemptions and zero rate benefits apply to certain types of outbound interest and that special regimes apply to interest derived by non-resident persons in connection with investments in Brazilian financial and capital markets (see answers to question 1).

The legal basis for the withholding tax levied at the rate of 15% on IoNE payments made to non resident persons is article 14 of Normative Instruction 1,455/2014. The legal basis for the withholding tax levied at the rate of 15% on interest payments made to non-resident persons is article 760 of Decree 9,580/2018. Although they are based on different legal bases (i.e. different articles), they provide equivalent tax treatment.¹⁵

Op vraag 4 tenslotte, luidde het antwoord:

“The answer below is restricted to the position of the Brazilian tax authorities.

The Brazilian tax authorities take the view that IoNE is a financial revenue/expense under domestic tax law, that it receives a tax treatment equivalent to that applied to interest and that it falls under the scope of the interest article of tax treaties. Private rulings issued on the qualification of IoNE for treaty purposes are also in line with this position.¹⁶ In addition, some tax treaties signed by Brazil expressly indicate (normally in the protocols) that interest on net equity falls under the definition of interest or within the scope of the interest article. All tax treaties and protocols concluded by Brazil in 2018 and 2019 include such clauses,¹⁷ which confirms that thisis still the country's current policy. The tax treaty between Brazil and the Netherlands defines the term "interest" in article 11, § 4, as "income from government securities, bonds or debentures, whether or not secured by mortgage and whether or not carrying a right to participate in profits, and debt-claims of every kind as well as other income assimilated to income from money lent by the taxation law of the Contracting State in which the income arises". This definition deviates from the interest definition contained in the OECD and the UN Model Conventions. In view of the similarities between the tax treatments in Brazil of IoNE and interest, it could be maintained that the tax treatment in Brazil of IoNE qualifies income from it as income that is assimilated to income from money lent, as is included in the treaty definition of interest.”

Art. 3(2) Verdrag (Algemene begripsbepalingen) luidt als volgt:

“Voor de toepassing van de Overeenkomst door een Overeenkomstsluitende Staat heeft, tenzij de context anders vereist, elke daarin niet omschreven uitdrukking de betekenis welke die uitdrukking heeft volgens de wetgeving van die Staat met betrekking tot de belastingen waarop de Overeenkomst van toepassing is.”

“As regards the application of the Convention by a Contracting State any term not defined therein shall, unless the context otherwise requires, have the meaning which it has under the law of that State concerning the taxes to which the Convention applies.”

Art. 10 Verdrag (Dividenden) luidt als volgt (alinearing PJW):

“1 Dividenden betaald door een lichaam dat inwoner is van een Overeenkomstsluitende Staat aan een inwoner van de andere Overeenkomstsluitende Staat, mogen in die andere Staat worden belast.

2 Deze dividenden mogen echter ook in de Overeenkomstsluitende Staat waarvan het lichaam dat de dividenden betaalt inwoner is, overeenkomstig de wetgeving van die Staat worden belast, maar indien de genieter de uiteindelijk gerechtigde tot de dividenden is, mag de aldus geheven belasting 15 percent van het brutobedrag van de dividenden niet overschrijden. Dit lid laat onverlet de belastingheffing van het lichaam ter zake van de winst waaruit de dividenden worden betaald.

3 De uitdrukking „dividenden”, zoals gebezigd in dit artikel, betekent

- inkomsten uit aandelen, winstaandelen of winstbewijzen, mijnaandelen, oprichtersaandelen of

- andere rechten, met uitzondering van schuldvorderingen, die aanspraak geven op een aandeel in de winst, alsmede

- inkomsten uit andere vennootschappelijke rechten die door de wetgeving van de Staat waarvan het lichaam dat de uitdeling doet inwoner is, op dezelfde wijze aan de belastingheffing worden onderworpen als inkomsten uit aandelen.

(...).”

“1 Dividends paid by a company which is a resident of a Contracting State to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State.

2 However, such dividends may also be taxed in the Contracting State of which the company paying the dividends is a resident and according to the laws of that State, but if the recipient is the beneficial owner of the dividends the tax so charged shall not exceed 15 per cent of the gross amount of the dividends. This paragraph shall not affect the taxation of the company in respect of the profits out of which the dividends are paid.

3 The term “dividends” as used in this Article means

- income from shares, “jouissance” shares or “jouissance” rights, mining shares, founders' shares or

- other rights, not being debt-claims, participating in profits, as well as

- income from other corporate rights which is subjected to the same taxation treatment as income from shares by the laws of the State of which the company making the distribution is a resident.

(...).”

Art. 11 Verdrag (Interest) luidt als volgt:

“1 Interest afkomstig uit een Overeenkomstsluitende Staat en betaald aan een inwoner van de andere Overeenkomstsluitende Staat mag in die andere Staat worden belast.

2 Deze interest mag echter ook in de Staat waaruit hij afkomstig is, overeenkomstig de wetgeving van die Staat worden belast, maar indien de genieter de uiteindelijk gerechtigde tot de interest is, mag de aldus geheven belasting niet overschrijden:

a. 10 percent van het brutobedrag van de interest indien de genieter een bank is en de lening verstrekt is voor een tijdsduur van ten minste 7 jaar in verband met de aankoop van industriële uitrusting; met de bestudering, aankoop en installatie van industriële of wetenschappelijke eenheden, alsmede met de financiering van openbare werken;

b. 15 percent van het brutobedrag van de interest in alle andere gevallen.

[...].

4 De uitdrukking „interest”, zoals gebezigd in dit artikel, betekent (i) inkomsten uit overheidsleningen, obligaties of schuldbewijzen, al dan niet verzekerd door hypotheek en al dan niet aanspraak gevend op een aandeel in de winst, en (ii) schuldvorderingen van welke aard ook, alsmede (iii) alle andere inkomsten die door de belastingwetgeving van de Overeenkomstsluitende Staat waaruit de inkomsten afkomstig zijn, met inkomsten uit geldlening worden gelijkgesteld.”

“1 Interest arising in a Contracting State and paid to a resident of the other Contracting State may be taxed in that other State.

2 However, such interest may also be taxed in the State in which it arises and according to the laws of that State, but if the recipient is the beneficial owner of the interest the tax so charged shall not exceed:

a) 10 per cent of the gross amount of the interest if the recipient is a bank and the loan is granted for a period of at least 7 years in connection with the purchase of industrial equipment; with the study, the purchase and installation of industrial or scientific units, as well as with the financing of public works;

b) 15 per cent of the gross amount of the interest in all other cases.

[...].

4 The term “interest” as used in this Article means (i) income from government securities, bonds or debentures, whether or not secured by mortgage and whether or not carrying a right to participate in profits, and (ii) debt-claims of every kind as well as (iii) other income assimilated to income from money lent by the taxation law of the Contracting State in which the income arises.”

Art. 23 Verdrag (Vermijding van dubbele belasting) luidt als volgt:

“1 Nederland is bevoegd bij het heffen van belasting van zijn inwoners in de grondslag waarnaar de belasting wordt geheven, de bestanddelen van het inkomen te begrijpen die overeenkomstig de bepalingen van deze Overeenkomst in Brazilië mogen worden belast.

[...].

3 Nederland verleent voorts een aftrek op de aldus berekende Nederlandse belasting voor die bestanddelen van het inkomen die volgens artikel 10, tweede lid, artikel 11, tweede lid, artikel 12, tweede lid, artikel 13, derde lid, artikel 17, artikel 18, eerste lid, en artikel 22 van deze Overeenkomst in Brazilië mogen worden belast, in zoverre deze bestanddelen in de in het eerste lid bedoelde grondslag zijn begrepen. Het bedrag van deze aftrek is gelijk aan de in Brazilië over deze bestanddelen van het inkomen betaalde belasting, maar bedraagt niet meer dan het bedrag van de vermindering die zou zijn verleend indien de aldus in het inkomen begrepen bestanddelen van het inkomen de enige bestanddelen van het inkomen zouden zijn geweest die uit hoofde van de bepalingen in de Nederlandse wetgeving tot het vermijden van dubbele belasting van Nederlandse belasting zijn vrijgesteld.

4 Voor de toepassing van het derde lid wordt de in Brazilië betaalde belasting geacht te bedragen:

a. met betrekking tot dividenden als bedoeld in artikel 10, tweede lid, 25 percent van die dividenden indien zij worden betaald aan een Nederlands lichaam dat ten minste 10 percent van het stemgerechtigde kapitaal in het Braziliaanse lichaam bezit, en 20 percent in alle andere gevallen,

b. met betrekking tot interest als bedoeld in artikel 11, tweede lid, 20 percent van die interest, [...].”

“1 The Netherlands, when imposing tax on its residents, may include in the basis upon which such taxes are imposed the items of income which, according to the provisions of this Convention, may be taxed in Brazil. [...]

3 Further, the Netherlands shall allow a deduction from the Netherlands tax so computed for the items of income which according to paragraph 2 of Article 10, paragraph 2 of Article 11, paragraph 2 of Article 12, paragraph 3 of Article 13, Article 17, paragraph 1 of Article 18 and Article 22 of this Convention may be taxed in Brazil to the extent that these items are included in the basis referred to in paragraph 1. The amount of this deduction shall be equal to the tax paid in Brazil on these items of income, but shall not exceed the amount of the reduction which would be allowed if the items of income so included were the sole items of income which are exempt from Netherlands tax under the provisions of Netherlands law for the avoidance of double taxation.

4 For the purpose of paragraph 3, the tax paid in Brazil shall be deemed to be:

a) with respect to dividends as meant in paragraph 2 of Article 10, 25 per cent of such dividends if they are paid to a company of the Netherlands holding at least 10 per cent of the voting capital of the Brazilian company, and 20 per cent in all other cases,

b) with respect to interest as meant in paragraph 2 of Article 11, 20 per cent of such interest, [...].”

Art. 25(3) Verdrag (Regeling voor onderling overleg) luidt als volgt:

“3 De bevoegde autoriteiten van de Overeenkomstsluitende Staten trachten moeilijkheden of twijfelpunten die mochten rijzen met betrekking tot de uitlegging of de toepassing van de Overeenkomst, waaronder begrepen artikel 9 van de Overeenkomst, in onderlinge overeenstemming op te lossen.”

“3 The competent authorities of the Contracting States shall endeavour to resolve by mutual agreement any difficulties or doubts arising as to the interpretation or application of the Convention, including Article 9 of the Convention.”

De Nederlandse toelichting op het Verdrag

Het Verdrag kent geen gezamenlijke toelichting. De Nederlandse regering heeft uiteraard wel haar voorstel voor een goedkeuringswet aan het parlement toegelicht.¹⁹ Die eenzijdige toelichting is geen uitdrukking van de gezamenlijke bedoeling van partijen, maar meer een verslag van de verdragsonderhandelingen. Zij vermeldt dat onder meer de belastingverrekening in art. 23(4) Verdrag afwijkt van het Nederlands verdragsbeleid, maar dat het Verdrag correspondeert met belastingverdragen die andere OESO-landen met Brazilië hadden gesloten:²⁰

“Het feit dat het ernaar uitzag dat de voorwaarden waaronder Nederland een verdrag met Brazilië zou kunnen sluiten met het verstrijken van de jaren eerder zouden verslechteren dan verbeteren, heeft Nederland met het oog op de betekenis die Brazilië heeft voor het Nederlandse bedrijfsleven na ampele overwegingen doen besluiten naar een resultaat te streven dat overeenkomt met het Braziliaanse belastingverdrag met de Bondsrepubliek Duitsland. Hoewel dit verdrag dat dateert uit 1975 in menig opzicht niet langer bleek te sporen met het huidige Braziliaanse verdragsbeleid, was Brazilië niettemin bereid aan Nederland - een enkele uitzondering zoals de termijn voor bouwwerken daar gelaten - de voorwaarden te bieden waaronder Brazilië destijds met de Bondsrepubliek Duitsland tot overeenstemming was gekomen. Dit betekent in feite dat (...) Nederland bij de besprekingen die daarop in 1989 zijn gevoerd en die zijn uitgemond in de ondertekening van de hierbij ter goedkeuring voorgelegde Overeenkomst met bijbehorend Protocol, tot een resultaat is gekomen dat weliswaar op een aantal punten afwijkt van het Nederlandse verdragsbeleid maar dat correspondeert met de belastingverdragen die andere OESO-landen in het verleden met Brazilië hebben gesloten. Dit betekent onder meer de aanvaarding door Nederland van de uitsluiting van de werking van de Overeenkomst van de aanvullende inkomstenbelasting van dividenden (artikel 2, tweede lid), een additionele belasting over de winst van vaste inrichtingen (artikel 10, vijfde lid), een bronstaatheffing voor vervreemdingswinsten (artikel 13), de niet-aftrekbaarheid van royalty's en de daaraan gekoppelde vergoedingen voor technische diensten (Protocol artikel 8, onderdeel a, j° artikel 5) en belastingverrekening tot boven het niveau van de bronheffingen op dividenden, interest en royalty's (artikel 23, vierde lid).”

Over de definitie van ‘interest’ volgens art. 11 Verdrag zegt de Nederlandse toelichting:²²

“Naar Braziliaanse opvatting dienen bankprovisies met interest te worden gelijkgesteld. Om die reden is in artikel 4, onderdeel a van het Protocol een bepaling van die strekking opgenomen. Voor het overige komt het begrip interest, zoals opgenomen in het vierde lid, overeen met de overeenkomstige bepaling in het OESO-modelverdrag van 1963.”

Over de tax sparing credit in art. 23(4) Verdrag zegt de Nederlandse toelichting slechts dat die is overeengekomen en dat zij betekenisloos is voor ontvangen deelnemingsdividenden omdat die in Nederland niet belast worden:²³

“In het vierde lid is een voorziening opgenomen, die erop ziet dat Nederland voor portfolio-dividenden, interest en royalty's een verrekening zal toestaan naar percentages die liggen boven de overeengekomen bronheffingspercentages. Het voor deelnemingsdividend opgenomen verrekeningspercentage heeft geen betekenis, zulks vanwege het feit dat deelnemingsdividenden geen deel uitmaken van de grondslag waarnaar de vennootschapsbelasting wordt geheven.”

Over die wijziging per 1 januari 2016 werden vragen gesteld vanuit de Tweede Kamer, specifiek betreffende de IoNE, die de regering als volgt beantwoordde:²⁶

“De heer Omtzigt vraagt waarom Nederland kennelijk een faciliteit terugneemt, zoals bij de Braziliaanse allowance for corporate equity, als een ander land een bedrijf een faciliteit biedt, bijvoorbeeld omdat het bedrijf grotendeels met eigen vermogen gefinancierd is. De heer Omtzigt merkt hierbij op dat het voorkomen van non-heffing bij hybride leningen hier niets mee te maken heeft.

In geval van de Braziliaanse allowance for corporate equity gaat het om dividenduitkeringen die rechtstreeks in aftrek kunnen worden gebracht op de winstgrondslag. De voorgestelde bepaling van artikel 13, zeventiende lid, van de Wet op de vennootschapsbelasting 1969 (Wet Vpb 1969) ziet op vergoedingen en betalingen die in aftrek kunnen worden gebracht op de winstgrondslag. Het maakt niet uit of de onderliggende geldverstrekking in het andere land als lening of als kapitaalverstrekking wordt aangemerkt. Van belang is of de betaling voor die geldverstrekking in dat land naar haar aard aftrekbaar is. In het geval van een betaling die aftrekbaar is op grond van de Braziliaanse allowance for corporate equity wordt door het voorgestelde artikel 13, zeventiende lid, van de Wet Vpb 1969 non-heffing voorkomen. Dat sprake is van een faciliteit in een ander land doet hier niets aan af. Dit is in lijn met de antimismatchregel uit de MDR welke regel ziet op aftrekbare voordelen, ongeacht het karakter van de geldverstrekking. De voorgestelde bepaling ziet niet op dividenden die worden uitgekeerd door een Belgische vennootschap die recht heeft op de zogeheten notionele interestaftrek omdat er anders dan bij de Braziliaanse allowance for corporate equity geen direct verband is tussen de notionele interestaftrek en de dividendbetaling.

Bij de invoering van art. 13(17) Wet Vpb was de Staatssecretaris dus nog van mening dat de nationale behandeling van IoNE in Brazilië niet ter zake doet. Ik merk op dat de aanduiding allowance for corporate equity mij minder correct lijkt omdat IoNE geen allowance is, maar een daadwerkelijke winstuitdeling. Daarom maakte de regering ook onderscheid tussen de Belgische ACE/NID,²⁷ die geheel los staat van enige uitbetaling door de vennootschap, en de uitbetaling van IoNE.

Het OESO-Modelverdrag 1963/1977 en het Commentaar daarop

Art. 25(3) Verdrag komt – voor zover hier relevant – overeen met art. 25(3) OESO-Modelverdrag. Het bijbehorende OESO-Commentaar 1977 vermeldt onder meer:³³

“29. The first sentence of this paragraph invites and authorises the competent authorities to resolve, if possible, difficulties of interpretation or application by means of mutual agreement. These are essentially difficulties of a general nature which concern, or which may concern, a category of taxpayers, even if they have arisen in connection with an individual case normally coming under the procedure defined in paragraphs 1 and 2.

30. This provision makes it possible to resolve difficulties arising from the application of the Convention. Such difficulties are not only those of a practical nature, which might arise in connection with the setting up and operation of procedures for the relief from tax deducted from dividends, interest and royalties in the Contracting State in which they arise, but also those which could impair or impede the normal operation of the clauses of the convention as they were conceived by the negotiators, the solution of which does not depend on a prior agreement as to the interpretation of the convention.

31. Under this provision the competent authorities can, in particular:

- where a term has been incompletely or ambiguously defined in the Convention, complete or clarify its definition in order to obviate any difficulty;

- where the laws of a State have been changed without impairing the balance or affecting the substance of the Convention, settle any difficulties that may emerge from the new system of taxation arising out of such changes. (...)

33. Mutual agreements resolving general difficulties of interpretation or application are binding on administrations as long as the competent authorities do not agree to modify or rescind the mutual agreement.”