The charge cancelled by CARF was issued in 2004, and involves a company that stores liquid petrol gas (GLP). According to tax authorities, the company should have collected social security taxes on amounts paid as profit-sharing – PLR – in 2003 and 2004, due to an alleged violation of Law No. 10,101/2000, which rules this benefit.
The first issue analyzed was the lack of signature by a union representative in the agreement that formalized the conditions to receive this benefit. According to this decision, Law No. 10,101 established only that the union must participate in negotiations, and the signature of a representative is not essential. In the case, the taxpayer presented documents proving that the union representative had indeed participated in the negotiation.
Another aspect raised was that the agreements were made in the same year of the payments, since the plan of 2003 had been approved in February, and the agreement concerning 2004, in April of that year. The decision states that the formalization of the agreement must take place before the payment, regardless of the acknowledgment of the amount to be distributed, obtained in the end of each year.
(Decision No. 2402003.469).