Tax Management
Planning
Retail
March 16, 2023
Impact of tax planning on retail
DOI: 10.22167/2675-6528-20230009
E&S 2023,4: e20230009
Flávio Hitiro Miura
In a market that is increasingly becoming highly competitive, if in the past your competitor was a company from the same municipality, today it is located in any municipality, state, or country. With the internet (“e-commerce”), any person or company can sell its products from anywhere in the world[1].
Companies, in general, are looking for ways to have lower costs in their operations, while also aiming to maintain their productivity. Reduction actions become necessary, such as: staff, expenses, product inventory, among others. In this way, many companies are being forced to seek new ways to expand their profit margins and increase their competitiveness.
One of the strategies in this regard is tax planning, given that taxes represent an important slice of companies’ costs[2]. Through this strategy, it is possible to carry out a thorough review of the tax system the company is under and verify if it is indeed the most appropriate tax classification[3]. Tax planning involves choosing an action that aims to reduce or eliminate the tax burden before the taxable event occurs, always observing the limits of current legislation[3][4][5].
The gross tax burden of the general government (central government, states, and municipalities) was 31.64% of the Gross Domestic Product [GDP], that is, almost one-third of the sum of all final goods and services produced in Brazil[6]. In addition to companies also being subject to broad, complex, dynamic, and obscure tax legislation. Since the enactment of the Federal Constitution of 1988, many norms[7] have been issued, and due to constant changes, it ends up inducing companies to make mistakes, given the tax confusion, making them subject to the risks of inspection and penalties.
Brazilian companies are controlled in accounting, labor, and tax terms by one of the best technological systems called the Digital Public Bookkeeping System [SPED], which was developed by the Brazilian Federal Revenue [RFB] in conjunction with the State University of Campinas [UNICAMP] and the Aeronautics Institute of Technology [ITA], whose main objective is to combat tax evasion in the country[8]. Given this chaotic tax scenario, it is very difficult for entrepreneurs, and even accountants, to know the best tax classification (Simples Nacional, Presumed Income, or Real Income) for companies.
In this context, tax planning becomes a challenging and strategic tool of extreme importance for organizations, as through it, managers have subsidies for better decision-making, in addition to minimizing tax costs in a legal way, reducing operational tax risk and providing greater profitability.
A case study was conducted at a company in the retail segment (for identification purposes, this company will be referred to as company Alpha), located in the state of São Paulo, where the main objective was to demonstrate and compare the tax systems (Simples Nacional, Presumed Profit, and Actual profit) by applying them to the company in question based on data from the calendar year 2020 – a period in which the company changed its tax regime from presumed profit to quarterly actual profit – seeking to identify if it is classified under the best fiscal-tax regime.
Alfa, with legal status as a limited liability company, has, in addition to its headquarters, five more branches located in the state of São Paulo, two of which were opened in 2020. They operate in the main business of retail sale of cosmetics, perfumery, and personal hygiene products, and as secondary activities, a wide variety of activities, such as sweets, candies, chocolates, and similar items, haberdashery items, stationery items, clothing items, among others.
Alfa is a medium-sized company where, on average in the year 2020, it had 179 employees and used the accrual basis for recognizing revenues, expenses, and costs. Alfa company changed its accounting firm at the end of 2018, with all information/data being retrieved from the new accounting. Within tax planning, the choice of the best tax-fiscal regime for companies plays a fundamental role in tax savings, given that after the company chooses the tax-fiscal regime, it must obligatorily remain throughout the entire calendar year[9], and the wrong choice can compromise the company’s financial health.
In Brazil, the most used tax systems are: Simples Nacional, Presumed Profit, and Real Profit. There is also Arbitrated Profit, which can be considered a special regime since it is triggered, for example, when the company’s accounting cannot be used as an adequate basis for defining the entity’s profit. Therefore, it is not considered an optional regime by nature. The chosen regime will determine how taxes are calculated. Each regime has its own particularities within the legislation, and therefore, it is necessary to analyze each regime individually to know if the taxpayer does not fall under any prohibition according to tax legislation.
Alfa had its tax analysis comparing the Presumed Profit and Actual profit regimes, and could not be submitted to the Simples Nacional regime, since company Alfa falls under a prohibition to Simples Nacional, which refers to the revenue limit of the calendar year immediately preceding the option, that is, company Alfa earned in the calendar year 2019 a revenue greater than R$4,800,000.00, preventing it from opting in the calendar year 2020 for the Simples Nacional regime[10].
After obtaining the fiscal-accounting data of company Alfa, the amount to be paid in taxes for each tax system (presumed profit and real profit) was calculated, with specific focus on the taxes Programa Integração Social (PIS), Contribuição para o Financiamento da Seguridade Social (COFINS), Contribuição Social sobre o Lucro Líquido (CSLL) and Imposto de Renda de Pessoa Jurídica (IRPJ), to verify which tax system would present less burden for the company. Alfa does not have, in any quarter of 2020, additions, exclusions, or compensations in the calculation of CSLL and IRPJ. It was calculated based on the real profit for the year 2020, both to calculate CSLL and IRPJ, and PIS and COFINS under the non-cumulative regime (Table 1).
Table 1. Income Statement (DRE) Actual profit, of the Social Contribution on Net Income (CSLL), Corporate Income Tax (IPRJ), Social Integration Program (PIS) and Social Security Financing Contribution (cumulative) for Actual profit in the year 2020 of Alfa
| DRE Profit and Loss Accounts Actual profit | Values |
| ——– BRL ———- | |
| Gross Revenue | 114.883.626,07 |
| (-) Sales returns and canceled sales | -429.215,06 |
| (-) Sales taxes | -2.921.361,62 |
| (=) Net operating income | 111.533.049,39 |
| (-) Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) | -80.484.252,90 |
| (=) Operating gross profit | 31.048.796,49 |
| (-) Operating expenses | -30.002.059,78 |
| (+) Financial Revenue | 517.508,13 |
| (=) Result before CSLL¹ and IRPJ² | 1.564.244,84 |
| CSLL Calculation (tax base) | 1.564.244,84 |
| CSLL 9% | 140.782,04 |
| IRPJ Calculation (tax base) | 1.564.244,84 |
| IRPJ 15% | 234.636,73 |
| Additional IRPJ 10% | 132.424,48 |
| Total Corporate Tax | 367.061,21 |
| Accounts for PIS and COFINS assessment (non-cumulative) | |
| Gross Revenue | 114.883.626,07 |
| (-) Single-phase and zero rate | -81.453.151,35 |
| (=) PIS³-COFINS calculation base4 basic rate | 33.430.474,72 |
| Basic rate | |
| PIS 1.65% | 551.602,83 |
| COFINS 7.60% | 2.540.716,08 |
| (=) PIS-COFINS calculation base differentiated rate | 517.508,13 |
| PIS 0.65% | 3.363,80 |
| COFINS 4.00% | 20.700,33 |
| Total value of contributions before credit deductions | |
| Social Integration Program | 554.966,64 |
| Social Security Financing Contribution | 2.561.416,40 |
| Credit discounts (basic rate) | |
| Resale acquisitions | 27.315.426,67 |
| Electric energy | 449808,93 |
| Building rentals | 1.479.891,63 |
| Leaseback consideration | 16.203,00 |
| Return of sale subject to non-cumulative taxation | 344,12 |
| (=) Calculation basis for credit discounts (basic rate) | 29.261.674,35 |
| PIS 1.65% | 482.817,63 |
| COFINS 7.60% | 2.223.887,25 |
| Credit discounts (presumed credit rate) | |
| Opening stock | 10.451.107,20 |
| (=) Calculation basis for credit discounts (presumed credit) | 10.451.107,20 |
| PIS 0.65% | 67.932,20 |
| COFINS 3.00% | 313.533,22 |
| Total value of credit discounts | |
| Social Integration Program | 550.749,82 |
| Social Security Financing Contribution | 2.537.420,47 |
| Total value of credit balances to be used in a future period | |
| Social Integration Program | 21.590,90 |
| Social Security Financing Contribution | 95.470,59 |
| Total value of credit discounts used in the year 2020 | |
| Social Integration Program | 529.158,92 |
| Social Security Financing Contribution | 2.441.949,88 |
| Total to be collected in the year 2020 from PIS and COFINS contributions | |
| PIS (BRL 554,966.64 – BRL 529,158.92) | 25.807,72 |
| COFINS (BRL 2,561,416.40 – BRL 2,441,949.88) | 119.466,52 |
Source: Elaborated by the author.
Also, for the year 2020, CSLL and IRPJ based on presumed profit (Table 2), and PIS and COFINS under the cumulative regime were determined.
Table 2. Calculation of the Social Security Financing Contribution (CSLL), Corporate Income Tax (IPRJ), Social Integration Program (PIS) and cumulative Social Security Financing Contribution (COFINS) for Presumed Profit in the year 2020 for Alfa
| Accounts for CSLL and IRPJ calculation | Values |
| ————— BRL ————– | |
| Gross Revenue | 114.883.626,07 |
| (-) Sales returns and canceled sales | -429.215,06 |
| (=) Revenue before presumption | 114.454.411,01 |
| Social Contribution on Net Income (CSLL) Calculation | 114.454.411,01 |
| Presumption CSLL 12% | 13.734.529,32 |
| (+) Financial revenue | 517.508,13 |
| CSLL Calculation Basis | 14.252.037,45 |
| CSLL 9% | 1.282.683,37 |
| Corporate Tax Calculation | 114.454.411,01 |
| Presumption IRPJ 8% | 9.156.352,88 |
| (+) Financial revenue | 517.508,13 |
| IRPJ Calculation Basis | 9.673.861,01 |
| IRPJ 15% | 1.451.079,15 |
| IRPJ Additional 10% | 943.386,10 |
| IRPJ | 2.394.465,25 |
| Accounts for PIS and COFINS calculation (cumulative) | |
| Gross Revenue | 114.883.626,07 |
| (-) Single-phase and zero rate | -81.453.151,35 |
| (-) Sales returns and canceled sales | -429.215,06 |
| (=) PIS-COFINS calculation base basic rate | 33.001.259,66 |
| Basic rate | |
| PIS 0.65% | 214.508,19 |
| COFINS 3.00% | 990.037,79 |
Source: Elaborated by the author.
The difference in tax values between the actual profit and presumed profit regimes is perceived. The difference in the total sum of taxes for each regime is R$4,228,577.11 (Table 3).
Table 3. Comparison of taxes in Actual Profit X Presumed Profit in the year 2020 for Alfa
| Taxes | Actual profit | Presumed Profit | Difference |
| ——————————- BRL ——————————— | |||
| PIS¹ | 25.807,72 | 214.508,19 | 188.700,47 |
| COFINS² | 119.466,52 | 990.037,79 | 870.571,27 |
| Social Contribution on Net Income³ | 140.782,04 | 1.282.683,37 | 1.141.901,33 |
| IRPJ4 | 367.061,21 | 2.394.465,25 | 2.027.404,04 |
| Sum | 653.117,49 | 4.881.694,60 | 4.228.577,11 |
Note: ¹PIS: Social Integration Program, ²COFINS: Social Security Financing Contribution (COFINS), ³CSLL: Social Contribution on Net Income 4IRPJ: Corporate Income Tax
Source: Elaborated by the author.
Comparing each tax individually, it is verified that the actual profit system is the most adequate fiscal-tax framework for Alfa. It is noteworthy that the owners of the company Alfa did not want to change the tax system from presumed profit to actual profit in 2020, even though the migration of regimes proved viable, as they alleged several reasons, such as: they were accustomed to the presumed profit regime; they had been in the presumed profit regime for a long time and things were going well as they were; they had an idea of the monthly tax amounts for presumed profit (PIS and COFINS) and at the end of the quarter (CSLL and IRPJ); they did not know about actual profit; they felt insecure about the results of actual profit; the administrative team at Alfa did not know the procedures/rules for actual profit; the previous accountant had never mentioned actual profit and had also never proposed a simulation to compare the two regimes (presumed profit X actual profit).
Even with the demonstrations and simulations, the company’s owners were still reluctant to abandon presumed profit and only decided to switch to actual profit in 2020, as the accountant informed them that if they wished, they could return to presumed profit the following year, i.e., in 2021. Given this condition, Alfa’s owners stated that they would “try out” actual profit in 2020 and if they didn’t like it, they would return to presumed profit in 2021. In this context, a certain level of ignorance of tax legislation is perceived, on the part of the entrepreneurs and especially also on the part of the accountants. This situation can generate much higher tax amounts for the company to pay, putting at risk not only the company’s financial health but also its own longevity[2].
It is noteworthy that after the owners verified, already in the first quarters, the tax savings due to it being framed in the correct tax system (lucro real), the company Alfa’s strategic business planning was radically altered, that is, the company opened two more branches, one in May 2020 and another in August 2020, both within the state of São Paulo, even with all the uncertainties surrounding the country due to the impact of the Covid 19 pandemic, where the State of São Paulo recognized the state of public calamity in March 2020[11]. Therefore, it reinforces that tax planning within organizations is not only important, but extremely necessary for companies to remain economically healthy and active in the market.
References
[1] Pequenas Empresas Grandes Negócios (PEGN). E-commerce: como vender seus produtos para todo o mundo. 2018. Disponível em: <https://revistapegn.globo.com/Banco-de-ideias/E-commerce/noticia/2018/07/e-commerce-como-vender-seus-produtos-para-todo-o-mundo.html>.
[2] Crepaldi S. Planejamento tributário: teoria e prática. 3ed. São Paulo (SP): Editora Saraiva. 2018.
[3] Andrade Filho E.O. Imposto de renda das empresas. 13ed. São Paulo (SP): Editora Atlas. 2018.
[4] Araújo D.A. Planejamento tributário aplicado aos instrumentos sucessórios. 2ed. São Paulo (SP): Editora Almedina Brasil. 2018.
[5] Chaves F.C. Planejamento tributário na prática – gestão tributária aplicada. 4ed. São Paulo (SP): Editora Atlas. 2017.
[6] Secretaria do Tesouro Nacional (STN). Estimativa da carga tributária bruta do governo geral. 2021. Disponível em: <https://sisweb.tesouro.gov.br/apex/f?p=2501:9::::9:P9_ID_PUBLICACAO:38233>.
[7] Instituto Brasileiro de Planejamento e Tributação (IBPT). Quantidade de normas editadas no Brasil: 33 anos da constituição federal de 1988. 2021. Disponível em: <https://ibpt.com.br/estudo-do-ibpt-quantidade-de-normas-editadas-no-brasil-desde-1988/#:~:text=No%20%C3%BAltimo%20dia%2005%2C%20a,7%20milh%C3%B5es%20de%20normas%20brasileiras>.
[8] Receita Federal do Brasil [RFB]. Receita Federal implanta, com apoio do Serpro, primeiros módulos do software de inteligência artificial. 2008. Disponível em: <http://intra.serpro.gov.br/noticias/receita-federal-implanta-com-apoio-do-serpro-primeiros-modulos-do-software-de-inteligencia-artificial>.
[9] Brasil. Instrução normativa RFB Nº 1700, de 14 de março de 2017. Dispõe sobre a determinação e o pagamento do imposto sobre a renda e da contribuição social sobre o lucro líquido das pessoas jurídicas e disciplina o tratamento tributário da Contribuição para o PIS/Pasep e da Cofins. 2017. Disponível em: <http://normas.receita.fazenda.gov.br/sijut2consulta/link.action?naoPublicado=&idAto=81268&visao=anotado>.
[10] Brasil. Lei complementar n. 123, de 14 de dezembro de 2006. Institui o Estatuto Nacional da Microempresa e da Empresa de Pequeno Porte. 2006. Disponível em: <http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/leis/lcp/lcp123.htm>.
[11] São Paulo. Reconhece o estado de calamidade pública, decorrente da pandemia do COVID-19 que atinge o Estado de São Paulo, e dá providencias correlatas. 2020. Disponível em: <https://www.saopaulo.sp.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/decretos-64879-e-64880.pdf>.
Como citar
Miura F.H. Impacto do planejamento tributário no varejo. Revista E&S. 2023; 4: e20230009.
Sobre os autores
Flávio Hitiro Miura, Bacharel em Ciências Contábeis, Especialista em Gestão Tributária, Taquaritinga, SP, Brasil.
Link para download: https://cms.revistaes.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/ES_23009.pdf