Recently, there has been much discussion about the possibility of companies claiming PIS and COFINS taxes on additional expenses arising from the pandemic, such as the purchase of gloves, hand sanitizer, masks, temperature monitors, software licenses for remote work, and also in cases where employees are removed from the workplace, but it is the company that bears the costs of testing to confirm whether or not employees are infected with COVID-19.
The question is whether such expenses can be understood as inputs, especially after the decision of the Superior Court of Justice (Theme 779 and 780), which considered that input is everything that is essential or relevant to the company’s activity.
The thesis has already spread throughout the country’s judiciary, and there are decisions that are sometimes favorable to taxpayers, sometimes not.
But, after all, are these expenses essential and relevant to the company’s activities? The answer lies in the Superior Court of Justice’s decision, particularly in the vote of Justice Regina Helena Costa, who also highlights legally mandated expenses as relevant.
Several state and municipal regulations establish rules for businesses to operate normally, with the classic example being mandatory mask use and hand sanitizer. But that’s not all! For a long time, many establishments “closed their doors,” and work was carried out remotely. Suddenly, these companies had to restructure and invest to adapt to this new reality.
The Federal Revenue Service understands that companies that, by legal requirement, provide personal protective equipment (PPE) to their employees can take PIS/COFINS credits, as they are considered inputs.
Therefore, as this is a legal or regulatory requirement created due to the pandemic, there are arguments to authorize the taking of PIS/COFINS credits for gloves, masks, alcohol gel and other items that have been purchased to keep the company in operation, as well as to ensure the protection of employees.
