10
costs for smaller companies, making tax compliance less burdensome. However, their research
does not yield evidence supporting these companies’ propensity for innovation. Furthermore,
there is no sustained correlation between the regime and employment, except in certain
industries, such as the retail trade sector.
Presumed Profit
Unlike Simples Nacional, the calculation of taxes under the Presumed Profit regime
does not occur in a unified manner. This regime calculates the tax burden based on assumptions
about the opting party’s profit, considering gross revenue and other revenues subject to
taxation, with rates defined by law. Regarding revenue, law 12,814/2013 sets the limit at BRL
78 million annually, or BRL 6.5 million monthly. Initially, companies opting for the Presumed
Profit regime afford taxes such as IRPJ, CSLL, PIS, and COFINS, with additional taxes and
conditions added depending on the specific business activity (Mendes & Garcia, 2021).
Another key difference between these regimes lies in the social charges related to the
payroll. Under Simples Nacional, these charges are included in the tax payment, as part of the
unification, including the Employer Social Security Contribution (Contribuição Patronal
Previdenciária, CPP), and only encompass the payroll and the Guarantee Fund for Length of
Service (Fundo de Garantia por Tempo de Serviço, FGTS) as established by law 8,036 of May
11, 1990. However, under the Presumed Profit regime, there is an additional charge,
particularly for call center activities, which can amount to 28.8% of the payroll (20% INSS,
5.8% INSS for other institutions, and 3% for RAT). Botelho & Abrantes (2018) criticize this
situation, pointing out that the high tax burden of a labor nature can contribute to
unemployment and informal work, emphasizing that taxation on labor in Brazil is nearly twice
as high as taxation on wealth and income. One solution to alleviate this burden is the tax benefit
of payroll relief.
Enacted by law No. 12,546 of December 14, 2011, this exemption replaces the
application of the 20% rate of the Employer INSS on Payroll with a lower rate applied to gross
revenue. Note that the exemption does not guarantee an overall reduction in tax burdens; it is
a benefit that calls for careful analyses and comparison.
After standardizing the benefit, researchers identify the impacts, whether positive or
negative, on the volume of company expenses. For instance, Silveira & Raupp (2017) found
that an information technology company, after adopting the payroll tax relief, initially reduced
social security contribution expenses by 50%, concluding that the company’s exempted
financial resources were then available for other activities. In the case of a food business, Silva,
Guimarães, Guzatti, Oliveira, & Andrade (2017) concluded that payroll tax relief had a positive
effect, resulting in a 56.89% savings on Employer INSS contributions.
Similarly, the financial and accounting impact of payroll tax relief was positive, leading
to cost reduction in the footwear industry in the Vale do Paranhana municipality, Rio Grande
do Sul, as observed by Bertini & Wünsch (2014). These results were corroborated by Brocker
& Silva (2015) when observing the public passenger transport industry in another municipality
in Rio Grande do Sul.
In a case study conducted in a hotel, Echevarrieta, Magalhães, Casagrande, & Rosa
(2015) found that the company stopped collecting BRL 54,072.03 from public coffers, in
addition to experiencing a 10% growth in the workforce, which not only reduced labor costs
but also strengthened the internal market. In the civil construction segment, studies conducted
by Finizola, Cruz, & Santos (2019) in Paraíba and Junior, Almeida, & Santos (2015) in Goiás
found an average reduction of 45% in the employer’s contribution to INSS.
It should be noted that, according to current legislation, only microenterprises in the
construction sector classified under groups 412, 421, 422, 429, 431, 432, 433, or 439 of the