The PSD and CDS presented a proposed amendment to the State Budget that corrects the salary increase requirements that must be met by companies that access the IRC incentive for salary appreciation or pay exempt bonuses from the IRS. The objective is to bring these requirements closer to those contained in the income agreement signed in the social consultation, which for some partners were distorted in the EO proposal delivered by the Executive.
The income agreement signed in the social consultation on October 1 (without the CGTP) provides for a tax benefit in terms of the IRC for companies that meet certain requirements. The same for those who want to award prizes exempt from the IRS. One of them is that they carry out “a minimum increase of 4.7% of the annual base remuneration of workers who receive a value less than or equal to the average annual base remuneration existing in the company at the end of the previous year.
This formulation was modified in the Government’s Budget proposal, which removed the requirement that all below-average wages increase by at least 4.7%, stating instead that the increase average of workers below the average salary was 4.7% or more. This allowed some workers to receive less than a 4.7% raise (or even nothing), as long as the final average was 4.7%.
“HE average increase The annual base salary of workers who earn less than or equal to the company’s average annual base salary at the end of the previous year is at least 4.7%,” the bill reads.
Now, the AD proposal returns to a formulation more similar to the original, eliminating the expression “average increase.” “HE annual base salary increase of workers earning less than or equal to the company’s average annual base salary at the end of the previous year is at least 4.7%,” it reads.
The agreement provided for another requirement: to access it, the company would have to make “at least a global increase of 4.7% in the average annual base remuneration existing in the companywith reference to the end of the previous year.” But the bill removed the reference to the company’s average and introduced the average per workerwhich meant that all workers, and not just the average, had increases of at least 4.7%. “The increase in the average annual base remuneration per employee, with reference to the end of the previous year, is at least 4.7%,” the bill establishes as a requirement.
The AD proposal also corrects this situation and now establishes as a requirement that “an increase in the average annual base salary in the companyWith reference to the end of the previous year, it is at least 4.7%.”
In the justification note, both parties affirm that the proposal “aims to clarify the rule of the Tax Benefits Statute, in accordance with what was agreed within the framework of the social consultationin the Tripartite Agreement on Salary Valuation and Economic Growth 2025-2028″.
The requirements have been criticized by the CIP, which came up with the idea of a “15th month” exempt from taxes and social contributions. Even before presenting the OE proposal, Armindo Monteiro described the demands as “linkages.” He said it again in an interview with Observador, after the delivery of the Budget, in relation to the IRC benefit.
Armindo Monteiro, from the CIP: “I don’t see that the Portuguese are against reducing taxes on companies. This is an interpretation of the parties.”
“(…) So many limitations were put in place, so many limitations, that I fear it is still not practical,” he said. One of the points criticized at the time was that the salaries of all workers should be increased by 4.7%.
“I ask: in a company there will not always be differentiation, will there not always be some workers who deserve more and others who deserve less? Shouldn’t we talk about an average increase? But establishing that everyone must be increased, even those who perhaps have little attendance, perhaps have little commitment to the company, perhaps are little focused on their activity, even these have to be increased so that a reward is given to those who They really deserve it. … It doesn’t make any sense,” he criticized at the time.
Source: Observadora
