| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENT LIABILITIES | COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Environmental Matters Introduction Accruals for environmental matters are recorded when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated based on current law and existing technologies. At December 31, 2021, the Company had accrued obligations of $1,220 million for probable environmental remediation and restoration costs ($1,244 million at December 31, 2020), including $237 million for the remediation of Superfund sites ($248 million at December 31, 2020). This is management’s best estimate of the costs for remediation and restoration with respect to environmental matters for which the Company has accrued liabilities, although it is reasonably possible that the ultimate cost with respect to these particular matters could range up to approximately two times that amount. Consequently, it is reasonably possible that environmental remediation and restoration costs in excess of amounts accrued could have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. It is the opinion of the Company’s management, however, that the possibility is remote that costs in excess of the range disclosed will have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Inherent uncertainties exist in these estimates primarily due to unknown conditions, changing governmental regulations and legal standards regarding liability, and emerging remediation technologies for handling site remediation and restoration. As new or additional information becomes available and/or certain spending trends become known, management will evaluate such information in determination of the current estimate of the environmental liability. As part of the Company's 2020 Restructuring Program, in the third quarter of 2020, the Company recorded a pretax charge related to environmental remediation matters. This charge resulted from the Company's evaluation of the costs required to manage remediation activities at sites Dow will permanently shut down as part of its 2020 Restructuring Program. In addition, the Company recorded indemnification assets of $50 million related to Dow Silicones' environmental matters. The Company recognized a pretax charge, net of indemnifications, of $56 million, included in "Restructuring, goodwill impairment and asset related charges - net" in the consolidated statements of income and related to Performance Materials & Coatings ($52 million) and Corporate ($4 million). See Note 6 for additional information. In the third quarter of 2019, the Company recorded a pretax charge related to environmental remediation matters at a number of current and historical locations. The charge primarily resulted from: the culmination of long-standing negotiations and discussions with regulators and agencies, including technical studies supporting higher cost estimates for final or staged remediation plans; the Company’s evaluation of the cost required to manage remediation activities at sites affected by Dow’s separation from DowDuPont and related agreements with Corteva and DuPont; and, the Company’s review of its closure strategies and obligations to monitor ongoing operations and maintenance activities. In addition, the Company recorded indemnification assets of $48 million related to Dow Silicones’ environmental matters. The Company recognized a pretax charge, net of indemnifications, of $399 million related to these environmental matters, included in “Cost of sales” in the consolidated statements of income and related to Packaging & Specialty Plastics ($5 million), Industrial Intermediates & Infrastructure ($8 million), Performance Materials & Coatings ($50 million) and Corporate ($336 million). The following table summarizes the activity in the Company's accrued obligations for environmental matters for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020: Accrued Obligations for Environmental Matters 2021 2020 In millions Balance at Jan 1 $ 1,244 $ 1,155 Accrual adjustment 159 285 Payments against reserve (162) (198) Foreign currency impact (21) 2 Balance at Dec 31 $ 1,220 $ 1,244 The amounts charged to income on a pretax basis related to environmental remediation totaled $158 million in 2021, $234 million in 2020 and $588 million in 2019. Capital expenditures for environmental protection were $65 million in 2021, $80 million in 2020 and $83 million in 2019. Midland Off-Site Environmental Matters On June 12, 2003, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality ("MDEQ") issued a Hazardous Waste Operating License (the "License") to the Company’s Midland, Michigan, manufacturing site (the “Midland Site”), which was renewed and replaced by the MDEQ on September 25, 2015, and included provisions requiring the Company to conduct an investigation to determine the nature and extent of off-site contamination in the City of Midland soils, the Tittabawassee River and Saginaw River sediment and floodplain soils, and the Saginaw Bay, and, if necessary, undertake remedial action. In 2016, final regulatory approval was received from the MDEQ for the City of Midland and the Company is continuing the long term monitoring requirements of the Remedial Action Plan. Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers, Saginaw Bay The Company, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the State of Michigan ("State") entered into an administrative order on consent (“AOC”), effective January 21, 2010, that requires the Company to conduct a remedial investigation, a feasibility study and a remedial design for the Tittabawassee River, the Saginaw River and the Saginaw Bay, and pay the oversight costs of the EPA and the State under the authority of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. These actions, to be conducted under the lead oversight of the EPA, will build upon the investigative work completed under the State Resource Conservation Recovery Act program from 2005 through 2009. The Tittabawassee River, beginning at the Midland Site and extending down to the first six miles of the Saginaw River, are designated as the first Operable Unit for purposes of conducting the remedial investigation, feasibility study and remedial design work. This work will be performed in a largely upriver to downriver sequence for eight geographic segments of the Tittabawassee and upper Saginaw Rivers. In the first quarter of 2012, the EPA requested the Company address the Tittabawassee River floodplain ("Floodplain") as an additional segment. In January 2015, the Company and the EPA entered into an order to address remediation of the Floodplain. The remedial work is expected to continue over the next two years as river levels allow. The remainder of the Saginaw River and the Saginaw Bay are designated as a second Operable Unit and the work associated with that unit may also be geographically segmented. The AOC does not obligate the Company to perform removal or remedial action; that action can only be required by a separate order. The Company and the EPA have been negotiating orders separate from the AOC that obligate the Company to perform remedial actions under the scope of work of the AOC. The Company and the EPA have entered into six separate orders to perform limited remedial actions in seven of the eight geographic segments in the first Operable Unit, including the Floodplain. Dow has received from the EPA a Notice of Completion of Work for three of these six orders and the Company continues the long-term monitoring requirements. Dow also has entered into a separate order to perform a limited remedial action for certain properties located within the second Operable Unit. Alternative Dispute Resolution Process The Company, the EPA, the U.S. Department of Justice and the natural resource damage trustees (which include the Michigan Office of the Attorney General, the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Saginaw-Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan) have been engaged in negotiations to seek to resolve potential governmental claims against the Company for natural resource damages related to historical off-site contamination associated with the City of Midland, the Tittabawassee and Saginaw Rivers and the Saginaw Bay. The Company and the governmental parties started meeting in the fall of 2005 and entered into a Confidentiality Agreement in December 2005. On July 20, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ("District Court") entered a final consent decree in Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-13292 between the Company and federal, state and tribal trustees to resolve allegations of natural resource damages arising from the historic operations of the Company’s Midland Site. The consent decree required the Company to pay a $15 million cash settlement to be used for long-term maintenance and trustee-selected remediation projects with an additional $7 million to specified local projects managed by third parties. These funds were paid in December 2020. The consent decree further requires the Company to complete 13 additional environmental restoration projects which are valued by the trustees at approximately $77 million, to be conducted over the next several years. In 2021, the Company, working with the trustees, advanced the design plans for several of the Company required environmental restoration projects with implementation in progress for one of the projects. At December 31, 2021, the accrual for these off-site matters was $104 million (included in the total accrued obligation of $1,220 million). At December 31, 2020, the Company had an accrual for these off-site matters of $107 million (included in the total accrued obligation of $1,244 million). Environmental Matters Summary It is the opinion of the Company’s management that the possibility is remote that costs in excess of those disclosed will have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial condition or cash flows. Litigation Asbestos-Related Matters of Union Carbide Corporation Introduction Union Carbide is and has been involved in a large number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged claims primarily relate to products that Union Carbide sold in the past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on Union Carbide’s premises and Union Carbide’s responsibility for asbestos suits filed against a former Union Carbide subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to Union Carbide’s products. Union Carbide expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed against Union Carbide and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future claims. Estimating the Asbestos-Related Liability Based on a study completed by Ankura Consulting Group, LLC ("Ankura") in January 2003, Union Carbide increased its December 31, 2002, asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims for a 15-year period ending in 2017 to $2.2 billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. In subsequent years, Union Carbide compared current asbestos claim and resolution activity to the results of the most recent Ankura study at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual continued to be appropriate. In 2016, Ankura completed a study to provide estimates for the undiscounted cost of disposing of pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem through the terminal year of 2049, including a reasonable forecast of future defense and processing costs. Based on the study and Union Carbide’s internal review of asbestos claim and resolution activity, Union Carbide determined estimating the liability through the terminal year of 2049 was more appropriate due to increased knowledge and data about the costs to resolve claims and diminished volatility in filing rates. Union Carbide and the Company also determined that estimating and accruing a liability for future asbestos-related defense and processing costs was more appropriate as such costs represent expenditures related to legacy activities that do not contribute to current or future revenue generating activities of Union Carbide and the Company and is also reflective of the manner in which Union Carbide manages its asbestos-related exposure, including careful monitoring of the correlation between defense spending and resolution costs. As a result, in the fourth quarter of 2016, Union Carbide recorded a $1,113 million increase in its asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims, including future defense and processing costs. Each October, Union Carbide requests Ankura to review its historical asbestos claim and resolution activity through the third quarter of the current year, including asbestos-related defense and processing costs, to determine the appropriateness of updating the most recent study. In December 2019, Ankura stated that an update of its December 2018 study would not provide a more likely estimate of future events than the estimate reflected in the study and, therefore, the estimate in the study remained applicable. Based on Union Carbide's internal review process and Ankura's response, Union Carbide determined that no change to the accrual was required. In December 2020, Ankura completed a study of Union Carbide's historical asbestos claim and resolution activity through September 30, 2020, including asbestos-related defense and processing costs, and provided estimates for the undiscounted cost of disposing of pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem through the terminal year of 2049. Based on the study and Union Carbide's internal review process, it was determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required. At December 31, 2020, the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem, including future asbestos-related defense and processing costs, was $1,098 million, and approximately 22 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 78 percent related to future claims. In December 2021, Ankura stated that an update of its December 2020 study would not provide a more likely estimate of future events than the estimate reflected in the study and, therefore, the estimate in the study remained applicable. Based on Union Carbide's internal review process and Ankura's response, Union Carbide determined that no change to the accrual was required. At December 31, 2021, the asbestos-related liability for pending and future claims against Union Carbide and Amchem, including future asbestos-related defense and processing costs, was $1,016 million, and approximately 25 percent of the recorded liability related to pending claims and approximately 75 percent related to future claims. Summary The Company's management believes the amounts recorded by Union Carbide for the asbestos-related liability, including defense and processing costs, reflect reasonable and probable estimates of the liability based upon current, known facts. However, future events, such as the number of new claims to be filed and/or received each year, the average cost of defending and disposing of each such claim, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding asbestos litigation in the United States over a significant period of time, could cause the actual costs for Union Carbide to be higher or lower than those projected or those recorded. Any such events could result in an increase or decrease in the recorded liability. Because of the uncertainties described above, Union Carbide cannot estimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending and future asbestos-related claims facing Union Carbide and Amchem. As a result, it is reasonably possible that an additional cost of disposing of Union Carbide's asbestos-related claims, including future defense and processing costs, could have a material impact on the Company's results of operations and cash flows for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position. Dow Silicones Chapter 11 Related Matters Introduction In 1995, Dow Silicones, then a 50:50 joint venture between the Company and Corning Incorporated ("Corning"), voluntarily filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in order to resolve Dow Silicones’ breast implant liabilities and related matters (the “Chapter 11 Proceeding”). Dow Silicones emerged from the Chapter 11 Proceeding on June 1, 2004 (the “Effective Date”) and is implementing the Joint Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”). The Plan provides funding for the resolution of breast implant and other product liability litigation covered by the Chapter 11 Proceeding. As of June 1, 2016, Dow Silicones is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company. Breast Implant and Other Product Liability Claims Under the Plan, a product liability settlement program administered by an independent claims office (the “Settlement Facility”) was created to resolve breast implant and other product liability claims. Product liability claimants rejecting the settlement program in favor of pursuing litigation must bring suit against a litigation facility (the “Litigation Facility”). Under the Plan, total payments committed by Dow Silicones to resolving product liability claims are capped at a maximum $2,350 million net present value (“NPV”) determined as of the Effective Date using a discount rate of 7 percent (approximately $4,081 million undiscounted at December 31, 2021). Of this amount, no more than $400 million NPV determined as of the Effective Date can be used to fund the Litigation Facility. Dow Silicones had an obligation to fund the Settlement Facility and the Litigation Facility over a 16-year period, commencing at the Effective Date. At December 31, 2021, Dow Silicones and its insurers have made life-to-date payments of $1,792 million to the Settlement Facility and Dow Silicones is currently making payments to fund the Settlement Facility. In accordance with ASC Topic 450 "Accounting for Contingencies," the Company records a liability for breast implant and other product liability claims (“Implant Liability”), which reflects the estimated impact of the settlement of pending claims. The claim filing deadline passed in June 2019. All claims have been received and are being processed. Based on the claims filed at and before the deadline, Dow Silicones estimates that it will be obligated to contribute an additional $130 million to the Settlement Facility at December 31, 2021 ($160 million at December 31, 2020) which was included in “Accrued and other current liabilities” and "Other noncurrent obligations" in the consolidated balance sheets. In the third quarter of 2019, with the assistance of a third party consultant ("Consultant"), Dow Silicones updated its Implant Liability estimate, primarily reflecting a decrease in Class 16 claims, a decrease resulting from the passage of time, decreased claim filing activity and administrative costs compared with the previous estimate, and an increase in investment income resulting from insurance proceeds. Based on the Consultant's updated estimate and Dow Silicones own review of claim filing activity, Dow Silicones determined that an adjustment to the Implant Liability was required. Accordingly, in the third quarter of 2019, Dow Silicones decreased its Implant Liability $98 million and decreased its corresponding Class 16 receivable $13 million, both included in “Sundry income (expense) - net” in the consolidated statements of income and related to Corporate. The estimate was updated again in the second quarter of 2020 with the assistance of the Consultant, which primarily reflected decreased administrative costs compared with the previous estimate and an increase in investment income resulting from insurance proceeds. Dow Silicones is not aware of circumstances that would change the factors used in estimating the Implant Liability and believes the recorded liability reflects the best estimate of the remaining funding obligations under the Plan; however, the estimate relies upon a number of significant assumptions, including: future acceptance rates, disease mix, and payment values will be materially consistent with historical experience; no material negative outcomes in future controversies or disputes over Plan interpretation will occur; and the Plan will not be modified. If actual outcomes related to any of these assumptions prove to be materially different, the future liability to fund the Plan may be materially different than the amount estimated. Commercial Creditor Issues The Plan provides that each of Dow Silicones commercial creditors (the “Commercial Creditors”) would receive in cash the sum of (a) an amount equal to the principal amount of their claims and (b) interest on such claims. Upon the Plan becoming effective, Dow Silicones paid approximately $1,500 million to the Commercial Creditors, representing principal and an amount of interest that Dow Silicones considers undisputed. On August 19, 2019, Dow Silicones entered into a settlement agreement with the Commercial Creditors related to the remaining disputed portion, obligating Dow Silicones to pay $172 million, inclusive of the Commercial Creditors' legal costs. The settlement was approved by the District Court. As a result of the settlement agreement, in the third quarter of 2019, the Company recorded a pretax charge of $50 million, net of indemnifications of $37 million, included in "Sundry Income (expense) - net" in the consolidated statements of income and related to Corporate. The settlement was paid to the Commercial Creditors in the fourth quarter of 2019. The litigation is now concluded. Summary The amounts recorded by Dow Silicones for the Chapter 11 related matters described above were based upon current, known facts, which management believes reflect reasonable and probable estimates of the liability. However, future events could cause the actual costs for Dow Silicones to be higher or lower than those projected or those recorded. Any such events could result in an increase or decrease in the recorded liability. Other Litigation Matters In addition to the specific matters described above, the Company is party to a number of other claims and lawsuits arising out of the normal course of business with respect to product liability, patent infringement, employment matters, governmental tax and regulation disputes, contract and commercial litigation, and other actions. Certain of these actions purport to be class actions and seek damages in very large amounts. All such claims are being contested. The Company has an active risk management program consisting of numerous insurance policies secured from many carriers at various times. These policies may provide coverage that could be utilized to minimize the financial impact, if any, of certain contingencies described above. It is the opinion of the Company’s management that the possibility is remote that the aggregate of all such other claims and lawsuits will have a material adverse impact on the results of operations, financial condition and cash flows of the Company. Indemnifications with Corning In connection with the June 1, 2016 ownership restructure of Dow Silicones, the Company is indemnified by Corning for at least 50 percent of future losses associated with certain pre-closing liabilities, including the Implant Liability, Commercial Creditors issues and certain environmental matters described in the preceding sections, subject to certain conditions and limits. The maximum amount of indemnified losses which may be recovered are subject to a cap that declines over time. Indemnified losses are capped at $1 billion between May 31, 2018 and May 31, 2023, and no recoveries are permitted after May 31, 2023. The Company had indemnification assets of $95 million at December 31, 2021 ($115 million at December 31, 2020), which was included in "Other current assets" and "Noncurrent receivables" in the consolidated balance sheets. Gain Contingency - Dow v. Nova Chemicals Corporation Patent Infringement Matter In December 2010, Dow filed suit in the Federal Court in Ontario, Canada ("Federal Court") alleging that Nova Chemicals Corporation ("Nova") was infringing the Company's Canadian polyethylene patent 2,106,705 (the "'705 Patent"). Nova counterclaimed on the grounds of invalidity and non-infringement. In accordance with Canadian practice, the suit was bifurcated into a merits phase, followed by a damages phase. Following trial in the merits phase, in May 2014 the Federal Court ruled that the Company's '705 Patent was valid and infringed by Nova. Nova appealed to the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal, which affirmed the Federal Court decision in August 2016. Nova then sought leave to appeal its loss to the Supreme Court of Canada ("Court"), which dismissed Nova’s petition in April 2017. As a result, Nova has exhausted all appeal rights on the merits, and it is undisputed that Nova owes the Company the profits it earned from its infringing sales as determined in the trial for the damages phase. In April 2017, the Federal Court issued a Public Judgment in the damages phase, which detailed its conclusions on how to calculate the profits to be awarded to the Company. In June 2017, the Federal Court ordered Nova to pay $645 million Canadian dollars (equivalent to $495 million U.S. dollars) to the Company, plus pre- and post-judgment interest, for which the Company received payment of $501 million from Nova in July 2017. Although Nova is appealing portions of the damages judgment, certain portions of it are indisputable and can be retained by the Company regardless of the outcome of any further appeals by Nova. As a result of these actions and in accordance with ASC Topic 450-30 "Gain Contingencies," the Company recorded a $160 million pretax gain in the second quarter of 2017. On September 15, 2020, the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal dismissed Nova's appeal of the damages judgment, thus affirming the trial court's decision in its entirety. In November 2020, Nova filed an application for leave to appeal this decision to the Court. In May 2021, the Court granted Nova's application for leave and agreed to review the damages judgment. The Court will hear oral argument on the matter in the first half of 2022 and the Company expects a decision by the end of 2022. The Company is confident of its chances to continue to defend the entire judgment, particularly the trial and appellate courts' determinations on important factual issues, which will be accorded deferential review on appeal. At December 31, 2021, the Company had $341 million ($341 million at December 31, 2020) included in "Accrued and other current liabilities" related to the disputed portion of the damages judgment. Gain Contingency - Dow v. Nova Chemicals Corporation Ethylene Asset Matter On September 18, 2019, the Court of the Queen’s Bench in Alberta, Canada, signed a judgment ordering Nova to pay the Company $1.43 billion Canadian dollars (equivalent to approximately $1.08 billion U.S. dollars) by October 11, 2019, for damages the Company incurred through 2012 related to the companies’ jointly-owned ethylene asset in Joffre, Alberta, Canada. The Court of the Queen's Bench in Alberta, Canada, which initially ruled in June 2018, found that Nova failed to operate the ethylene asset at full capacity for more than ten years, and furthermore, that Nova violated several contractual agreements related to the Company receiving its share of the asset’s ethylene production. These actions resulted in reduced productivity and sales for the Company. Nova has appealed the judgment, however, certain portions of it are not in dispute and are owed to the Company regardless of the outcome of Nova's appeal. As a result of these actions and in accordance with ASC Topic 450-30 “Gain Contingencies,” the Company recorded a $186 million pretax gain in the third quarter of 2019, of which $170 million was included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" and $16 million was included in "Selling, general and administrative expenses" in the consolidated statements of income and related to Packaging & Specialty Plastics. In October 2019, Nova paid $1.08 billion Canadian dollars (equivalent to approximately $0.8 billion U.S. dollars) directly to the Company, and remitted $347 million Canadian dollars to the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") for the tax account of one of the Company's subsidiaries. The Company sought a refund of the entire amount remitted to CRA. On March 31, 2020, the Company received the full refund from CRA, equivalent to $259 million U.S. dollars. In preparation for the June 2020 appellate hearing on the case, Nova provided the Court of the Queen's Bench in Alberta, Canada, an updated schedule of the financial impact of the issues on appeal, which explained that even if Nova prevails on all appeal issues, the Company would still be entitled to retain an amount in excess of the gain recognized in 2019. As a result, the Company recorded an $18 million pretax gain in the second quarter of 2020, of which $12 million was included in "Selling, general and administrative expenses" and $6 million was include d in "Sundry income (expense) - net" in the consolidated statements of income and related to Packaging & Specialty Plastics. On September 16, 2020, the Court of Appeal of Alberta issued its decision, affirming the trial court's liability finding, upholding the majority of Dow's damages and requiring the trial court to recalculate a portion of damages. In the fourth quarter of 2020, Nova chose not to petition the Court to review the appellate court decision, making additional portions of the ruling in Dow’s favor final and no longer subject to dispute. As a result, the Company recorded a $552 million pretax gain in the fourth quarter of 2020, of which $538 million was included in "Sundry income (expense) - net" and $14 million was included in "Selling, general and administrative expenses" in the consolidated statements of income and related to Packaging & Specialty Plastics. At December 31, 2021, $323 million ($323 million at December 31, 2020) was included in "Other noncurrent obligations" in the Company's consolidated balance sheets related to the disputed portion of the damages judgment. Dow continues to seek an award of additional damages for the period from 2013 through 2018. The damages hearing began in the trial court in November 2021 that would resolve the impact of the appellate ruling and quantify Dow's damages for the 2013-2018 period. Luxi Chemical Group Breach of Contract Matter In November 2017, an arbitration panel of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce held that Luxi Chemical Group Co., Ltd. (“Luxi”), based in Shandong Province, China, violated a secrecy and non-use agreement related to the Dow and Johnson Matthey Davy Technologies Limited (“JM”) LP Oxo SM Process by using Dow and JM protected information in the design, construction, and operation of its butanol and 2-ethylhexanol plants, awarding damages, fees and costs, plus interest, to both Dow and JM. In September 2021, Luxi paid the arbitration award and interest assessment and, as a result, Dow recorded a pretax gain of $54 million included in “Sundry income (expense) – net” in the consolidated statements of income and related to Industrial Intermediates & Infrastructure. Brazilian Tax Credits In March 2017, the Federal Supreme Court of Brazil (“Brazil Supreme Court”) ruled in a leading case that a Brazilian value-added tax ("ICMS") should not be included in the base used to calculate a taxpayer's federal contribution on total revenue known as PIS/COFINS (the “2017 Decision”). Previously, three of the Company’s Brazilian subsidiaries filed lawsuits challenging the inclusion of ICMS in their calculation of PIS/COFINS, seeking recovery of excess taxes paid. In response to the 2017 Decision, the Brazilian tax authority filed an appeal seeking clarification of the amount of ICMS tax to exclude from the calculation of PIS/COFINS. In May 2021, the Brazil Supreme Court ruled in a leading case related to the amount of ICMS tax to exclude from the calculation of PIS/COFINS, which r |
