Impacts of the Tax Reform of the anticipation of receivables within payment arrangements

Complementary Law No. 214/2025 (LC 214/2025), which establishes the new tax system on consumption in Brazil, has introduced significant changes for the financial services sector. Among the highlights is the inclusion of the anticipation of receivables on payment arrangements within the scope of the Tax on Goods and Services (IBS) and the Contribution on Goods and Services (CBS).

 The new framework may substantially change the legal and tax treatment of these operations, requiring heightened attention from the agents involved in the anticipation of receivables.

 Simply put, the anticipation of receivables takes place when a participant in the payment arrangement — such as a sub-acquirer — advances to the merchant the amounts they are set to receive from card sales, ahead of the original settlement date. This anticipation, usually remunerated through a discount fee, is a significant source of revenue for many players in the sector.

 Until now, the revenue from discount fees was, in most cases, treated as financial income, and thus not subject to ISS (Municipal Service Tax) and eligible for more favorable PIS and COFINS treatment, depending on the taxation system adopted. However, with the enactment of LC 214/2025, such revenue is now expressly included as financial services subject to CBS and ICBS under the specific tax regime established for the sector.

 This change closes the interpretative gap concerning the legal nature of these transactions and aligns the tax treatment of receivables anticipation with other financial services. However, without strategic planning, this alignment may, in many cases, lead to a higher tax burden.

 The new legislation provides that the tax base for IBS and CBS on receivables anticipation will be the gross amount of the discount fee charged, with the possibility of deducting certain amounts expressly authorized by law, including:

• The forward DI interest rate curve applicable to the anticipation term;
• Losses incurred in the receipt or assignment of receivables;
• Discounts granted at market value, provided they are justified;

Deductions may only be applied if they are expressly provided by law and directly related to the financial activity carried out. As a rule, costs and expenses may be included in the regular credit system but cannot be deducted from gross revenue unless explicitly authorized.

Furthermore, losses exceeding taxable revenues in a given period may be carried forward to subsequent periods, subject to legal limitations.

A key consideration is the need for clear contractual structure that outlines the amounts involved, the discounts charged, the parties to the transaction, and the criteria used to calculate the discount fee. Proper documentation will be essential to safeguard the taxpayer in the event of a tax audit.

The law also introduces a new mechanism allowing the recipient of the receivables anticipation—if subject to the regular IBS and CBS regime—to claim a tax credit for the portion of the discount fee that exceeds the DI interest rate curve. This measure is intended to mitigate tax cascading and preserve the transaction’s economic neutrality.

However, no tax credit may be claimed for amounts that have already been deducted from the gross revenues by the service provider. The law prohibits double recovery, meaning the same amount cannot be deducted and be subject to credits simultaneously.

Given the above, it’s clear that the change in the tax treatment of receivables anticipation requires a reassessment of the tax strategies employed by companies in the sector. By reclassifying a transaction previously treated as financial income into consumption-based revenue, the CBS and IBS tax base is expanded—potentially leading to significant economic impacts. These effects, however, may be mitigated through the deductions and credits expressly permitted by law.

That said, the new framework demands a high level of operational and documentary accuracy, as failure to comply with the legal requirements may result in denied deductions and tax assessments.

In this context, companies are advised to:

1. Review receivables anticipation agreements to ensure they contain clear provisions on the gross amount, the discount applied, and the interest rate used as a reference;
2. Identify and quantify the losses and deductions permitted by law, and appropriate accounting and tax validation mechanisms;
3. Update tax compliance systems to properly account for taxable amounts as well as amounts eligible for deduction or credit;
4. Conduct tax impact simulations comparing the previous framework with the new tax model, in order to adjust profit margins and pricing strategies accordingly;
5. Maintain thorough and well-documented records of all transactions, clearly demonstrating the nature and calculation basis of deducted and/or credited amounts.

In conclusion, the Tax Reform introduces a new paradigm for the taxation of receivables anticipation within payment arrangements. The legislative reclassification of discount revenue demands technical, contractual, and operational adjustments that go well beyond a mere accounting reclassification.

In this new landscape, compliance, transparency, and predictability will be essential to ensure legal certainty and tax efficiency. Timely adaptation to the new rules will not only mitigate risks but also provide a strategic advantage during the transition to Brazil’s new national tax system.