A company sells one hundred thousand reais on credit, issues the invoice, and receives an advance payment from a credit fintech. They receive the net amount in the same week. Two months later, the customer returns the merchandise and the sale is canceled.
The tax collected during settlement needs to be returned to someone.
According to the rule, it goes back to the supplier who carried out the transaction. However, the economic holder of that credit, at that point, is someone else.
Split payment is the automatic segregation of IBS and CBS at the time of financial settlement of the transaction. Instead of the selling company collecting the tax after receiving payment, the payment system itself separates the portion due and forwards it to the tax authorities before the amount reaches the supplier. The legal basis is Complementary Law 214/2025, sanctioned on January 16, 2025, and amended by Complementary Law 227/2026. The operational discipline came from Decree 12.955/2026, which regulates CBS, and Resolution CGIBS 6/2026, which deals with IBS.
The calendar that matters is not the one for 2026.
This year is a trial period. The IBS appears at 0,1% and the CBS at 0,9% on tax documents, without effective collection for those who fulfill the ancillary obligations, and the highlighted value is offset against the PIS and Cofins taxes due.
The turning point is in 2027. PIS and Cofins will be phased out, CBS will assume its full rate, the Selective Tax will come into effect, and IPI will be reduced to zero, except for the Manaus Free Trade Zone. IBS will follow a longer trajectory, progressively replacing ICMS and ISS until the beginning of the 2030s.
Split payment follows this trend. The expectation is for a phased start in 2027, and the design of the gradual implementation depends on a joint act by the IBS Management Committee and the Federal Revenue Service, as stipulated in Article 35, § 2, I, of the supplementary law. This act has not yet been issued.
The first stage outlined in the technical materials is called the optional B2B phase. In this phase, the use of the mechanism is optional for the party initiating the transaction, although participating financial institutions and payment service providers must make the functionality available to business clients.
Those who only read the headline conclude that 2026 is a year of rest. Those who read the diagram realize that 2026 is the year in which contractual decisions need to be made, because they will govern operations throughout the transition.
It's important to consider what's at stake in the credit market. Receivables financing is one of the main sources of working capital for medium-sized companies in Brazil, and it works precisely because commercial credit is predictable enough to be priced in. Introducing a new variable into this calculation affects the cost of money for those who sell on credit.
What the June documentation is, and what it is not.
On June 3rd, Joint Act RFB/CGIBS No. 2, dated May 27, 2026, was published in the Official Gazette, authorizing the release of the Integration Manual and Swagger documentation for the Public Split Payment Platform.
The content is technical and aimed at those who build the system. It governs communication between payment system agents and tax authorities, with a flow that involves initiating the remittance, sending transaction batches, and reporting the closing, followed by validation of records and values by the public platform and generation of the transaction identifier.
It's worth noting, as the expert analysis pointed out, that this is technical documentation, not a schedule or a new obligation. Reading the manual as if it were the official calendar will lead to incorrect decisions.
The central element for the topic of this article is the Segregation Report, a mandatory document detailing the financial transfer of segregated goods before payment to the tax authorities. It is in this report that the supplier of the transaction is identified.
And that's where the anticipation of receivables clashes with the design.
The return process is where the logic breaks down.
Complementary Law 227/2026 authorized the regulation to provide for the transfer to the supplier of the amount collected by split payment in case of return or cancellation. This rule was incorporated into Article 57, § 4, of Decree 12.955/2026, for the CBS, and into Article 57, § 4, of CGIBS Resolution 6/2026, for the IBS.
In a transaction without assignment, the solution is intuitive. Once the sale is canceled and the tax is collected, the amount is returned to the party who carried out the transaction.
The difficulty arises when the receivable has already been sold. The supplier indicated in the Segregation Report may have assigned the credit and received the price of the assignment in advance, and yet, for tax purposes, remains the subject of the original transaction.
The result is an economic misalignment. The money returned by the tax authorities goes into the coffers of those who are no longer entitled to the credit, while those who financed the transaction bear the loss resulting from the cancellation.
It's not a problem of revenue collection, but rather of the private circulation of value. The tax authorities correctly refund the money. The issue is what happens after the refund, and that's something that tax law doesn't, and shouldn't, solve on its own.
What needs to be included in the assignment agreement?
The answer is contractual, and it's worth mapping it out before the first cancellation happens under the new regime.
Destination of the refunded amount. The contract must expressly state who is entitled to the amount refunded by the tax authorities in case of cancellation or return, and within what timeframe it must be transferred to the assignee when that is the agreed arrangement.
Duty to inform. Cancellations and returns become a relevant event for the credit operation, which requires a clear obligation for the assignor to communicate with the assignee, with a defined timeframe and method.
Treatment of the discount. The pricing of prepayment incorporates the risk of default. Under split payment, it also incorporates the risk of cancellation with the tax being returned to a third party, and ignoring this in the rate means pricing in a risk that is unknown.
Guarantee and compensation. When the volume justifies it, the design may include partial retention, escrow account, or a compensation mechanism between transactions of the same originator.
It is also worth considering the case of partial returns, which are the majority in retail and distribution operations. Full cancellation has a relatively simple solution to design. Returning part of the batch, with the receivable assigned as a block, requires a pre-defined allocation criterion, otherwise it risks becoming a dispute with each event.
None of this is unusual for those already structuring credit assignments. What is new is that a tax variable has begun to interfere with the settlement of a private contract, and the standard market contract has not yet been written taking this into account.
A methodological approach completes the process. Before drafting a new clause, it's advisable to map out the portfolio: how much of the revenue is sold on credit, what portion of those receivables is advanced, and what is the cancellation and return history by product line. Without these three figures, the clause becomes an exercise in imagination.
The payment deadline has become a tax variable.
There is a second contractual effect, less discussed and of broader scope, because it affects every supply contract.
Under the new tax regime, the tax due date is independent of the timeframe granted to the client. The taxable event, calculation, and due date all follow their own separate tracks, and the date on which the client actually pays is a matter for the supplier's treasury department.
With the segregation in financial settlement, this track gets closer to the actual cash flow. The agreed payment method, the chosen means, and the timing of the settlement cease to be operational details and begin to interact with the collection process.
Contracts for ongoing performance, installment payments, and event-related payments deserve specific review. The point of attention is not the rate, but rather the clause that defines when and how the payment occurs.
The fundamental change is in the oversight model.
Everything that has happened so far is a consequence of a deeper change in the relationship between tax authorities and taxpayers.
The traditional model works in two separate stages: the taxpayer files a return, and then it is audited. Split payment replaces this with transaction-by-transaction monitoring, concentrating transactional data in real time on a public platform.
For the company, the timing of when the error appears changes. Discrepancies between tax documents and financial settlements cease to be something discovered in an audit months later and begin to paralyze the operation itself.
The concentration of data also raises an issue that will be discussed further. A public platform that records transaction by transaction ends up holding a detailed picture of each company's economic activity, and the debate about governance and secondary use of this data tends to grow as the volume increases.
The profile of those solving the problem also changes. The conversation is no longer exclusively between legal and accounting departments, but begins to include treasury, systems, and the financial institution that handles the settlement.
What is not yet defined
The most important piece of the puzzle remains pending: the joint act that will establish deadlines, scope, and mandatory nature of each stage of the split payment.
Until it's released, expressions like "implementation in 2027" should be read as an expectation based on the regulatory framework, not as a definite date. A company that rescheduled its system based on an unofficial timeline will have to redo the work.
The handling of returns in transactions involving assigned receivables also lacks a specific regulatory solution, and the only option currently available is through the contract between the parties.
Add to this list the behavior of the financial market itself. Institutions and payment service providers are developing their integrations now, and the way each one implements the transfer and communication of events will influence, in practice, what is operationally feasible to agree upon in a contract.
It's worth noting the sheer size of the text governing all of this. Decree 12.955/2026 has over 450 articles, and the rules vary depending on the type of operation, the payment method, and the company's tax regime. There is no single interpretation applicable to all businesses.
Why the transition requires reading regulations and financial flows.
A professional who is well-versed in supplementary law but doesn't understand how receivables financing works will write a clause that protects no one. Someone who is knowledgeable about credit operations but unaware of Article 57 of the regulations will discover the discrepancy upon the first significant cancellation.
The window to resolve this is short and coincides with the second half of 2026, a period in which the contracts that go through this transition are being signed.
The IDP's Postgraduate Program in Tax Law was structured around this transition. The first axis deals with the constitutional foundations of the tax system, the distribution of powers, and the role of Tax Reform. The second focuses on practical application, covering tax liability, administrative tax proceedings, tax enforcement, planning, and litigation.
The course features live classes held every two weeks, and the faculty includes Maysa Pittondo, PhD in Law and former member of the CARF (Administrative Council for Tax Appeals), Wesley Rocha, member of the CARF, and Cláudio Seefelder, Attorney for the National Treasury.
Learn more about our Postgraduate Program in Tax Law: https://pos.idp.edu.br/products/pos-graduacao-em-direito-tributario
References
The main source for this article is an article by Augusto Périco in Consultor Jurídico on June 27, 2026, with explicit reference to Article 57, § 4, of Decree 12.955/2026 and Article 57, § 4, of CGIBS Resolution 6/2026, as well as a description of the platform's workflow and the Segregation Report: https://www.conjur.com.br/2026-jun-27/informe-de-segregacao-no-split-payment-e-antecipacao-de-recebiveis/
A clause regarding payment terms in supply contracts, noting that the joint act for gradual implementation foreseen in Article 35, § 2, I, is still pending, and that Joint Act RFB/CGIBS No. 2 is technical documentation and not a schedule. It also mentions IBS at 0,1% in Article 343 and CBS at 0,9% in Article 346: https://conjur.com.br/2026-jul-30/split-payment-ea-clausula-de-prazo-nos-contratos-de-fornecimento/
Joint Act RFB/CGIBS No. 2, of May 27, 2026, published in the Official Gazette on June 3, 2026, and information that Decree 12.955/2026 has more than 450 articles: https://www.elscon.com.br/post/split-payment-na-reforma-tribut%C3%A1ria-o-que-a-documenta%C3%A7%C3%A3o-t%C3%A9cnica-de-junho-de-2026-significa-para-as
Publication dates of Decree 12.955/2026 and CGIBS Resolution 6/2026 on April 30, 2026, and the existence of Joint Ordinance MF/CGIBS No. 7/2026 recognizing the provisions common to both taxes: https://escolasuperioresn.com.br/transicao-reforma-tributaria-2026-2033/
Phase 1 B2B optional, obligation of participating institutions to provide the functionality and dependence on a joint act to define the start and mandatory nature: https://juscon.com.br/split-payment-na-reforma-tributaria-quando-sera-obrigatorio-e-como-proteger-o-fluxo-de-caixa/
Change from a model of declaring and then being audited to transaction-by-transaction monitoring, and a 2026 timeline as a test year: https://www.contabeis.com.br/artigos/78327/split-payment-na-reforma-tributaria-impactos-limites-e-questoes-em-aberto/
Extinction of PIS and Cofins in 2027, CBS at full rate, Selective Tax in effect and IPI reduced to zero with the exception of the Manaus Free Trade Zone: https://portaljuristec.com.br/2026/07/22/o-split-payment-na-reforma-tributaria-do-consumo-anatomia-de-um-novo-modo-de-extincao-do-credito-tributario-eo-regime-das-devolucoes-a-luz-do-direito-tributario-comparado-internacional/
