CARF Session of May 27, 2026: three risk fronts CFOs must reposition now

The three strategic alerts of the session

Taken together, the decisions published on May 27 signal three trends that CFOs, legal directors and tax leaders should absorb in their second-half 2026 planning. These are not isolated cases: each projects effects over dozens of open contingencies and over the design of future operations.

CASE 1 · MARFRIG GLOBAL FOODS

R$ 6.1 billion at stake: the tax authority’s playbook for international intragroup operations

Case 17459.720068/2023-28, reported by counselor Roney Sandro Freire Corrêa in the 1st Panel of the 1st Chamber of the 1st Section, concerns the 2018 net income assessment of Marfrig Global Foods S.A. and 48 foreign affiliates. The total amount, per the company’s public filing, is R$ 6.1 billion — one of the largest charges under review at CARF in 2026.

The assessment consolidates, in a single charge, four theses the tax authority has been testing separately against different taxpayers. The novelty here is the combination: the assessment attacks, at once, the deductibility of intragroup financial expenses, the accounting treatment of exchange-rate variation, the use of foreign tax paid and the availability of tax-loss and CSLL negative-base balances. This is precisely the kind of layered exposure addressed in our brief for foreign founders and multinational CFOs.

The four fronts of the assessment

• Intragroup loan financial expenses — the authority disallowed deductions of interest paid to foreign affiliates, requiring, among others, proof of necessity, usualness and an arm’s-length rate.
• Exchange-rate variation on those intragroup loans — invalidation of expenses tied to USD/BRL swings booked as reductions of taxable income.
• Improper offsetting of foreign taxes paid — limits under IN SRF 213/2002 and art. 26 of Law 9,249/1995, especially in periods of loss abroad or in Brazil.
• Use of tax losses and CSLL negative bases “without available balance” — assessed balances lower than those actually used in offsets.

To close the package, the charge included an isolated penalty for failure to pay monthly estimates and a qualified penalty for obstruction of the audit.

What the reporting counselor decided (so far)

Counselor Roney Sandro Freire Corrêa ruled for the tax authority on all merits. But, in a move aligned with the post-STF-Theme-487 scenario, he waived both the isolated penalty and the obstruction penalty. Counselor Diljesse de Moura Pessoa de Vasconcelos Filho requested a review — a sign that at least one front may be revisited when the trial resumes.

“When the tax authority stacks four theses on a single charge, the effect is multiplicative: each disallowance reduces the balance available to offset the others. The defense has to be built in layers, not in parallel.”

TaxUp Tax Practice

What this means for multinationals and groups with offshore structures

• Intragroup loans: review contracts, market evidence (arm’s length), effective flow of funds, purpose tied to the activity and documentation of necessity.
• FX on intragroup operations: revisit the accounting policy — equity method, separation between investment and loan FX variation, CPC 02 (CTA) compliance.
• Foreign income tax credit: validate documentary support, proof of payment, conversions, limits by jurisdiction and period (including carry-forward in case of loss).
• Tax loss and negative base: tie the LALUR to the electronic tax ledger (e-LALUR/ECF), reconciling offsets used against demonstrably assessed balances.
• Penalties: map open assessments that cumulate isolated and ex officio penalties to reposition the defense under STF Theme 487.

CASE 2 · URBANO AGROINDUSTRIAL AND CCAB AGRO

ICMS subsidy: CARF keeps the restrictive reading — even after STJ Theme 1182

In two cases tried in the same session (10340.721114/2023-94 — Urbano Agroindustrial; and 15746.734937/2024-11 — CCAB Agro), the 2nd Panel of the 3rd Chamber of the 1st Section denied, by casting vote, the exclusion of ICMS tax benefits — exemption, base reduction and deferral — from the IRPJ and CSLL base. Sectors with heavy exposure here include agribusiness and the food industry.

The prevailing thesis, aligned with the PGFN, is that these “negative” benefits generate neither equity gain nor positive revenue: the company does not “receive” an amount — it merely stops paying. Without a pass through profit or loss, there would be no revenue to exclude, even if recorded in an incentive reserve.

The practical divergence from STJ Theme 1182

STJ Theme 1182 set three theses: it is impossible to exclude ICMS benefits (except presumed credit) from the IRPJ and CSLL base, unless the requirements of art. 30 of Law 12,973/2014 are met; prior proof that the benefit was granted as an incentive to an economic enterprise is not required; and the tax authority may later audit the destination of the amounts.

CARF’s reading in Urbano and CCAB Agro adds a layer that, in practice, empties this thesis: if the benefit is “negative” — without a pass through profit or loss nor identifiable revenue — art. 30 would not apply, making the exclusion unreachable. For the panel, setting up a profit reserve is not enough on its own.

Convênio 100/1997: the sensitive point for agribusiness

The CCAB Agro case added a relevant layer: CONFAZ Convênio 100/1997 lets states condition the benefit on deducting the waived tax amount from the price of the goods. The logic is that the relief was meant to reduce the operation’s price — not to join the company’s equity. Without proving effective appropriation of the amount, the company cannot accountably turn the tax-burden reduction into subsidy revenue.

Sources consulted: CARF, STJ (Theme 1182), STF (Theme 487), Law 12,973/2014, Law 14,789/2023, Law 9,249/1995, IN SRF 213/2002, CONFAZ Convênio 100/1997.