The agribusiness-specific regime in the Brazilian Tax Reform.
CBS/IBS deferral on inputs, presumed credit when buying from the rural producer, and a zero rate on the basic food basket.

Constitutional foundation and the four-layer architecture

EC 132/2023 art. 9 — constitutional authorization

The agribusiness-specific regime stems directly from art. 9 of Constitutional Amendment 132/2023, which authorized the complementary law to establish differentiated regimes — with a 60% reduction or a zero rate — for agricultural, aquaculture, fishery, forestry and unprocessed plant-extraction products, agricultural inputs, food for human consumption, and horticultural products, fruits and eggs. Paragraph 5 of the same art. 9 specifies presumed-credit rules for purchases from individuals, completing the design of the regime and constitutionally anchoring the structure adopted by LC 214/2025.

LC 214/2025 — four operational layers

LC 214/2025 did not treat agribusiness as a homogeneous block. It chose to overlay four distinct logics that interact with one another:

• Subjective non-incidence (arts. 164-167) — a rural producer with annual revenue up to BRL 3.6 million and an integrated rural producer are deemed non-taxpayers for CBS and IBS, with the possibility of opting into regular taxation.
• Presumed credit (art. 168) — the buyer, a taxpayer under the regular regime, is entitled to a presumed credit on purchases of rural products from a non-taxpayer producer, at a percentage set annually.
• Deferral (art. 138) — agricultural inputs listed in Annex IX get a 60% reduction and the deferral of CBS and IBS to the subsequent industrial stage.
• Zero rate (Annexes I and XV) — products of the national basic food basket (26 items) and horticultural products, fruits and eggs have the CBS and IBS rates cut to zero.

In addition, direct sales from a taxpayer producer to exporting agro-industries enjoy a suspension (art. 82, paragraph 11), and exports in general keep their constitutional immunity with full credit recovery (art. 156-A, paragraph 1, III, of the Constitution and art. 60 of LC 214/2025).

LC 227/2026 — refinements on cooperatives and exports

Complementary Law 227/2026, enacted on January 13, 2026, refined sensitive points for agricultural cooperatives, adjusted the rules for transferring credit between establishments of the same owner and reinforced the treatment of exports. For cooperatives, confirming the cooperative regime under IBS/CBS — with the possibility of treating transfers between the member and the cooperative as a non-taxable cooperative act — is a structuring element of the business model. The detailed regulation is in a joint act of the Federal Revenue Service and the IBS Steering Committee.

Economic rationale — a dispersed producer and a long chain

The legislative choice to structure the regime in four layers reflects a specific sector diagnosis. The Brazilian rural producer is characteristically dispersed — thousands of small and medium farms feed long chains that end in a few industrial companies and trading houses. Taxing each producer directly implies a compliance cost disproportionate to the revenue collected; shifting the taxation to the industrial stage preserves revenue without burdening the small producer. At the same time, the zero rate on the basic food basket and on horticultural products contains the regressiveness of indirect taxation on low-income families. The 60% reduction on inputs preserves the margin of the medium-sized producer. The architecture as a whole seeks to balance four goals — competitive neutrality, operational simplicity, distributive justice and the preservation of export competitiveness.

The non-taxpayer rural producer and the option for the regular regime (arts. 164-167)

Who is a non-taxpayer — the BRL 3.6 million threshold

Art. 164 of LC 214/2025 provides that the rural producer — individual or company — with annual gross revenue up to BRL 3.6 million in the previous calendar year is not a taxpayer for CBS and IBS. The threshold is updated annually by the variation of the IPCA index. Integrated rural producers, tied to agro-industries by an integration contract — characteristic of poultry, swine, tobacco and part of dairy cattle farming — are also non-taxpayers, regardless of the revenue threshold. The non-taxpayer status is automatic once the requirements are met: there is no obligation to apply for it, but the company must monitor its accumulated revenue to detect the moment of mandatory migration to the regular regime if it exceeds the cap.

The right to opt for regular taxation

The non-taxpayer rural producer may opt for regular taxation under art. 165 of LC 214/2025. The option is advantageous in two typical situations: (i) a producer with a relevant volume of taxed input purchases who wants to capture the input credit — the regular regime allows crediting, whereas the non-taxpayer cannot credit; (ii) a producer whose main client is a taxpayer and who prefers to transfer a formal credit rather than generate a presumed credit for the buyer — some buyers prefer a formal credit for governance or contractual reasons. The option takes effect for the entire calendar year and requires registration in the taxpayer registry.

The integrated producer — a contractual peculiarity

Integrated producers — the typical model of poultry, swine and tobacco chains — are tied to the agro-industry by an integration contract regulated by Law 13,288/2016. In these contracts the agro-industry supplies chicks, piglets, feed, medicines and technical assistance; the producer provides labor, facilities and husbandry. LC 214/2025 treats the integrated producer as a non-taxpayer by presumption, and provides that the transfer of inputs from the integrator to the integrated producer and the delivery of the finished animal back through the integrated producer follow specific rules to avoid double taxation in the chain.

Mandatory migration — transition care

A rural producer who exceeds the BRL 3.6 million threshold in the calendar year migrates mandatorily to the regular regime in the following year. Migration requires operational preparation: registration, system adaptation, accounting training, and a pricing policy that accounts for the effect of CBS/IBS and of crediting. Producers close to the threshold — a common situation among medium-sized soybean and corn farms in the Center-West and the South — should anticipate transition planning to avoid surprises in their first year under the regular regime. The decision between staying below the threshold (asset and corporate planning) or embracing the regular regime (broad crediting) is strategic and calls for integrated tax planning.

Presumed credit for the buyer (art. 168) — mechanics and calculation

Why a presumed credit exists

The presumed credit is the technical instrument that solves a structural problem of the dual VAT applied to the rural chain: the non-taxpayer producer does not issue a tax document with CBS/IBS shown because it is not a taxpayer, but the buyer — meatpacker, agro-industry, trading house, food manufacturer — needs some credit to preserve non-cumulativity. Without a compensating mechanism, the chain would have a cumulative effect at the first industrial stage, raising the price of the final product and penalizing competitiveness. Art. 168 of LC 214/2025 solves the problem by granting the buyer a presumed credit — a credit calculated by presumption, without the need to substantiate it transaction by transaction.

Calculation — a percentage set annually

The presumed-credit percentage is set annually by joint act of the Minister of Finance and the IBS Steering Committee. The calculation considers the weighted average of the operations of the previous five calendar years and may be differentiated by product or input, according to the specificity of the chain. Differentiation by product is particularly relevant because chains such as soybeans, corn, coffee, beef cattle, milk and sugarcane have distinct cost compositions, processing stages and historical taxation levels. The annual review allows fine calibration to avoid both over-compensation (undue tax relief) and under-compensation (residual cumulativity).

Who can use it — prerequisites

The presumed credit can be used only by a buyer who (i) is a taxpayer under the regular CBS and IBS regime, (ii) buys directly from the non-taxpayer rural producer, and (iii) uses the acquired good as an input in its activity or destines it to taxed resale. Use depends on the regular bookkeeping of the operation, the identification of the supplier (the producer’s CPF or CNPJ) and adequate documentary evidence — rural producer invoice, supply contract, delivery slip. The consolidated case law on the criteria for the presumed PIS/Cofins credit of the rural producer (old decrees, now superseded), settled by the STJ across successive rulings, remains an interpretive reference for building documentary criteria.

Differences from the current PIS/Cofins presumed credit

The CBS/IBS presumed credit in agribusiness succeeds analogous mechanisms of the non-cumulative PIS/Cofins — originally governed by Law 10,925/2004 and by successive regulatory acts. The old regime was fragmented by sector and generated broad litigation over its scope (which products, which links of the chain, which rates). The STJ’s consolidated case law in Theme 779 (REsp 1,221,170, reporting Justice Napoleão Nunes Maia Filho, First Section, judged 02/22/2018) — which set a broad concept of input for the purpose of crediting non-cumulative PIS/Cofins based on the essentiality and relevance to the activity — is a fundamental interpretive reference for building the credit matrix under the new regime, especially in chains with heterogeneous purchases. The design of art. 168 of LC 214/2025 seeks to consolidate a single rule, with a transparent percentage updated annually, reducing litigiousness. Analyzing the stock of PIS/Cofins presumed credits accumulated before the transition is an essential step — a dedicated cluster on PIS/Cofins recovery covers the topic.

Deferral of agricultural inputs (art. 138 + Annex IX)

What deferral is and why it matters

Deferral, under IBS/CBS, is the postponement of the tax — the operation takes place, but the payment is shifted to the buyer at a later stage of the chain. The technique is not new — ICMS already operated with deferral in several states for agricultural inputs and operations between industries — but in the new regime it gained a uniform national design. Art. 138 of LC 214/2025 establishes the deferral for operations with the agricultural inputs listed in Annex IX — fertilizers, agricultural pesticides, certified seeds, soil correctives, animal feed, veterinary vaccines and medicines, fertilization materials, specific packaging and selected equipment.

Cases where the deferral applies

The deferral applies in two central cases:

• Supply between regular taxpayers — a fertilizer manufacturer (a taxpayer) sells to a distributor (a taxpayer): the tax is deferred to the subsequent operation.
• Supply to a non-taxpayer rural producer who uses the input in production destined to a buyer entitled to a presumed credit — a manufacturer sells to a non-taxpayer rural producer who will grow soybeans sold to a trading house with a presumed credit: the tax is deferred until the trading house’s operation.

The cash-flow effect for the rural producer is relevant: the input enters the farm without the financial burden of CBS/IBS embedded in the price (which would be an effective ~10.6% with the 60% reduction, on the standard 26.5% rate). The tax is charged only at the industrial stage — which preserves the producer’s working capital during the production cycle, which may vary from 4 months (soybeans) to 36 months (beef cattle).

Annex IX — composition and registration with MAPA

Annex IX lists the agricultural inputs eligible for deferral and the 60% reduction. Inclusion follows a criterion of registration with the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock (MAPA) and Anvisa (for chemical and biological pesticides), ensuring the benefit reaches only products legally recognized as intended for agricultural use. The correct NCM classification of the product and the proof of registration are central elements of eligibility — any divergence may trigger an assessment demanding the full rate. For input manufacturers, keeping the registration with MAPA in good standing now carries a direct tax relevance, beyond its health and environmental relevance.

Closure of the deferral — cases

Art. 138 of LC 214/2025 details cases of closure of the deferral that require attention: an exit to a recipient outside the chain (own consumption, loss, deterioration, casualty), an exit to a non-taxpayer recipient with no right to a presumed credit, and an exit covered by another non-taxation case (zero rate, suspension, exemption). In those situations the deferred tax becomes due and the burden falls on the responsible taxpayer according to the chaining of the operation. Modeling these closure scenarios in systems and contracts is part of the technical adaptation work.

Zero rate (basic food basket), suspension and the export regime

National basic food basket — Annex I (26 products)

Annex I of LC 214/2025 lists 26 products of the national basic food basket with the CBS and IBS rates cut to zero. The set comprises: beef, pork, poultry, sheep and goat meat for human consumption (with specific exclusions of processed cuts); fresh, chilled or frozen fish (with exclusions of salted cod and other processed fish); fluid milk, powdered milk and infant formula; eggs; butter and margarine; rice; beans (several species); wheat, corn, oats and basic flours; cassava; roasted and ground coffee; sugar; salt; plain bread; pasta without filling or sauce. The definition seeks to cover the essential food base without including higher-value processed products, containing the revenue loss to the share of consumption of low-income families.

Horticultural products, fruits and eggs — Annex XV

Annex XV extends the zero rate to horticultural products, fruits and eggs not covered by Annex I — fresh greens, vegetables, roots, tubers, fresh fruits and selected dried fruits. The treatment confirms the legislative choice to relieve fresh basic food, without distinction between domestic or imported origin. For distributors, supply centers (Ceasas), retail chains and fruit-processing industries (juices, pulps), the NCM classification must be checked item by item to confirm qualification — some processed products fall outside Annex XV even when derived from a fresh product with a zero rate.

Preserving the credit under a zero rate

Operations with a zero rate generate no tax debit for the recipient, but the general IBS/CBS rule preserves the full use of the credit on taxed upstream purchases — the principle of full non-cumulativity (art. 156-A, paragraph 1, II, of the Constitution). The effect is the complete economic relief of the product at the end: the consumer pays a price with no CBS/IBS embedded, and the production chain recovers the tax paid in the earlier stages. For basic-food-basket processing industries, confirming broad crediting is a central competitive factor.

Suspension on direct sales to an exporting agro-industry (art. 82, paragraph 11)

Art. 82, paragraph 11, of LC 214/2025 provides for the suspension of CBS and IBS on sales from a taxpayer rural producer directly to an exporting agro-industry. The mechanism avoids the financial burden on the producer when the economic destination of the product is the foreign market — a situation in which the final operation will be immune (export). The suspension works as an operational anticipation of the immunity, keeping the producer from financing the tax during the cycle until the agro-industry effectively exports. Proof of the export destination is an eligibility element — any diversion to the domestic market closes the suspension and makes the tax due.

Export — constitutional immunity with full credit

Export operations keep the constitutional immunity provided in art. 156-A, paragraph 1, III, of the Constitution and in art. 60 of LC 214/2025, with full retention of the CBS and IBS credits taken on purchases. For trading houses (Bunge, Cargill, ADM, Louis Dreyfus, Cofco), exporting meatpackers (JBS, Marfrig, Minerva), coffee processors (Volcafe, ECOM, NKG, Cofco Coffee), and soybean and corn exporters, the treatment is structural — the credit balance accumulated due to the export can be refunded in cash or offset against other federal taxes, subject to specific regulation. Modeling the credit balance and managing the recovery of the accumulated export credit is a topic related to accumulated export credits.

Agricultural cooperatives, transition and practical impacts

The cooperative act and the regime under CBS/IBS

Agricultural cooperatives — a relevant economic model in the South (Coamo, C.Vale, Cocamar, Lar, Frísia) and expanding into the Center-West — operate under a peculiar corporate and tax logic governed by Law 5,764/1971. The cooperative act — understood as the operation between the member and the cooperative for the achievement of the corporate purposes — has historically received differentiated tax treatment. The STF’s case law settled in General Repercussion Theme 323 (RE 599,362/RJ, reporting Justice Dias Toffoli, Full Court, judged 11/2024) consolidated the thesis that the constitutional requirement of adequate tax treatment for the cooperative act (art. 146, III, “c”, of the Constitution) does not grant automatic immunity to the cooperative as a whole — it reaches only and objectively the typical cooperative acts (the intra-cooperative relationship, art. 79 of Law 5,764/1971), leaving it to tax law to provide for the taxation of atypical cooperative acts (with third parties, projecting the cooperative into the market). LC 214/2025 and LC 227/2026 confirmed the favored treatment for the typical cooperative act under IBS/CBS: the operation between the member and the cooperative, when configured as a cooperative act under art. 79 of Law 5,764/1971, is non-taxable. The detailed regulation by joint act of the Federal Revenue Service and the IBS Steering Committee defines the operational criteria for proof. For large integrated cooperatives, the accounting separation between the typical cooperative act and the atypical act (operations with third parties) — consistent with STF Theme 323 — is an essential element of tax governance.

The applicable transition calendar

The agribusiness regime follows the general calendar of the Reform — 2026 as a test year, 2027 with the full entry of CBS replacing PIS/Cofins, 2029-2032 with the gradual reduction of ICMS/ISS and the rise of IBS, and 2033 with the full regime. Applicable specifics: the presumed credit (art. 168) begins to operate according to the percentages published annually; the input deferral (art. 138) starts in 2027; the zero rate on the basic food basket and on horticultural products may operate from 2026 under the regulation. The Reform transition period has a dedicated cluster detailing the year-by-year calibration.

Impact on multi-year contracts and price revision

Multi-year contracts characteristic of agribusiness — soybean and corn forward contracts (financial and physical CPRs), poultry and swine integration contracts, sugarcane supply contracts to the sugar-energy industry, milk supply contracts to industry — were signed under the old tax regime. The migration to CBS/IBS requires reviewing adjustment clauses, net-price versus gross-price terms, and the introduction of tax gross-up mechanisms. Without an adequate review there is a risk of a revision dispute for excessive onerousness (Civil Code art. 478) or of a breach of the economic-financial balance. Anticipated contract modeling minimizes disputes and preserves the long-term relationship between links of the chain.

System adaptation — ERPs and tax

Cooperatives, agro-industries, meatpackers, trading houses and large-scale rural producers must adapt their systems to the new CBS/IBS taxonomy: NBS classification for services (technical assistance, storage, freight), NCM classification for products (basic food basket, Annex XV, Annex IX, others), calculation of the presumed credit, control of the deferral, and the recording of suspended operations and immune exports. Adaptation to the Reform NF-e (NT 2025.002), with the new fields for CBS, IBS, the Selective Tax and split payment, is an indispensable step — without it, the electronic tax document is not accepted from January 2027.

Litigation risks — predictable sensitive points

Predictable points of litigation under the agribusiness regime: (i) the qualification of the operation under Annex IX (agricultural input) or at the full rate — a typical NCM-classification dispute; (ii) the configuration of the typical versus atypical cooperative act in mixed cooperatives (in light of STF Theme 323, RE 599,362); (iii) proof of the export destination in suspended operations; (iv) the scope of the presumed credit for secondary inputs (fuels, electricity, unlisted pesticides); (v) responsibility on the closure of the deferral in long chains. In parallel, the STJ’s case law on the treatment of tax benefits — consolidated in EREsp 1,517,492/PR (First Section, reporting Justice Regina Helena Costa, judged 11/08/2017), reaffirmed in STJ Theme 1,182 (REsp 1,945,110/RS and 1,987,158/SC, First Section, judged 04/26/2023) — which excludes the presumed ICMS credit from the IRPJ and CSLL base on the grounds of the federative pact — remains a relevant interpretive reference for building the regime applicable to other tax benefits in the transition between ICMS and IBS. A dedicated cluster goes deeper into the presumed ICMS credit and the topic of federal tax treatment over state benefits. Strategic defense at CARF and in court via a writ of mandamus is part of the anticipatory technical work.

How TaxUp works on the agribusiness-specific regime

Tax diagnostic by link of the chain

The work begins with the client’s position in the chain: rural producer (individual or company), single or central cooperative, first-transformation agro-industry (meatpacker, soybean crushing, cane milling), second-transformation agro-industry (processed foods), trading house, input distributor, input manufacturer. For each link, we map: qualification under the applicable regime (non-taxpayer, regular with presumed credit, deferral, zero rate), simulation of the comparative tax burden (current PIS/Cofins/ICMS/ISS versus full IBS/CBS), impact on the sale price and margin, and opportunities for additional crediting. The analysis integrates with the recovery of tax credits from the PIS/Cofins, ICMS and ISS stock of the last five years.

Analysis of the regular-regime option for the rural producer

For a rural producer near the BRL 3.6 million threshold — or already under the regular regime by having historically exceeded it — the decision between staying a non-taxpayer, opting into the regular regime or adjusting the corporate structure to keep eligibility requires specific financial modeling. The modeling considers the volume of taxed input purchases, the client profile (taxpayer or non-taxpayer, with or without a right to a presumed credit), the administrative capacity to operate the regular regime, and the multi-year horizon. The choice between a rural holding structure, a silent partnership or a standalone company is part of the work.

Contract structuring and price revision

Review of multi-year contracts between producer and industry, between cooperative and members, between industry and trading houses, and between trading houses and the foreign market. The focus is on tax gross-up clauses, automatic mechanisms to pass through legislative changes, the definition of net price versus gross price, and the treatment of the effects of additional crediting or loss of crediting during the transition. Preventive contract restructuring minimizes the risk of litigation and preserves the economic balance of the parties throughout the 2026-2033 transition.

Tax governance integrated with operational governance

Implementation of tax governance integrated with the ERP, the farm-management system and warehouse control. For cooperatives, the accounting separation between the cooperative act and the non-cooperative act; for agro-industries, the mapping of the position in the deferred chain; for trading houses, the control of the export credit balances. Integrated governance is structured on the practices of tax due diligence and the discipline of SPED, adapted for the new IBS/CBS modules required from 2027. The sector work includes the specific treatment of agribusiness across its full diversity of business models.