At the end of 2025, the Federal Government implemented a linear reduction of various tax incentives related to federal taxes, which included a 10% reduction in the incentive allocated to the Laborer Maintenance Program (PAT). Starting in 2026, the incentive decreased to 3.6%, down from the previous 4%. These reductions were established through Complementary Law No. 224/2025, Decree No. 12,808/2025, and Ministry of Finance Ordinance No. 3,278/2025.
However, even though the reduction of incentives followed the proper legislative process, several points deserve attention:
1. Generic Reduction: Complementary Law No. 224/2025 indiscriminately reduced several tax incentives by 10%. This approach led to undue generalization by treating heterogeneous tax incentives as if they were homogeneous, presuming that all the fiscal incentives covered by the law display the same level of inefficiency, and applying the same corrective measure (10%) to structurally distinct tax incentives.
2. Infringement on Established Legal Rights: The National Tax Code (CTN) establishes that the revocation or modification of tax benefits granted for a fixed period and under specific conditions cannot affect already established legal situations. While the PAT fiscal incentive is not tied to a specific individualized term, it is a long-standing structural public policy. Abrupt and broadly applied changes undermine the predictability of the tax system and the stability of economic relations.
3. Contradiction of Fiscal Policies: From a fiscal policy perspective, if granting a tax incentive requires an impact estimate, goal evaluation, and evidence of budgetary compatibility, as established by Article 14 of the Fiscal Responsibility Law (Complementary Law No. 101/2000), it would be logical, by analogy, for the reduction of tax incentives to also be based on an individualized analysis of their efficiency, economic impact, and the effects of their reduction or revocation.
4. Contradiction of Public Policies: By reducing heterogeneous tax benefits indiscriminately, without any individualized analysis of their purpose or socioeconomic impact, the regulation ultimately undermines important public policies such as PAT, which aims to promote health, productivity, and social well-being.
5. Disregard for Economic Impact: The uniform 10% reduction affects tax incentives linked to distinct taxes, each tied to its unique socioeconomic context and associated with specific public policies. These are not a homogeneous set of “tax expenditures” but instruments with differentiated purposes and economic impacts.
Without a doubt, the reduction of tax incentives undermines critical pillars of the National Tax System. For this reason, these reductions have already started to be legally challenged in court, although there have been no rulings on the matter yet. For now, these reductions remain valid, and it is essential for business owners to prepare to understand the real impact of these changes on their company’s tax burden. To address this, it is important to seek alternatives to mitigate potentially excessive impacts on the tax burden!
