Lucro Presumido in 2026: How Much More Your Company May Be Paying

Supplementary Law No. 224/2025 (Lei Complementar nº 224/2025 — LC 224/2025) has triggered court rulings, direct constitutional challenges before Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal — STF, Brazil’s constitutional court), and an intense debate in the legal community. For many business owners, however, the central question remains a different one: in practice, how much more will my company pay?

In this analysis, we translate the legislative change into concrete numbers, identify its operational effects, and organize the options that should inform the decision.

What changed: the new presumption coefficients

Brazil’s presumed-profit corporate tax regime (Lucro Presumido) works like this: instead of calculating the company’s actual profit, a fixed percentage is applied to gross revenue to arrive at the tax base for Brazil’s corporate income tax (Imposto de Renda da Pessoa Jurídica — IRPJ) and its social contribution on net profit (Contribuição Social sobre o Lucro Líquido — CSLL). That percentage is the presumption coefficient.

Since 1995, under Law No. 9,249/1995, the coefficients were 32% for services and 8% for commerce and industry.

LC 224/2025 added 10% to those coefficients for companies with annual gross revenue above R$ 5 million. In practice:

• Services: from 32% to 35.2% on the portion above the threshold.

• Commerce and industry: from 8% to 8.8% on the portion above the threshold.

It is important to understand that the increase applies only to the revenue that exceeds R$ 5 million, not to the total. Even this partial application, however, has a significant impact.

A simulation: a service company with R$ 10 million in revenue

Let’s run the exercise. Consider a service company—engineering, consulting, or technology, for example—with R$ 10 million in annual gross revenue.

Without the increase

• IRPJ and CSLL tax base: R$ 10 million × 32% = R$ 3.2 million.

• IRPJ, at the 15% rate: R$ 480,000.

• CSLL, at the 9% rate: R$ 288,000.

With the increase

• Up to R$ 5 million: 32% = R$ 1.6 million.

• Above R$ 5 million: 35.2% = R$ 1.76 million.

• New tax base: R$ 3.36 million.

• IRPJ, at the 15% rate: R$ 504,000.

• CSLL, at the 9% rate: R$ 302,400.

Annual difference: R$ 38,400 more in taxes.

That is R$ 38,400 that did not exist before January 2026. For a company already operating on tight margins, it is cash that leaves the business with nothing operational in return.

The simulation is conservative. It does not include the additional 10% IRPJ on the portion of the tax base that exceeds R$ 60,000 per quarter, which can also be affected by the increase.

The quarterly trap

Normative Instruction No. 2,306/2026 (Instrução Normativa RFB nº 2.306/2026), issued by Brazil’s federal tax authority (Receita Federal do Brasil), introduced an operational detail that changes the math for many companies: the revenue trigger is quarterly, not just annual.

The proportional threshold is R$ 1.25 million per quarter. If a company concentrates its revenue in certain periods—a common situation in events, engineering projects, and consulting firms with one-off contracts—it can cross the trigger in a single quarter and pay the surcharge even if, over the full year, it stays below R$ 5 million.

The adjustment happens in the fourth quarter. This means the company may be advancing money to the government for up to nine months.

For companies with seasonal revenue, this cash-flow mismatch can be more damaging than the tax increase itself.

What the courts are saying

The rulings located while this analysis was being prepared pointed, at that time, to an early trend favorable to taxpayers.

Preliminary injunctions

• The 1st Federal Court of Resende, in the state of Rio de Janeiro (1ª Vara Federal de Resende/RJ), suspended the increase in case No. 5000259-79.2026.4.02.5116, a mandado de segurança—the Brazilian constitutional remedy that protects a clear legal right against an unlawful or abusive act by a public authority or an agent exercising public functions. The reasoning was that Lucro Presumido is a method of computing tax provided for in Article 44 of Brazil’s National Tax Code (Código Tributário Nacional — CTN), not a tax benefit.

• The 26th Federal Civil Court of São Paulo (26ª Vara Cível Federal de São Paulo), in mandado de segurança No. 5004081-07.2026.4.03.6100, also suspended the increase, on the reasoning that a form of taxation established by law could not be turned into a benefit.

• The 6th Federal Court of São João de Meriti, in the state of Rio de Janeiro (6ª Vara Federal de São João de Meriti/RJ), granted relief in case No. 5011528-63.2026.4.02.5101, a collective mandado de segurança filed by the Rio de Janeiro chapter of the Brazilian Bar Association (Ordem dos Advogados do Brasil — OAB), the OAB-RJ.

Actions before the STF

• ADI 7920 (ação direta de inconstitucionalidade, a direct constitutional challenge before the STF), filed by Brazil’s National Confederation of Industry (Confederação Nacional da Indústria — CNI).

• ADI 7936, filed by Brazil’s National Confederation of Health (Confederação Nacional de Saúde — CNS).

• ADI 7944, filed by the OAB.

The central argument is the same across these actions: Lucro Presumido, they contend, is a way of calculating the tax, not a tax benefit the government could scale back.

The tax authority’s internal contradiction

COSIT Advance Tax Ruling No. 6/2026 (Solução de Consulta COSIT nº 6/2026), issued by the General Taxation Coordination Office (COSIT) of Brazil’s federal tax authority and published 32 days after LC 224/2025, stated that government subsidies are not to be confused with acts of tax policy such as the setting of rates, tax bases, or computation methodologies.

In other words, the Receita Federal itself acknowledged that computation methodologies are not tax benefits. Read alongside LC 224/2025, that position calls into question the premise of the increase: if Lucro Presumido is a computation methodology, as provided in Article 44 of the CTN, classifying it as a benefit in order to reduce it would be inconsistent.

What your company should assess

• Simulate Lucro Presumido against Lucro Real with the new numbers. With the higher coefficient, service companies whose actual margin is below 35.2% may find a lower tax burden under Brazil’s actual-profit corporate tax regime (Lucro Real). The comparison should take in the entire operation and the effects of the CBS (Contribuição sobre Bens e Serviços, Brazil’s new federal tax on goods and services) from 2027 onward.

• Assess court action. The provisional rulings and the actions before the STF belong in the analysis of cost, risk, and benefit.

• Check for applicable collective measures. Industry and professional associations have filed collective actions that may reach certain groups of taxpayers.

Conclusion

The 10% increase in the Lucro Presumido coefficients is not just a percentage change. The government reclassified a form of taxation as a tax benefit in order to subject it to reduction.

For the business owner, the practical decision comes down to three verbs: recalculate, decide, and act.

In brief

• Services: the coefficient rose from 32% to 35.2% on revenue above R$ 5 million.

• In the simulation of a company with R$ 10 million in revenue, the conservative impact is approximately R$ 38,400 per year.

• The quarterly trigger of R$ 1.25 million can bring the charge forward.

• Provisional rulings and actions before the STF challenge the increase.

• Each company should test the new numbers against its own margin, seasonality, and accounting structure.

Sources consulted

• Supplementary Law No. 224/2025.

• Decree No. 12,808/2025.

• Normative Instructions RFB No. 2,305/2025 and No. 2,306/2026.

• COSIT Advance Tax Ruling No. 6/2026 (Solução de Consulta COSIT nº 6/2026).

• Mandados de segurança Nos. 5000259-79.2026.4.02.5116, 5011528-63.2026.4.02.5101, and 5004081-07.2026.4.03.6100.

• ADIs 7920, 7936, and 7944.

• Law No. 9,249/1995.

• Brazil’s National Tax Code (Código Tributário Nacional), Article 44.

This content is informational and reflects the sources indicated as of the publication date. It does not replace an analysis of the specific circumstances of each company or case.