The tax reform introduces significant changes not only in the methodology of calculating and collecting taxes but also in the timing when part of these amounts becomes available for business operations. One of the mechanisms linked to this new dynamic is split payment, which establishes the separation of IBS and CBS during the financial settlement of transactions.
While larger companies can absorb changes in resource flow more easily, small businesses are more sensitive because the money circulating in the cash register between receiving a sale and paying expenses and taxes is crucial for maintaining activities. If a fraction of this amount temporarily becomes inaccessible, the company may need more funds to sustain its operation.
Experts consulted by Olhar Digital detail how split payment can modify the financial flow of small businesses and emphasize the importance of previously calculating the effect of this new dynamic on cash flow.
Currently, a company can receive the total value of a sale and temporarily retain the portion destined for taxes. However, with split payment, in operations covered by the mechanism, payment service providers and operating institutions of payment systems must segregate and collect the IBS and CBS amounts at the moment of financial settlement. The legislation provides that this implementation will occur progressively.
The system operates under a standard procedure, where it verifies the IBS and CBS amounts to be separated, and also a simplified procedure, which is optional and based on a predefined percentage of the transaction.
Explanation of the mechanism
Vinicius Panacho, a tax lawyer and partner at the firm Failla, Lima e Riva Advogados, illustrates the change by comparing the current scenario—where the company receives the full amount and pays taxes later—with the logic of split payment. In the latter, the amount destined for taxes will no longer enter the company's cash flow. For example, if a product is sold for R$100, only R$85 will enter the cash register, unlike in the past, when R$100 entered and the payment of R$15 occurred after a period of time.
Panacho clarifies that the R$100 and R$85 example is merely illustrative and does not represent a fixed percentage of IBS and CBS for all operations. In the standard procedure, the amounts to be segregated depend on the tax debts applicable to the operation and already settled installments.
Split payment is not yet active for companies. In 2026, the fields and information related to the mechanism will have a preparatory nature, allowing companies, systems, and other involved parties to develop and test the necessary adaptations. The entry into force of split payment is expected to begin in 2027, although official technical documentation has not yet defined an exact date for the start of the operation.
The critical point lies in the availability period of the money. When a portion that was previously credited entirely to the cash register begins to be directed to tax collection at settlement, the company loses that resource to temporarily finance its activities.
Panacho explains that under the current model, the company can use the received amount for working capital, cover other needs, or make investments before the tax deadline. With split payment, this portion ceases to circulate temporarily through the cash register in the same way.
Impact on microenterprises
José Homero Adabo, accountant and financial director of Sescon Campinas, focuses on the relevance of this impact for smaller businesses. According to him, the resource that currently remains temporarily available ceases to fulfill its function as working capital. Adabo warns that companies will suffer losses from the tax amount that they previously used as working capital, affecting small businesses more than large ones, although all are impacted.
Adabo mentions that currently, there are situations where the company receives the sale and only needs to pay the tax in about 30 to 35 days. During this interval, the money can be used to finance its own operation. With split payment, he emphasizes that this resource will no longer be available in the same way.
Citing studies conducted by the firm for clients, Adabo reports a case of a bakery with a monthly revenue of approximately R$1 million. In this situation, the estimate pointed to an additional need of about R$80 thousand monthly in working capital. He justifies that this occurs because the tax, which was previously paid and used as a resource, will now have a reduced payment term.
This amount is an estimate based on a specific study for one case, and not a universal projection for companies with R$1 million in revenue. The example aims to demonstrate how the change in the collection timing can generate a misalignment between the money coming in and the resources needed to maintain the operation.
The effect on working capital will not be uniform for all businesses; factors such as receipt and payment terms, profit margin, sales volume, and operational financing needs will influence how each company feels the change.
Adabo also presented an example where part of the tax amount remains in the store's working capital today. With split payment, this portion would be separated at the time of the transaction, while the rest would remain with the company. Therefore, the entrepreneur must distinguish a possible variation in the final tax amount from a change in the timing of when the money becomes available; in the case of split payment, this second aspect is the focus of experts' concern regarding working capital.
The method of receipt also requires consideration. The legislation stipulates that if the supplier installments an operation, the segregation and collection of IBS and CBS must occur proportionally in the financial settlement of each installment, without the anticipation of receivables modifying this requirement.
Differences in receipt periods must also be included in the financial projection of each business. A company that depends on longer periods to receive payments may have a different working capital demand than one that receives cash sales.
Technological and preparatory implications
The impact of split payment also covers fiscal and accounting control systems. Panacho considers this one of the first areas that companies should monitor. He states that the starting point is in the company's fiscal accounting control systems, and that businesses need to check how the new taxes will be managed by current systems.
The tax lawyer relates technological preparation to cash flow, since part of the money that was previously temporarily with the company will now be destined for collection at the time of the transaction.
The technological infrastructure for the mechanism is already under development. The Federal Revenue and the IBS Management Committee authorized in 2026 the release of the Integration Manual and the Swagger of the Public Split Payment Platform, while CGIBS provides technical documentation for integration and operation.
For Marcos Oliveira, accountant and tax specialist, financial adaptation must integrate with the company's adjustment. He advises that businesses simulate the effect of the reform on their own operations, in addition to reviewing contracts and considering the new cash flow dynamic.
Oliveira also warns companies that have made many customizations to their management systems. In these scenarios, a simple manufacturer update may not be sufficient; it is necessary to identify how previous modifications connect to the processes affected by the reform.
Panacho reinforces that fiscal and accounting control systems constitute an initial stage of preparation. Companies must verify how the new taxes will be processed by the systems they currently use.
Based on the points raised by the experts, the company can begin simulations considering the comparison between the current operation and the post-reform scenario. Adabo summarizes the preparation as the need to have precise knowledge of tax accounting, both in the previous state and in the future.