In recent years, talking about tax incentives has increasingly meant talking about risk—and not just opportunity.
The perception of greater scrutiny from the Tax Authority has become embedded in corporate discourse. And to a large extent, it is not unfounded. Oversight exists, it is more sophisticated, and it is now more frequent in matters related to investment tax incentives.
But there is one point that needs to be clarified from the outset: the main issue is not the scrutiny—it is how incentives are approached in the first place.
The problem is not the risk—it is how you get there.
A significant portion of adjustments arising from tax inspections does not stem from abuse, but from interpretation: the eligibility of the investment, the definition of initial investment, the distinction between expansion and replacement, and the link to the company’s activity.
These are technical issues, yes. But above all, they are areas where subjectivity exists. And where there is subjectivity, risk does not disappear—it must be managed.
TAX INCENTIVES
RFAI Is Not “Automatic”
RFAI remains one of the most relevant instruments, but it is neither neutral nor automatic.
Its application requires judgment, consistency, and, above all, the ability to substantiate decisions. In practice, what is often at stake is not the investment itself, but how it is framed—and that makes all the difference.
Incentives are not simply added—they are structured.
Another common mistake is to view tax and financial incentives as independent tools. They are not. When a company combines RFAI with financial incentives, additional rules come into play: aid intensity limits, the risk of double funding, and the need for consistency across applications.
And this is where a critical point emerges. If the investment is not structured from the outset with this logic in mind, the risk increases exponentially.
It’s not just tax. It never was.
There is also a dimension that often goes unnoticed: the accounting impact.
How the benefit is recognized—or not—can affect results, equity, and even the perceived value of the company. In other words, this is far from being a purely tax matter. We are dealing with decisions that influence the overall view of the business.
And when the Tax Authority makes adjustments?
It happens—and it will continue to happen. The issue is not to avoid all adjustments. It is to know how to respond to them. Accept? Challenge? The answer depends on two factors: the technical strength of the position and the cost-benefit of the decision. Not everything should be litigated, but not everything should be accepted.
Recuperar benefícios do passado: oportunidade ou risco?
Another increasingly relevant topic is companies looking back and identifying unused benefits. It may be an opportunity, but it is rarely a neutral exercise.
It requires documentation. It increases the likelihood of an audit and demands a thorough assessment of the associated risk. Once again, it is a strategic decision.
Because, ultimately, it is not the incentive itself that determines the outcome, but the quality of the decision behind it.
Tax incentives still make sense—but the context has changed. Today, it is no longer enough to simply “take advantage” of benefits; they must be structured. They must be supported. And, above all, decisions must be made with a clear understanding of risk.
Because in the current framework, the difference is no longer in using incentives—it is in knowing how to use them well.
Written by:
Pedro Martins | Associate