Split payment: study estimates R$117 billion in extra working capital for companies — how the tax and IT sector should prepare

A number that changes the split payment debate

Until now, most of the discussion about split payment revolved around deadlines, postponements, and the technical infrastructure needed for the automatic withholding of IBS and CBS at the time of payment. A recent study added another layer to the debate: the size of the financial impact that the mechanism can generate on Brazilian companies, even before it comes into full effect.

A survey by Tax Group, released in August 2026, projects that around 981 thousand companies — equivalent to 56.2% of the universe of 1.75 million companies under the real profit and presumed profit regimes — have the potential for cash flow deterioration with split payment. That's not a small subset: it means more than half of the companies in these two tax regimes could face some degree of liquidity squeeze once the mechanism takes effect.

Where the number comes from: the end of the tax float

The calculation follows a relatively simple logic. Today, between the moment a company receives payment for what it sold and the moment it actually remits the tax, there is a window of days — the so-called tax float — during which that money remains available in the company's account, even if only temporarily. This resource often finances working capital, supplier payments, or even very short-term investments.

With split payment, this logic changes at its root: the tax will now be withheld and directed to the government automatically at the moment of the transaction's financial settlement, via Pix, credit card, boleto, or other electronic payment methods. In practice, the tax money no longer passes through the company's cash flow.

According to the same study, the loss of the float requires R$ 117 billion in additional working capital, with an estimated additional tax outlay of between R$ 65 and R$ 160 billion per year and a national financial cost of R$ 32 to 38 billion per year. These figures give macroeconomic scale to an effect that, until now, had mainly been discussed in qualitative terms.

Tax credits alone don't solve the problem

A relevant point of the survey is the answer to a recurring question among tax teams: do PIS/Cofins and IBS/CBS credits offset this cash loss? The study's answer is not entirely — for companies with a structural credit balance, deferral, tax substitution, single-phase taxation, or tax incentives, the future credit does not resolve the cash mismatch created by the upfront withholding of the tax.

This is especially relevant for companies that already operate with a tax credit balance — common in exporting sectors, industries with tax incentives, or supply chains with tax substitution. In these cases, the bookkeeping credit exists on paper, but it does not solve the immediate cash need generated by automatic withholding.

The mechanism behind automatic withholding

From a technical standpoint, split payment works like this: when a transaction is paid via Pix, credit card, or boleto, the financial institution or payment processor responsible for processing instantly splits the transaction amount — part goes to the supplier, and the portion corresponding to IBS and CBS is directed straight to public coffers. The architecture has been detailed by the financial sector together with the IBS Management Committee, and the first implementation phase focuses on B2B transactions, with arrangements via wire transfer (TED), Pix, boleto, and TEF.

What this means for tax, accounting, and IT teams

For those dealing with ERP, tax integration, and cash management on a daily basis, the study's message is direct: working capital planning for 2027 can no longer be treated as just a short-term operational adjustment. A few points deserve immediate attention:

Mapping the current float: calculating how much of the company's working capital today depends on the interval between receiving payment and remitting taxes is the first step to sizing the real impact once that interval disappears.

Integration between ERP, payment methods, and tax calculation: since split payment links payment directly to the fiscal document, the quality and consistency of NF-e, NFC-e, and NFS-e data now have a direct effect on cash flow, not just on documentary compliance.

Reviewing commercial terms: extending payment terms with suppliers and shortening customer payment terms becomes a financial lever, not just a commercial one.

Scenario simulation by tax regime: companies with a structural credit balance, deferral, or tax substitution need specific simulations, since the impact is not uniform across sectors.

It's worth remembering that split payment is still in the regulation and testing phase, and its implementation timeline may still be adjusted by the Federal Revenue Service and the IBS Management Committee. However, this does not reduce the urgency of mapping the company's financial exposure: the sooner the diagnosis is made, the more time there is to adjust prices, terms, and working capital structure before the change truly takes effect.

This content is for informational purposes only and does not replace guidance from your accounting or tax team, who should assess the specific impact of split payment on your company's operations.

If your company wants to understand how ERP can support this cash flow diagnosis and the integration between invoice issuance and financial management, talk to Edoo.