By approving PLP 128/2025, the National Congress seeks to reduce tax asymmetries between large-scale fintechs and traditional banks. In a context of declared competition, it is reasonable for income from the same activity to benefit from equal tax treatment, thus preserving the competitive neutrality of the national financial system.
Sector studies demonstrate that, because they do not operate in segments such as rural credit, real estate and auto financing, fintechs are able to earn higher revenues from their activities. In other words, this focus on digital operations, payment methods, cards and personal credit allows for higher margins and results.
It is true that changes of this magnitude in the income tax system would merit more in-depth debates – which seems impossible to us, or at least inappropriate in the context of a reform of consumption taxation. However, mitigating the revenue losses resulting from the exemption from personal income tax (IRPF) up to R$5,000 by increasing the tax incidence on fintechs turns out to be, technically and economically, a form of indirect tax compensation more suited to balancing public accounts than, for example, the generalized taxation of dividends.
Without abandoning the central theme of this opinion, but simply by promoting the necessary comparative contextualization, it is considered more judicious to preserve the level of recovery with the income of institutions which have quickly developed solutions capable of competing with large traditional banking conglomerates.
It is not difficult to admit that it is much more imprudent that the fundraising campaign falls on thousands of small and medium-sized entrepreneurs, whose commercial activities (creating jobs and security for countless families) already taxed will suffer a new impact, on the occasion of the distribution of dividends – whose history of justified exemption has simply been ignored.
The argument that this tax cost would be passed on to fintech customers and that this would have a negative impact on the market is also not valid. Factors such as the projected expansion in the number of customers, the technological innovations still expected and the margin that the business already offers seem sufficient to conclude that the segment is capable of carrying the increased load.
If this reasoning prevails, and again taking into account the imminent production of the effects of the tax reform, if each sector impacted by the new tax intends to fully pass on the respective cost, the inflationary effects would be stratospheric.
Even if it is claimed that the measure goes against countries that grant preferential tax treatment to technology companies, we must not forget that Brazilian fintechs have already reached a maturity compatible with full taxation. We are not advocating the disappearance of incentives, but rather equalization and targeting of still embryonic niches.
In short, even if the subject raises concerns (especially with the government’s incessant need to increase its revenues), it is a fact that thanks to business strategies, regulations and optimized use of tax incentives, fintechs are able to adapt to the new tax reality, without a cascade of commitments from their customers.
The success of this measure, however, does not absolve Congress and the government from leading a broader and more responsible debate on the tax system as a whole, avoiding circumstantial changes and seeking a more transparent and equitable tax structure.
TRENDS / DEBATES
Articles published with a byline do not reflect the opinion of the newspaper. Its publication aims to stimulate debate on Brazilian and global issues and reflect different trends in contemporary thought.
About The Author
