The publication of Ordinance PGFN/MF nº 903/2026 marked a shift in how Brazil treats tax liabilities, moving them from mere compliance to a core element of corporate strategy aimed at preserving company value, liquidity and patrimonial security.
The measure comes amid economic pressure, with record judicial recovery filings and credit tightening, making tax debt a key factor in risk perception for investors and financial institutions, which now demand higher standards of fiscal governance and transparency.
While the tax authority’s ability to seek bankruptcy was already supported by law and jurisprudence, the ordinance establishes objective criteria for this prerogative, reflecting a more strategic approach by Brazil's National Treasury Prosecutor (PGFN) in recovering difficult-to-collect credits and integrating tax management into corporate governance and long‑term value creation.
New Regulation Criteria
To apply bankruptcy as a collection tool, the PGFN must verify cumulative requirements: the credit is inscribed in active debt (Union and FGTS), is irregular, amounts to at least 15 million reais (roughly USD 3 million), traditional fiscal enforcement has failed due to lack of seizable assets, the situation fits insolvency hypotheses under Law 11.101/2005 (such as acts of insolvency or patrimonial stripping), no individual negotiation proposal is pending, preserving priority for consensual mechanisms like tax settlement, and prior authorization is obtained from the Coordination‑General of Credit Recovery Strategies.
The 15‑million‑reais threshold is a floor; actual targets are chosen based on the combination of frustrated traditional collection and evidence of patrimonial shielding.
Strategic Use of Bankruptcy
The ordinance has already produced effects. In 2026, courts approved processing bankruptcy requests for Grupo Victor Hugo, with liabilities above 1.2 billion reais (about USD 240 million), and for Grupo Dolly, with debts of 15.7 billion reais (roughly USD 3.1 billion). The filings argue that the companies used judicial recovery merely to impede asset seizures rather than to negotiate with creditors.
These cases show that the PGFN is resorting to bankruptcy as an exceptional, strategic measure against large debtors when consensual avenues are exhausted or perceived as abusive.
Implications for Corporates
With the National Treasury’s asset monitoring becoming more sophisticated and integrated, managing tax litigation is vital for preserving a company’s economic value. Firms with strong governance structures and efficient internal controls are better placed to demonstrate good faith.
Proper documentation and traceability reduce the risk that financial difficulties are interpreted as fraud or abuse of corporate personality. Thus, tax governance becomes strategic not only before the tax authority but also before investors and commercial partners.
The ordinance favors consensual tools; even if a bankruptcy request is not granted, it does not block debt negotiation. Instruments such as tax settlements, special installment plans and guarantee insurance are essential for preserving cash flow and protecting operational assets, bolstering the company’s market position and credibility with lenders in a high‑interest environment.
The regulation signals that tax management now occupies a central place in corporate strategy. Companies that neglect their tax liabilities face not only fiscal risks but also severe constraints on credit and competitiveness.