Brazil’s tax appeals council adopts quality, anti-bribery and integrity policies. What it means for taxpayers.
The new quality, bribery prevention and integrity policies may produce effects that go beyond the council’s internal organization and reach the way companies manage their tax disputes.
For a company challenging a tax assessment before the Administrative Council of Tax Appeals (CARF), the quality of the dispute does not depend solely on the applicable legislation or on the arguments raised in its defense. Other factors matter as well: how long the case takes, how predictable the case law is, how cases are assigned, how conflicts of interest are handled, how information is protected and how impartial the ruling is.
It is from this perspective that three new policies issued by CARF in August deserve attention: the Quality Policy, the Anti-Bribery Policy and the Integrity Policy, set out respectively in Ordinances CARF/MF No. 2,321, 2,324 and 2,325, all dated August 5, 2026.
The measures are part of the build-out of the Integrated Management System (SIGES) and seek to align the council’s practices with international standards of management, quality, governance and bribery prevention, following ISO standards.
For taxpayers, however, the main point is not the certifications or the administrative reorganization as such. The question is the extent to which these policies will produce concrete effects on the predictability, integrity and reliability of administrative tax litigation.
Time and predictability are also business management issues
How long a tax dispute takes has consequences that extend beyond the legal department. Prolonged proceedings can affect accounting provisions, audits, corporate transactions, due diligence processes, access to financing and financial planning. There is, therefore, economic value in reducing the time required for an administrative ruling.
The new Quality Policy seeks to tie that objective to preserving the right of defense, legal certainty and the technical quality of decisions.
Its stated objectives include promoting the speed of administrative tax and customs litigation, facilitating taxpayers’ exercise of their right of defense and pursuing higher quality in the conduct of proceedings. To that end, it provides for mechanisms such as performance indicators, quality controls, risk management, standardization, automation and monitoring of work processes.
For taxpayers, the relevant point will be whether gains in productivity can translate into faster rulings without any loss of quality and consistency.
Predictability is another aspect directly related to business management. Ordinance No. 2,321 sets as an objective the consolidation, harmonization and publication of administrative case law. This point is especially important because divergences among panels make it harder to assess likely outcomes and size contingencies.
If the new policy delivers greater stability in case law, it may improve companies’ ability to measure risk, weigh whether particular disputes are worth pursuing and make tax decisions with greater certainty.
For that reason, following the development of CARF’s case law should not be an exercise confined to the period immediately before a hearing, but part of the ongoing management of tax risk.
The reliability of the decision-making process moves to the center of the new rules
The changes are not only about timing and case law. The Integrity Policy incorporates impartiality and technical autonomy into the guidelines of the new system and treats the management of conflicts of interest, the assignment of cases to reporting members and access to sensitive information as particularly critical processes.
Several controls addressing these matters already existed at CARF. What changes is that they are now embedded in a permanent structure for identifying, monitoring and addressing risks.
For companies, this relates directly to confidence that case assignment will be impersonal, that any conflicts will be properly identified and handled and that information placed in the record will receive the necessary protection. This becomes especially important in high-value disputes.
Tax proceedings may involve corporate restructurings, financing structures, contracts, commercial policies, cross-border transactions and other strategic information. Likewise, the composition of the panel and the existence of actual grounds for disqualification or recusal may be relevant in preparing for certain hearings.
Institutional integrity is therefore not an abstract concern. It is part of what is required for a taxpayer to trust the procedure through which its dispute will be decided.
Interactions with CARF also come into focus
The Anti-Bribery Policy adds a different dimension. Ordinance No. 2,324 is not addressed only to public officials and to those affiliated with the council. In certain risk situations, its provisions also reach individuals and companies that interact directly or indirectly with CARF officials.
For companies, this reinforces the importance of controls over interactions with public officials, the role of third parties, events, gifts, hospitality and the flow of information.
Exercising the right of defense obviously presupposes legitimate engagement with the adjudicating body. Filing written submissions, presenting oral arguments, attending hearings and holding technical discussions are all part of the ordinary conduct of administrative litigation.
The point is to ensure that these interactions take place within clear and transparent parameters, leaving no room for improper influence or the irregular obtaining of information.
This also draws attention to the role of third parties: law firms, consultancies, trade associations and other advisers may take part in a company’s institutional relationships. The presence of intermediaries, however, does not eliminate integrity risks and may call for controls proportionate to the nature of the activity performed.
The new rules thus offer an additional benchmark for companies to assess whether their own integrity programs adequately cover the relationships associated with administrative tax litigation.
The issue is no longer exclusively CARF’s internal integrity; it also extends to corporate governance in the conduct of a company’s relationships with the adjudicating body.
What do these changes mean for companies?
The three ordinances establish an ambitious framework, but the existence of formal policies is only the starting point. Their impact will depend on implementation and on the results produced over time.
For companies, however, three questions can already be identified as worth following.
The first is how the pursuit of speed and harmonization will affect the predictability of litigation and the management of tax contingencies.
The second is whether the new integrity controls will increase the transparency and reliability of the decision-making process, particularly in matters involving conflicts of interest, case assignment and sensitive information.
The third is whether companies themselves need to review the governance of their CARF-related interactions, including as regards the role of third parties, events, hospitality and access to information.
These three areas show why the new policies should not be seen merely as an internal reorganization of the council. The quality, integrity and governance of an administrative court have concrete economic consequences for those litigating before it.
A legally sound decision remains the essential outcome of any proceeding. But for taxpayers, it also matters that the decision is issued within a reasonable time, through a procedure that is predictable, impartial and institutionally reliable.
It is from this perspective that CARF’s new policies should be monitored.
This is the first in a series of four articles on CARF’s new governance rules. The next ones will examine their impact on three fronts: quality and consistency of case law, bribery prevention, and conflicts of interest.
