As of April 17, 2026, one of the most closely watched debates in Brazilian fixed income markets centers on a straightforward but consequential question: will CRIs, CRAs, and incentivized debentures keep their income tax exemption for individual investors?
The answer, at the moment, is yes — but with an asterisk. The Brazilian government is actively studying fiscal adjustments, and the uncertainty alone has already produced measurable effects on issuance volumes. Understanding what these instruments are, how the exemption works, and what the risk landscape looks like is essential for any investor currently holding or considering these securities.
What Is a CRI
A CRI (Certificado de Recebíveis Imobiliários, or Real Estate Receivables Certificate) is a fixed income instrument issued exclusively by securitization companies in Brazil. These companies pool real estate receivables — such as rental contracts, mortgage payments, developer receivables, or commercial real estate debt — and issue certificates backed by those cash flows in the capital markets.
Unlike LCIs (Letras de Crédito Imobiliário), which are issued by banks, CRIs are issued directly by securitizers. This has one important consequence for investors: CRIs are not covered by the FGC (Fundo Garantidor de Crédito, Brazil's deposit insurance fund). The investor bears the credit risk of the underlying receivables, which means the quality of the collateral — who owes the money and how reliable those payments are — matters a great deal.
In 2025, CRI issuances in Brazil totaled R$ 50.8 billion, a slight decrease of 11.5% compared to 2024, according to ANBIMA data. Part of the decline reflected a February 2024 ruling by the National Monetary Council (CMN) that restricted CRIs from using receivables from publicly traded companies with no genuine link to the real estate sector — a measure designed to close a loophole that had allowed some companies to use the CRI structure as a generic funding vehicle rather than true real estate finance.
What Is a CRA
A CRA (Certificado de Recebíveis do Agronegócio, or Agribusiness Receivables Certificate) follows the same structural logic as a CRI, but with collateral linked to the agribusiness sector. The receivables that back a CRA can include rural invoices, commodity purchase agreements, input financing contracts, and debt from cooperatives or agricultural producers.
Given the scale and global relevance of Brazilian agribusiness, CRAs play an important role in channeling private capital into agricultural financing. In 2025, CRA issuances reached R$ 46 billion, a 13% increase over the prior year. Like CRIs, CRAs are issued by securitizers and carry no FGC protection.
Both instruments are regulated by the CVM (Comissão de Valores Mobiliários), Brazil's securities regulator, and trade in the secondary market — though their liquidity is generally lower than that of instruments like CDBs (certificates of deposit) or Tesouro Direto (federal government bonds).
The Legal Basis for Tax Exemption
The income tax exemption on CRI and CRA returns for individual investors derives from Law No. 12.431/2011, a landmark piece of legislation that created a set of tax incentives to stimulate long-term private financing in Brazil. The same law also established the basis for incentivized debentures — corporate bonds issued for infrastructure projects — which enjoy the same exemption.
The practical effect is simple: returns received from CRIs and CRAs by individual investors are not subject to income tax, regardless of the holding period. This contrasts sharply with the progressive withholding tax applied to CDBs, which starts at 22.5% for holdings under six months and falls to 15% for investments held beyond 720 days.
The exemption converts gross yield into net yield. A CRI paying IPCA (inflation) plus 6% per year delivers exactly that to the individual investor. A taxable instrument paying the same gross rate would net out to approximately IPCA plus 5.1% after the 15% tax on long-term holdings. The gap looks small in percentage terms, but across larger amounts and longer time horizons, the compounding effect is meaningful.
Incentivized debentures are also covered by Law No. 12.431/2011 and, more recently, by Law No. 14.801/2024, which created the Infrastructure Debenture category with updated rules and eligibility criteria.
The Risk Scenario in 2026
The current uncertainty has a concrete origin. In 2025, the federal government issued Provisional Measure No. 1.303/2025, which proposed, among other fiscal adjustments, a 5% income tax rate on returns from CRIs, CRAs, and incentivized debentures for new issuances from 2026 onward. The stated goal was to increase federal revenue as part of broader fiscal rebalancing efforts.
The market response was immediate: issuers rushed to accelerate new offerings while the full exemption remained in place, and investors moved to lock in allocations in already-issued securities — whose terms would be preserved under any prospective rule change, as tax reforms of this type in Brazil are not applied retroactively.
In the Brazilian Congress, the rapporteur of the matter, Deputy Carlos Zarattini (PT-SP), presented a substitute bill that maintained the exemption for CRIs, CRAs, and incentivized debentures, citing their structural role in financing the real estate and agribusiness sectors. The Provisional Measure ultimately lapsed without formal approval, closing that specific legislative chapter.
But the debate did not close with it. The government continues to study fiscal adjustment alternatives, and the market is working with the assumption that a new proposal — whether through an ordinary bill or a new provisional measure — could resurface. The exemption is not guaranteed to be eliminated. But it is also not guaranteed to remain untouched indefinitely.
One concrete data point captures this environment: issuances of incentivized debentures accumulated in 2026 through the date of this publication total R$ 14.8 billion — a sharp decline from the R$ 25.4 billion issued in the same period of 2025. Capital markets analysts cite regulatory uncertainty as a contributing factor in dampening new issuances, even as investor demand remains intact.
Comparison with Other Tax-Exempt Instruments
CRIs and CRAs sit within a broader universe of tax-exempt investments available to Brazilian individual investors:
| Instrument | Issuer | Collateral | FGC Coverage | IR Exemption |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LCI | Banks | Real estate credit | Yes (up to R$ 250k) | Yes |
| LCA | Banks | Agribusiness credit | Yes (up to R$ 250k) | Yes |
| CRI | Securitizers | Real estate receivables | No | Yes |
| CRA | Securitizers | Agribusiness receivables | No | Yes |
| Incentivized debenture | Companies | Infrastructure projects | No | Yes |
| FII (dividends) | Real estate funds | Real estate / CRIs | No | Yes |
The fundamental distinction between LCI/LCA and CRI/CRA lies in security. Bank-issued letters of credit carry FGC coverage up to R$ 250,000 per taxpayer per institution. CRIs and CRAs, being issued by securitizers, have no such backstop — which makes due diligence on the underlying collateral and issuer quality a non-negotiable step.
In terms of yield, CRIs and CRAs typically offer higher rates than LCIs and LCAs, precisely because they carry more credit risk. With the Selic rate at 14.75% following the March 18, 2026 cut, it is possible to find CRAs paying IPCA plus 7–8% per year and CRIs paying IPCA plus 6–7% — attractive returns for investors with the risk appetite and long-term horizon to hold through the maturity.
What to Do with Your Portfolio
The central question investors face today is whether CRIs and CRAs make sense to buy given this regulatory uncertainty.
The answer depends on what scenario an investor fears and what they are trying to protect.
If the exemption is maintained: investors who purchased CRIs and CRAs today locked in competitive rates at a moment when the Selic remains elevated, with full IR protection. These positions gain value in the secondary market if interest rates fall as projected.
If the exemption is changed for new issuances: securities already purchased are not affected. Fiscal changes to these instruments in Brazil have historically not been applied retroactively. The investor keeps the purchase terms through maturity.
If the exemption is eliminated more broadly: this is the least likely scenario and would face the most political resistance, but it cannot be ruled out over a longer time horizon.
The strategy most widely used by experienced investors in this environment is what practitioners call "holding to maturity on the yield curve": buy the instrument, disregard secondary market price fluctuations, and collect the agreed return at maturity. This approach eliminates mark-to-market risk and delivers exactly the contracted yield — provided the underlying collateral does not default.
For investors without experience in evaluating securitizer credit quality and collateral composition, the safer path among tax-exempt options remains LCI and LCA from solid banks, with FGC protection and more predictable liquidity.
Credit Risk Matters More Than Tax
A point that often gets lost in the exemption debate: the fiscal discussion tends to dominate headlines, but credit risk is the more consequential risk for most CRI and CRA investors.
Not all CRIs and CRAs are equivalent. A CRI backed by rental contracts from investment-grade retail companies is structurally different from a CRI backed by receivables from smaller developers with a history of delinquency. The yield spread between the two might be 1–2% per year — compensation that may or may not be sufficient depending on the investor's actual risk exposure.
The February 2024 CMN resolution that tightened collateral rules for CRIs and CRAs was precisely a response to abuses in this area: issuances that used the securitization structure as a generic funding vehicle with no genuine link to the sectors the exemption was designed to benefit.
The Longer View
The debate around CRI and CRA tax exemptions is part of a broader question about how Brazil finances private sector infrastructure and agribusiness investment. The country has a structural dependence on these capital market instruments to direct private capital toward sectors the public budget cannot fully serve.
That dependence creates a natural limit on how aggressively any government can scale back these incentives without increasing the cost of credit to those sectors. This is why even the proposals that reached Congress in 2025 preserved the exemption for CRIs, CRAs, and incentivized debentures in the most widely discussed versions.
What remains uncertain is calibration. A reduced rate (such as the 5% in the original provisional measure), an income or wealth threshold, or a distinction between primary and secondary market transactions — all of these configurations are plausible in any eventual regulatory adjustment.
For investors building diversified fixed income portfolios with tax efficiency in mind, CRIs and CRAs remain relevant instruments — provided the credit risk is evaluated carefully and the holding period aligns with the instrument's maturity. The fiscal discussion adds a layer of attention, but does not invalidate the underlying allocation logic.
At Royal Binary, we operate through a managed trading model — an active complement to fixed income allocation for investors who want market exposure without monitoring positions daily. To explore available plans, visit app.royalbinary.io.
This content is educational in nature and does not constitute investment advice. Consult a certified advisor before making financial decisions. Past performance does not guarantee future results.