The Brazilian Chamber of Deputies approved a bill in May 2026 to raise the annual revenue ceiling for micro-entrepreneurs [1].
This legislative shift aims to modernize the Microempreendedor Individual (MEI) regime to account for inflation and provide small business owners more room to grow without losing their simplified tax status.
The project, promoted by President Hugo Motta and supported by parliamentary leader Lupion, introduces significant changes to how the government regulates the smallest business entities in Brasília [1], [2]. One of the central components of the bill is the creation of an automatic annual adjustment of the revenue ceiling based on inflation [1]. This mechanism is designed to prevent the real value of the limit from eroding over time.
There are differing reports regarding the exact new revenue limit proposed in the legislation. Some sources indicate the ceiling would be set at R$130,000 [2], while others state the project predicts a ceiling of R$145,000 [3].
Beyond the revenue cap, the bill proposes to expand the workforce capacity of these businesses. Under the new rules, a MEI would be permitted to hire up to two employees [3]. Currently, the regime is more restrictive regarding staff size.
The proposal has not met with universal agreement. The National Committee of Finance Secretaries, known as Comsefaz, has expressed opposition to the changes [1]. Representatives from the committee said the adjustments distort the original purpose of the MEI regime, which was intended for the smallest scale of entrepreneurship [1].
Despite these objections, the Chamber leadership has moved to accelerate the process. A special commission was announced in May 2026 to expedite the implementation of the higher limits [2].
“The bill also creates an automatic inflation‑linked adjustment of the ceiling.”
The proposed changes represent a pivot toward supporting the scaling of micro-businesses in Brazil. By indexing the revenue ceiling to inflation and increasing the employee cap, the government is attempting to reduce the 'growth trap' where entrepreneurs avoid expanding their business to avoid the higher tax burdens of larger corporate categories. However, the pushback from finance secretaries suggests a tension between economic growth goals and the desire to maintain a strict boundary between micro-entrepreneurship and small-to-medium enterprises.
