The company has contingencies related to legal proceedings and tax matters arising in the normal course of its business. Due to their nature, such legal proceedings and tax matters involve inherent uncertainties including, but not limited to, court rulings, negotiations between affected parties and governmental actions, and as a consequence AB InBev’s management cannot at this stage estimate the likely timing of resolution of these matters.

In 2022 and 2023, the Lower Administrative Court rendered favorable and partially favorable decisions to Ambev, some of which are still subject to appeal. The decisions cancelled part of the disputed tax assessments, recognizing the validity of the methodology adopted by Ambev with respect to the taxation of profits and the goodwill amortization of foreign subsidiaries. Part of these decisions became final, representing tax assessments valuing approximately 1.0 billion Brazilian real (0.2 billion US dollar) which were cancelled as of 30 September 2024.

In August 2024 Ambev received a partially favorable decision from the first-level administrative court with respect to a tax assessment related to the 2018 calendar year. Both Ambev and the Brazilian tax authorities filed appeals and the case awaits decision by the Lower Administrative Court.

In December 2011, Ambev received a tax assessment related to the goodwill amortization in calendar years 2005 to 2010 resulting from the InBev Holding Brasil S.A. merger with Ambev. At the administrative level, Ambev received partially favorable decisions at both the Lower and Upper Administrative Court. Ambev filed judicial proceedings to discuss the unfavorable portion of the decisions of the Lower and the Upper Administrative Court and requested injunctions to suspend the enforceability of the remaining tax credit, which were granted.

In June 2016, Ambev received a new tax assessment charging the remaining value of the goodwill amortization in calendar years 2011 to 2013 and filed a defense. Ambev received partially favorable decisions at the first-level administrative court and Lower Administrative Court. Ambev and the tax authorities both filed Special Appeals which were partially admitted by the Upper Administrative Court. For the unfavorable portion of the decision which became final at the administrative level, Ambev filed a judicial proceeding requesting an injunction to suspend the enforceability of the remaining tax credit, which was granted.

In April 2023, Ambev received a partially favorable decision at the Upper Administrative Court for the portion of the tax assessment which was subject to the Special Appeals filed by Ambev and the tax authorities. In June 2023, Ambev filed a judicial proceeding to appeal the unfavorable portion of the decision, which awaits judgment at the first-level judicial court.

In October 2013, Ambev received a tax assessment related to the goodwill amortization in calendar years 2007 to 2012 resulting from the merger of Beverage Associates Holding Limited (“BAH”) into Ambev. In April and August 2018, Ambev received new tax assessments charging the remaining value of the goodwill amortization in calendar years 2013 to 2014 and filed defenses. These matters were tried at the administrative level, with the Upper Administrative Court rendering partially favorable decisions to Ambev related to the qualified penalties and the statute of limitations for one of the calendar years under discussion. In January and June 2023, Ambev filed judicial proceedings to appeal the unfavorable portion of the decisions and received favorable decisions at the first-level judicial court. The tax authorities appealed these decisions in September 2023 and the matters await judgment at the second-level judicial court.

In November 2017, Ambev received a tax assessment related to the goodwill amortization in calendar years 2012 to 2016 resulting from the merger of CND Holdings into Ambev. The decision from the first-level administrative court was unfavorable to Ambev. Ambev filed an appeal to the Lower Administrative Court. In February 2020, the Lower Administrative Court rendered a partially favorable decision to Ambev. Ambev and the tax authorities filed Special Appeals to the Upper Administrative Court. In February 2024, Ambev presented a request to withdraw the Special Appeals filed, which was accepted by the Upper Administrative Court. As a result, the Lower Administrative Court’s initial partially favorable decision prevailed. Ambev filed judicial proceedings relating to the unfavorable portion of the decision and requested injunctions to suspend the enforceability of the remaining tax credit, which were granted.

In October 2022, Ambev received a new tax assessment charging the remaining value of the goodwill amortization in calendar year 2017. Ambev filed a defense and in October 2023 received an unfavorable decision from the first-level administrative court, which Ambev appealed to the Lower Administrative Court. In August 2024, Ambev received a favorable decision from the Lower Administrative Court. The decision is not final and is subject to review by the Lower Administrative Court.

In December 2022, CRBS S.A (a subsidiary of Ambev) received a tax assessment related to the goodwill amortization in calendar years 2017 to 2020, resulting from the merger of RTD Barbados into CRBS. Ambev filed a defense in January 2023. In November 2023, Ambev received a partially favorable decision from the first-level administrative court which reduced the qualified penalty applied to 100% (instead of 150% as initially charged). This decision is not final and is subject to review by the Lower Administrative Court. CRBS has filed an appeal to the Lower Administrative Court against the unfavorable portion of the decision.

Ambev has continued to take the same deductions for the calendar years following the assessed periods (2021 to February 2022). Therefore, if Ambev receives similar tax assessments for this period, Ambev management believes the outcome would be consistent with the already assessed periods.

In 2015, 2016 and 2020, Ambev received tax assessments related to the disallowance of alleged

non-deductible

expenses and the deduction of certain losses mainly associated with financial investments and loans. Ambev presented defenses and, in November 2019, received a favorable decision at the first-level administrative court regarding the 2016 case, which was confirmed by the Upper Administrative Court in April 2023.

Administrative Court, which fully canceled the tax assessment related to 2020, and this decision became final in May 2023. In June 2022, Ambev received a partially favorable decision at the first-level administrative court regarding the 2015 case and filed an appeal to the Lower Administrative Court. In April 2024, Ambev received a favorable decision from the Lower Administrative Court, which became final in July 2024. As of July 2024, all assessments related to this matter have now been finally resolved favorably to Ambev.

Since 2014, Ambev has been receiving tax assessments from the Brazilian Federal Tax Authorities, for calendar years as of 2007, related to the disallowance of deductions associated with alleged unproven taxes paid abroad by its subsidiaries and has been filing defenses. The cases are being challenged at both the administrative and judicial levels. In November 2019, the Lower Administrative Court rendered a favorable decision to Ambev in one of the cases (related to the 2010 tax period), which became definitive.

In July 2024, the Lower Administrative Court rendered a favorable decision to Ambev in one case related to the 2012 calendar year, but also rendered an unfavorable decision related to evidentiary formalities in a separate case discussing the offset of foreign tax credits for this same calendar year. Ambev was formally notified of the unfavorable decision and has appealed the case to the judicial court.

In January 2025, Ambev received new tax assessments from the Brazilian Federal Tax authorities challenging the offsets of foreign tax credits for the 2019 calendar year, concerning approximately 2.0 billion Brazil real (0.3 billion US dollar). Ambev will present its defense.

In connection with the disallowance of tax paid abroad, the Brazilian Federal Tax Authorities filed additional tax assessments to charge isolated fines due to the lack of monthly prepayments of income tax as a result of allegedly undue deductions of taxes paid abroad. Ambev has received tax assessments charging such fines for calendar years 2015 to 2019. For the tax assessments related to the periods of 2016 and 2018, Ambev received unfavorable decisions from the first-level administrative court and filed appeals in connection therewith, which are pending judgment by the Lower Administrative Court. In August 2024, for the tax assessments related to the periods of 2015 and 2017, Ambev received (i) an unfavorable decision by the Lower Administrative Court for the case related to the 2015 tax period, for which it filed an appeal to the Upper Administrative Court; and (ii) a favorable decision for the case related to the 2017 tax period, which is not final and may be appealed by the tax authorities. For the tax assessment related to the 2019 tax period, Ambev has filed a defense and the case awaits judgment at the first-level administrative court.

Ambev has continued to take the same deductions for the calendar years following the assessed periods (2018 to 2024). Therefore, if Ambev receives similar tax assessments for these periods, Ambev management believes the outcome would be the same as those tax years already assessed.

In April 2016, Arosuco (a subsidiary of Ambev) received a tax assessment regarding the use of the “presumed profit” method for the calculation of income tax and the social contribution on net profits instead of the “real profit” method. In September 2017, Arosuco received an unfavorable first-level administrative decision and filed an appeal. In January 2019, the Lower Administrative Court rendered a favorable decision to Arosuco, which became definitive.

In March 2019, Arosuco received a new tax assessment regarding the same subject and filed a defense. In October 2019, Arosuco received an unfavorable first-level administrative decision and filed an appeal with the Lower Administrative Court. In February 2024, Ambev received a favorable decision, which was appealed by the tax authorities to the Upper Administrative Court. The case is pending judgment.

In 2013, as approved in a Shareholders Meeting, Ambev implemented a corporate restructuring with the purpose of simplifying its corporate structure and converting into a single class of shares company, among other reasons. One of the steps of such restructuring involved a contribution of shares followed by the merger of shares of its controlled entity, Companhia de Bebidas das Américas, into Ambev. As one of the results of this restructuring, the counterpart register of the positive difference between the value of shares issued for the merger and the net equity value of its controlled entity’s share was accounted, as per IFRS 10/CPC 36 and ICPC09, in an equity account of Ambev referred to as carrying value adjustment.

As a result of this restructuring, since 2019, Ambev has been receiving tax assessments from the Brazilian Federal Tax Authorities related to the interest on capital (“IOC”) deduction in calendar years 2014 to 2021. The assessments refer primarily to the accounting and corporate effects of the restructuring carried out by Ambev in 2013 and its impact on the increase in the deductibility of IOC expenses.

In all of the cases Ambev obtained partially favorable decisions at the first-level administrative court and filed appeals to the Lower Administrative Court. The appeals related to tax assessments involving calendar years 2014 and 2017 to 2021 await judgment by the Lower Administrative Court. The favorable portion of the decisions rendered by the first-level administrative court in these cases is subject to mandatory review by the Lower Administrative Court as well.

With respect to the tax assessment involving calendar years 2015 and 2016, in May 2024 Ambev obtained at the Lower Administrative Court an unfavorable decision on the merits under discussion, but favorable as it relates to the fines charged by the tax authorities, as the court decision cancelled the qualified penalties charged. In December 2024, Ambev was notified of this decision, the favorable portion of which became final, and filed an appeal to the Lower Administrative Court on the merits that awaits decision.

The uncertain tax position, as per IFRIC 23, continued to be adopted by Ambev as it also distributed or accrued IOC in the years following the assessed period (2022-2023) and deducted such amounts from its Corporate Income Taxes taxable basis. Therefore, in a scenario where the IOC deductibility would also be questioned for the period after 2021, on the same basis and arguments as the aforementioned tax assessments, Ambev management estimates that the outcome of such potential further assessments would be consistent with the already assessed periods.

In December 2023, Law No. 14,789/2023 (introduced in August 2023 as Provisional Measure No. 1,185), was enacted in Brazil, which changed the calculation basis for interest on equity effective as of 1 January 2024. As a result, effective as of 1 January 2024, the uncertain tax treatment, as per IFRIC 23, is limited only to Corporate Income Taxes calculated in accordance with rules and regulations in place prior to the enactment of Law No. 14,789/2023.

In January 2020, Arosuco, a subsidiary of Ambev, received a tax assessment from the Brazilian Federal Tax Authorities regarding the disallowance of the income tax reduction benefit provided for in Provisional Measure

No. 2199-14/2001,

for calendar years 2015 to 2018, and an administrative defense was filed. In October 2020, the first-level administrative court rendered an unfavorable decision to Arosuco. Arosuco filed an appeal against the aforementioned decision.

In February 2024, the Lower Administrative Court rendered a partially favorable decision in favor of Arosuco recognizing its right to benefit from the income tax reduction. The unfavorable portion relates to the claim regarding a difference in the methodology for calculating the benefit and concerns approximately 26 million Brazilian real (5 million US dollar). The decision was appealed by the tax authorities and is awaiting trial.

This uncertain tax position, as per IFRIC 23, continued to be applied by Arosuco impacting calendar years following those assessed (2019-2024) in which it benefited from the income tax reduction provided for in Provisional Measure

No. 2199-14/2001.

In the event Arosuco is questioned on this matter for future periods, and on the same basis and arguments as the aforementioned tax assessment, Arosuco management estimates that the outcome of such potential further assessments would be consistent with the previously assessed periods.

In Brazil, goods manufactured within the Manaus Free Trade Zone intended for remittance elsewhere in Brazil are exempt and/ or

zero-rated

from excise tax (“IPI”) and social contributions (“PIS/COFINS”). With respect to IPI, Ambev’s subsidiaries have been registering IPI presumed tax credits upon the acquisition of exempted goods manufactured therein. Since 2009, Ambev has been receiving a number of tax assessments from the Brazilian Federal Tax Authorities relating to the disallowance of such credits.

Ambev and its subsidiaries have also been receiving charges from the Brazilian Federal Tax Authorities in relation to (i) federal taxes allegedly unduly offset with the disallowed presumed IPI excise tax credits that are under discussion in these proceedings and (ii) PIS/COFINS amounts allegedly due on Arosuco’s remittance to Ambev subsidiaries.

In April 2019, the Federal Supreme Court (“STF”) announced its judgment on Extraordinary Appeal No. 592.891/SP, with binding effect, deciding on the rights of taxpayers registering IPI excise tax presumed credits on acquisitions of raw materials and exempted inputs originating from the Manaus Free Trade Zone. As a result of this decision, Ambev reclassified part of the amounts related to the IPI cases as remote losses maintaining as possible losses only issues related to other additional discussions that were not included in the analysis of the STF. The cases are being challenged at both the administrative and judicial levels.

In April 2024, the Lower Administrative Court rendered an unfavorable decision to Arosuco, by a casting vote, regarding the PIS/COFINS amounts allegedly due on Arosuco’s remittance to Ambev subsidiaries. However, this decision is not final and may be appealed by Arosuco.

In 2014 and 2015, Ambev received tax assessments from the Brazilian Federal Tax Authorities relating to IPI allegedly due over remittances of manufactured goods to other related factories. The cases are being challenged at both the administrative and judicial levels. In July 2022, Ambev received the first judicial decision on this matter; the decision was unfavorable to Ambev and it filed an appeal. In July 2023, the Federal Court rendered its decision on the appeal, annulling the first-level decision and ordering the production of technical evidence as requested by Ambev in order to demonstrate the proper collection of IPI. The federal government has filed motions for clarification against this decision, which are pending judgment by the Federal Court.

In October 2022, the Upper Administrative Court rendered a partially favorable decision to Ambev in one of the cases related to this matter, which ordered a tax audit to determine the amount of the tax already effectively paid. In January 2024, Ambev was notified of the results of the tax audit, which were partially favorable to Ambev, reducing 98% of the amount alleged to be owed by Ambev in this case. Ambev has filed an appeal at the judicial level against the unfavorable portion of the decision. In December 2024 the case was judged unfavorably to Ambev, and is pending appeal.

In 2018 and 2021, Ambev received tax assessments from the States of Rio Grande do Sul and São Paulo charging alleged differences in ICMS due to the disallowance of credits arising from transactions with suppliers located in the Manaus Free Trade Zone. With regard to the assessment issued by the State of Rio Grande do Sul, Ambev received a favorable judgment at the second administrative level, which was amended by the third administrative level in favor of the tax authorities. Ambev has filed an appeal at the judicial level against the unfavorable portion of the decision. With respect to the assessments issued by the State of São Paulo, all were decided unfavorably to Ambev at the first administrative level, and Ambev has filed appeals at the second administrative level. In one of these cases, Ambev received an unfavorable decision from the second administrative level, which is not final and has been appealed to the Upper Administrative Court.

Over the years, Ambev has received tax assessments to charge supposed ICMS differences considered due when the price of the products sold by Ambev is above the fixed price table basis established by the relevant states, cases in which the state tax authorities contend that the calculation basis should be based on a value-added percentage over the actual

In 2015, in relation to the ICMS tax incentive program of the State of Pernambuco (PRODEPE), Ambev received tax assessments from the state regarding alleged differences in the ICMS tax collected relating to the rectification of errors in a handful of ancillary obligations included in Ambev’s tax filing. In 2017, Ambev received a final favorable decision recognizing the tax assessments were null due to formal errors. In September 2018, Ambev received a new tax assessment relating to the same ICMS differences. In June 2020, Ambev received a partially favorable decision at the first administrative level that recognized new formal errors in the tax assessment. The favorable portion of the decision became final in 2023. The second administrative level did not recognize Ambev’s appeal of the unfavorable portion of the decision, which Ambev then appealed to the judicial level in March 2024.

Since 2015, Ambev has received tax assessments issued by the Brazilian Federal Tax Authorities relating to PIS/COFINS amounts allegedly due over bonus products granted to its customers. Most of the cases were cancelled at the administrative level with one case being tried at the judicial level. Following an unfavorable decision to Ambev at the first-level judicial court, the case is now pending decision by the second-level judicial court.

Tanzania Breweries Limited (“TBL”), a subsidiary of AB InBev in Tanzania, received a tax assessment for 850 billion Tanzanian shillings (0.3 billion US dollar) related to income tax on the alleged capital gain derived from the change in underlying ownership of TBL which the Tanzania Revenue Authority claims was more than 50% following the 2016 combination of SAB and AB InBev. TBL filed an appeal to the Tax Revenue Appeals Board. TBL believes that the assessment is without merit and will vigorously defend against the assessment. In accordance with IFRIC 23, no related provision has been made.

The South African Revenue Service (“SARS”) conducted an audit of AB InBev’s South African subsidiary, the South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd. (“SAB”), in relation to the 2017 repurchase of SAB’s equity stake in Coca-Cola Beverages Africa (Pty) Ltd (“CCBA”), the Coca-Cola bottling business in Africa, by CCBA and the related subscription for shares in CCBA by subsidiaries of The Coca-Cola Company (“TCCC”). The assessment from SARS claimed that SAB owed 6.4 billion South African Rand (0.3 billion US dollar) in taxes plus penalties and interest, which as at the time of assessment totalled 17.7 billion Rand (0.9 billion US dollar). The repurchase transaction also included an indemnity for certain tax liabilities of CCBA. CCBA notified SAB that CCBA had received an assessment from SARS for 8.9 billion Rand (0.5 billion US dollar). Both of these assessments were contested. Both disputes have now been resolved and SAB will pay 4.5 billion South African Rand (0.2 billion US dollar) in respect of these South African tax matters to SARS, of which 3.5 billion South African Rand (0.2 billion US dollar) has been paid as of 31 December 2024.

AB InBev’s Peruvian majority owned subsidiaries, Union de Cervecerias Peruanas Backus & Johnston (“Backus”) and Cerveceria San Juan S.A (“San Juan”), challenged the amount of excise tax paid to the Peru tax authority (SUNAT) for the years 2014 to 2019. SUNAT initiated tax audits for the periods involved, rejected the refund claims and assessed further excise taxes for the period of 2017 to 2019. If Backus and San Juan are successful, no excise tax would ultimately be payable and the claim could result in the refund of approximately 3.0 billion Peruvian nuevo sol (0.8 billion US dollar). If unsuccessful, management estimates the possible loss to be approximately 2.1 billion Peruvian nuevo sol (0.6 billion US dollar). Backus and San Juan will

pre-pay

a portion of the amounts assessed, pending outcome of the challenge and any appeal(s). In November 2024, Backus and its main UK shareholder submitted an arbitration request to the International

In February 2015, the European Commission opened an

in-depth

state aid investigation into the Belgian excess profit ruling system. On 11 January 2016, the European Commission adopted a negative decision finding that the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes an aid scheme incompatible with the internal market and ordering Belgium to recover the incompatible aid from a number of aid beneficiaries. The Belgian authorities contacted the companies that had benefitted from the system and advised each company of the amount of incompatible aid that is potentially subject to recovery. The European Commission’s decision was appealed to the European Union’s General Court by Belgium on 22 March 2016 and by AB InBev on 12 July 2016. On 14 February 2019, the European General Court concluded that the Belgian excess profit ruling system does not constitute illegal state aid. The European Commission appealed the judgment to the European Court of Justice. The public hearing in the framework of the appeal proceedings took place on 24 September 2020 and AB InBev was heard as an intervening party.

On 3 December 2020, the Advocate General (AG) of the European Court of Justice presented her

non-binding

opinion on the appeal procedure related to the 11 January 2016 opening decision, stating that, contrary to the 14 February 2019 judgment of the European General Court, the Belgian excess profit ruling system would fulfil the legal requirements for an “aid scheme”. In the initial European General Court judgment, the court limited itself to finding the Belgian excess profit rulings were not an “aid scheme”, but did not consider whether they constituted State aid. Consequently, the AG advised the European Court of Justice to refer the case back to the European General Court to review whether the Belgian excess profit rulings constitute State aid. On 16 September 2021, the European Court of Justice agreed with the AG and concluded that the excess profit ruling system constitutes an aid scheme and set aside the judgment of the European General Court. The case was referred back to the European General Court to decide whether the Belgian excess profit ruling system constitutes illegal State aid as well as the other remaining open issues in the appeal. On 20 September 2023, the European General Court upheld the European Commission’s decision. That judgment has been appealed by AB InBev and other parties to the European Court of Justice.

Following the initial annulment of the European Commission’s decision by the European General Court in 2019, the European Commission opened new state aid investigations into the individual Belgian tax rulings, including the one issued to AB InBev in September 2019, to remedy the concerns that had led to the annulment. These investigations relate to the same rulings that were the subject of the European Commission’s decision issued on 11 January 2016. AB InBev has filed its observations in respect of the opening decisions with the European Commission. On 28 October 2021, the European Commission stayed the new state aid investigations into the individual Belgian tax rulings pending final resolution of the case.

In addition, the Belgian tax authorities have also questioned the validity and the actual application of the excess profit ruling that was issued in favor of AB InBev and have refused the actual tax exemption which it confers. AB InBev has filed a court claim against such decision before the Brussels court of first instance which ruled in favor of AB InBev on 21 June 2019, and again on 9 July 2021 for subsequent years. The Belgian tax authorities appealed both judgments.

In January 2019, AB InBev deposited 68 million euro (75 million US dollar) in a blocked account. Depending on the final outcome of the European Court procedures on the Belgian excess profit ruling system, as well as the pending Belgian court cases, this amount will either be slightly modified, released back to the company or paid over to the Belgian State. In connection with the European Court procedures, AB InBev recognized a provision of 68 million euro (75 million US dollar) in 2020.

Cerbuco Brewing Inc., (“Cerbuco”) a Canadian subsidiary of Ambev, owns a 50% equity ownership in Cerveceria Bucanero S.A. (“Bucanero”), a joint venture in Cuba. In 2021, Cerbuco initiated an arbitration proceeding at the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”), relating to the potential breach of certain obligations relating to the joint venture. On 24 October 2024, the ICC released an arbitration award partially favorable to Cerbuco. The decision is final and the parties are waiting for the second phase of the arbitration relating to quantification of damages to begin, which may affect Ambev’s ability to continue consolidating Bucanero into its financial statements.

Labatt and other third-party defendants have been named in a proposed class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of Quebec seeking unquantified compensatory and punitive damages. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to warn of certain specific health risks of consuming defendants’ alcoholic beverages. A

sub-class

of plaintiffs further alleges that