The decision by the 7th Public Treasury Court of the Federal District, which ruled out the application of the Tax on Goods and Services (IBS) to indirect exports, has brought a new element to the debate on the impacts of tax reform on Brazilian agribusiness. The judicial understanding is seen by the sector as relevant to preserving the competitiveness of exports, especially in supply chains that depend on the activities of cooperatives and trading companies to access the international market.<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/opresenterural.com.br\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/IMG-8582-e1779803467374-291x300.jpg?resize=233%2C240&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nLawyer Felipe Azevedo Maia: \u201cWith legal certainty, trading companies can continue acting as a bridge between small producers and the foreign market\u201d \u2013 Photo: Press Release<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
The discussion gained momentum after the regulation of the tax reform by Complementary Law No. 214\/2025. Article 82 of the law established criteria for the suspension of IBS and CBS on indirect exports, including the requirement of OEA certification and a minimum net worth of R$ 1 million.<\/p>\n
According to lawyer Felipe Azevedo Maia, the conditions create barriers incompatible with the constitutional immunity of exports. "The mere fact that it is an export is sufficient to exempt it from taxation, even if carried out through an export trading company or trading firm," he states, emphasizing that the new requirements of LC 214\/2025 create barriers incompatible with the constitutional text.<\/p>\n
The court decision reinforces the interpretation that tax immunity should also extend to indirect exports, a mechanism widely used in the flow of commodities such as soybeans, corn, coffee, cotton, meat, and sugar. This model is considered strategic, especially for small and medium-sized producers who use trading companies to access international buyers.<\/p>\n
Despite the favorable understanding, Maia warns that the decision does not automatically apply to the entire sector. "It is essential that each company file its own lawsuit to protect itself," he recommends, emphasizing: "Without a specific court decision, producers and trading companies remain subject to the requirements of Article 82, even if they are unconstitutional."<\/p>\n
According to Maia, the judicial precedent could stimulate new questions about the regulations approved in the tax reform and increase the search for judicial protection in agribusiness. "With legal certainty, trading companies can continue to act as a bridge between small producers and the foreign market, and Brazil avoids the risk of exporting taxes, something that would compromise prices, margins, and international participation," he emphasizes.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n