Long before a vessel calls at a Brazilian port, the shipping agent is already at work: confirming the vessel’s port call, arranging pilotage and towage services, handling documentation, and coordinating procedures with Customs authorities. The foreign shipowner is the principal engaging the Brazilian shipping agent to act on its behalf in the country.
In practice, this business model has always been relatively straightforward. From a tax perspective, however, it has long been marked by a persistent source of legal uncertainty.
Complementary Law No. 116/2003 exempts exports of services from the Municipal Service Tax (ISS), while excluding services “performed in Brazil whose results occur within the country.” Yet the legislation never defines what constitutes the “result” of a service. Brazil’s Superior Court of Justice (STJ) has alternated between the completion theory—which locates the result where the service is performed—and the benefit theory—which places it where the contracting party enjoys the benefit of the service—without reaching a definitive position within its First Section. Consequently, legal uncertainty remains while the ISS continues to apply during Brazil’s tax transition period.
Against this background, the legal framework established for the IBS (Tax on Goods and Services) and the CBS (Contribution on Goods and Services) adopts a fundamentally different approach. Complementary Law No. 214/2025, as amended by Complementary Law No. 227/2026, establishes an objective rule: a service qualifies as an export when supplied to a person resident or domiciled abroad and consumed abroad. For services that are not subject to a specific territorial rule, consumption abroad occurs whenever both the purchaser and the recipient are resident or domiciled outside Brazil (Article 80, Paragraph 1-A, II, of Complementary Law No. 214/2025).
Applying this statutory framework to shipping agency services is relatively straightforward. The “purchaser” is the party legally liable for payment (Article 3, IV). In shipping agency arrangements, this is the foreign shipowner. The “recipient” is the party to whom the service is supplied (Article 3, V). Again, this is the foreign shipowner, which receives the representation, port call management, and operational support provided by the shipping agent.
The purchaser and the recipient are therefore one and the same, and both are domiciled abroad. The statutory requirement established under Article 80, Paragraph 1-A, II, is fully satisfied. Accordingly, the constitutional tax immunity applies.
One potential objection nevertheless warrants consideration. Article 11, V, of Complementary Law No. 214/2025 establishes that the place of supply for port services is the place where the services are performed. Were this provision applicable to shipping agency services, the place of supply would be the Brazilian port, potentially precluding the tax immunity. The difficulty with this argument, however, is that shipping agency services are not port services.
Complementary Law No. 116/2003 has always distinguished between the two activities. Port services—including pilotage, towage, cargo handling, and stevedoring—are classified under Item 20.01, whereas shipping agency services are separately classified under Item 10.06 as an independent category. Complementary Law No. 214/2025 did not merge these classifications. Moreover, ANTAQ Resolution No. 62/2021 confirms this distinction by recognizing the shipping agent as an intermediary acting on behalf of the carrier rather than as a port operator.
The IBS and CBS implementing regulations, published in April 2026, reinforce this interpretation by extending the territorial rule contained in Article 11, V, exclusively to services provided at dry ports and airports. This demonstrates that the provision was designed to govern physical operations within the port ecosystem, rather than agency, mandate, or representation services. Shipping agency services therefore fall within the residual rule set out in Article 11, X.
Complementary Law No. 227/2026 further reinforces this conclusion by repealing Paragraph 6 of Article 80 of Complementary Law No. 214/2025, which had previously defined consumption as the “use, exploitation, enjoyment, benefit, or access” obtained by the contracting party. That wording could have revived, under the IBS and CBS, precisely the same disputes regarding where a service is effectively “enjoyed” that rendered the ISS regime so heavily litigated. The legislature deliberately eliminated that uncertainty by replacing the former definition with Paragraph 1-A, adopting objective criteria based on the domicile of both the contracting party and the service recipient.
Some may argue that the true beneficiaries of shipping agency services are Brazilian importers and exporters, whose cargo movements depend on the vessel’s port call. That contention, however, cannot be sustained. Shipping agency services are rendered exclusively to the shipowner pursuant to an agency mandate. It is the shipowner that appoints the agent, pays for the services, and receives the legal representation. Importers and exporters are customers of the maritime transport services provided by the shipowner. These are distinct legal relationships, governed by different contractual arrangements and serving different legal purposes.
Finally, one aspect transforms this positive legal development into an equally significant commercial one. Under the ISS regime, the maximum tax rate is 5%. Under the IBS and CBS framework, the combined rate is currently estimated to range from 26.5% to 28%. Unless the tax immunity is recognized, Brazilian shipping agents will effectively be required to export nearly 30% of the value of their services in indirect taxation—a burden capable of making Brazilian port calls structurally more expensive than those of the world’s leading exporting nations, where shipping agency services rendered to foreign shipowners are generally subject to a zero rate.
For a profession that has long operated under the legal uncertainty surrounding the ISS regime, the IBS and CBS framework finally provides shipping agents with a clear, objective, and predictable legal basis for the tax treatment of exported services. Rather than perpetuating decades of interpretative disputes, the new legislation adopts objective statutory criteria that offer greater legal certainty while reinforcing Brazil’s competitiveness in international maritime trade.