The Destination Principle in the IBS

the (Re)construction of the Spatial Criterion of Taxation

Abstract

This article examines the “destination principle” introduced by the Constitutional Amendment No. 132/2023 with the creation of the Goods and Services Tax (IBS). It aims to assess the normative force of this principle and to verify whether its configuration allows for a clear identification of the “place” of taxation at destination. To establish an epistemological basis, the analysis begins with a comparative assessment of the rules for determining the place of IBS taxation in relation to those applicable to the ICMS and the ISS, as well as the effects of the principle on the tax rate, the identification of the taxing authority, and the allocation of tax revenues. In the next step, the article examines the normative architecture of the IBS in order to address its main question: to investigate whether (i) the illustrative criteria set forth in the Federal Constitution (art. 156-A, §5, IV); (ii) the broad categories established by Complementary Law No. 214/2025; and (iii) the multiplicity of connecting factors associated with the “place of destination” ensure clarity, cognoscibility, and effective normative density of the destination principle. The study combines linguistic concepts and deontic logic, based on the premise that the IBS operates with categories of low intensional content and high generality, which may hinder the identification of the “place” of transactions, especially in mixed operations involving multiple connecting factors that may be linked to the place of “destination.” To provide clarity to the normative structure, it argues that the concepts of “goods” and “services,” consolidated through the doctrinal and jurisprudential experience of the ISS and the ICMS, remain as interpretative parameters that assist in classifying transactions within the generic categories of art. 11 of Complementary Law No. 214/2025. It further proposes: (i) the expansion of special rules as a lex specialis technique aimed at reducing generality; and (ii) the issuance of tax regulations with the participation of the rule’s addressees, capable of providing greater clarity and operability, as well as preventing conflicts arising from the application of the destination principle.