Brazil issues ruling on tax treatment of 3D printing

International Tax Review is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Garden, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Brazil issues ruling on tax treatment of 3D printing

Sponsored by

logo.png
3D printer 630 x 570

The tax ruling issued by the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service on whether 3D printing should be classified as a manufacturing process for a business could mean retailers are liable for excise taxes.

The growth of the digital economy is the result of transformative processes brought about by information and communication technology (ICT) and is changing business models. This is very important from a tax perspective. Because of this, the OECD issued BEPS Action 1, which deals with the tax challenges of the digital economy.

In accordance with this report, the rapid technological progress that has characterised the development of the ICT has led to several emerging trends and potential developments that may prove influential in the near future. It is necessary to adapt the tax rules to the digital economy because the development of new products, or means of delivering services, creates uncertainties in relation to the proper characterisation of the business.

As an example of a transformative process, the BEPS Action 1 Report quotes the advance in 3D printing that has the potential to enable manufacturing close to the customer, with the direct interaction with consumers impacting the design of product features. Accordingly, if 3D printing continues to advance, the Action 1 report exposes that it is conceivable that some manufactures could eventually transition away from assembling products themselves and could instead license plans and specifications to third-party manufacturers or even retailers who will ‘print’ the products on demand, closer to the customers.

In this scenario, when a retailer has its own 3D printer and sells a product that was ‘manufactured’ by this equipment, what is the tax treatment? Is the retailer a manufacturer for tax purposes and, therefore, a taxpayer of excise tax (IPI)?

In accordance with tax legislation, IPI is a federal tax levied on the shipment of manufactured goods and its taxpayer in any establishment that carries out any type manufacturing process. For IPI purposes, this is defined as the operation that modifies the nature (transformation), functioning, finishing, presentation or purpose of a product or that improves a product for consumption, such as its conversion, improvement, assembly, packaging, repackaging or restoration.

Thus, to verify if the retailer may be considered as an IPI taxpayer, it is necessary to analyse if 3D printing may be construed as a manufacturing process.

On March 25 2019, the Brazilian Federal Revenue Service (RFB) issued Tax Ruling 97/2019, analysing this issue. In accordance with the ruling, a 3D printer is like a machine to manufacture products, in which raw materials are transformed into new products. Therefore, this process may be considered as a “transformation”, once it modifies the nature of the product, creating a new one.

However, it is important to mention that tax legislation provides some exceptions in which, even if there is a transformation of products, this activity would not be considered as a manufacturing process. As an example, item V of Article 5 of the IPI Regulations (Decree 7212/2010) provides that the making a product by direct order of the consumer or user, in the home of the producer or in a small factory, is not considered as a manufacturing process because the handwork is preponderant. It should be noted that a “small factory” is defined as an establishment that has up to five employees and uses power (driving force) that does not exceed five kilowatts.

As a result, we understand that in the case of a retailer that receives a licence from a third party allowing the 3D printing of a new product, there is no preponderance of handwork in this operation because the machine will manufacture the product by itself, needing only raw materials, power and a licence to manufacture the product.

In this sense, in accordance with the understanding of the RFB, most of the retailers that sell products manufactured within their establishment by a 3D printer will be considered as IPI taxpayers.

This article was written by Carolina Romanini Miguel and Sergio Villanova Vasconcelos from Machados Associados.

more across site & shared bottom lb ros

More from across our site

A lack of commitment from major jurisdictions and the associated compliance burden are obstacles facing the OECD initiative
Richard Gregg is no longer fit and proper to be a tax agent, said the TPB; in other news, MHA completed its acquisition of Baker Tilly South-East Europe
Recent Indian case law emphasises the importance of economic substance over mere legal form in evaluating tax implications, say authors from Khaitan & Co
PepsiCo was represented by PwC, while the ATO was advised by MinterEllison, an Australian-headquartered law firm
Three tax experts dissect the impact of a 30% tariff that has shaken up trade relations between South Africa and the US
Awards
ITR is delighted to reveal all the shortlisted nominees for the 2025 Americas Tax Awards
As we move into an era of ‘substance over form’, determining the fundamental nature of a particular instrument is key when evaluating the tax implications of selling hybrid securities
It stands in stark contrast to a mere 1% increase in firmwide revenue since last year
It follows a court case concerning a Freedom of Information request lodged by the founder of a software company
After years of deafening silence, the UK tax authority is taking overdue action against corporates that fail to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion
Gift this article