Brazilian oil companies have denounced the government's decision to maintain export taxes on crude oil and diesel [1].
The dispute centers on the financial viability of energy projects. Industry leaders argue that the levy creates an unstable economic environment that discourages long-term capital investment in Brazil's oil sector.
The Instituto Brasileiro de Petróleo, Gás e Biocombustíveis (IBP) and the Associação Brasileira de Empresas de Exploração e de Produção de Petróleo e Gás (Abep) led the criticism after the government announced the tax's maintenance on April 9, 2026 [1]. A spokesperson for the IBP said the measure brings negative impacts for production projects, investment plans, and corporate decisions [1].
Industry representatives said that the continuation of the tax does not correct the underlying legal, economic, and institutional problems associated with the collection [2].
Legal challenges to the tax reached the federal courts in São Paulo. On April 17, 2026, the Tribunal Regional Federal da 2ª Região (TRF-2) issued a ruling that reinstated the collection of the tax [3]. This judicial decision followed a request from the Advocacia-Geral da União (AGU) [3].
The TRF-2 ruling effectively overturned prior legal protections for several firms. Five oil companies had previously obtained injunctions that suspended the tax collection [4]. The court's decision to restore the levy means those companies must now comply with the federal export requirements.
The AGU said the decision of the Tribunal Regional Federal da 2ª Região restored the collection of the tax, meeting the request of the Attorney General's office [3].
“The measure brings negative impacts for production projects, investment plans, and corporate decisions.”
The reinstatement of the export tax by the TRF-2 signals a victory for the Brazilian government's revenue goals over industry preferences. By overturning the injunctions of five major firms, the court has reaffirmed the state's authority to tax crude and diesel exports, potentially increasing federal coffers but risking a chilling effect on foreign and domestic investment in deep-water exploration.
