In recent days, an idea has resurfaced that, to be honest, concerns me: charging taxes retroactively from 'Bets' that operated in Brazil before the current regulation existed. The target is said to be more than R$ 12.6 billion (US$2.3bn) and around 135 companies. It is tempting from a revenue perspective, yes, but legally and practically, it’s like fining someone for parking in a spot where the “no parking” sign was put up afterwards.
What the law says (and why it matters)
The Federal Constitution is clear: no tax can be levied on events that occurred before the law existed (Art. 150, item III, “a” – Planalto). That same article also contains the principles of anteriority and the 90-day rule, meaning that a tax cannot be charged in the same year it is created, nor before 90 days have passed (Art. 150, items III “b” and “c” – Planalto).
The National Tax Code only allows retroactivity when the rule is more beneficial or merely interpretative, never to create a new obligation looking into the past (CTN Art. 106 – Planalto).
In other words, tempus regit actum. The law that applies is the one in force at the time the act occurred. Changing it afterwards is like trying to alter the score after the stadium has emptied.
The message this sends to the market
This is not just a matter of legal articles and codes—it’s a matter of trust. Saying “in this market, the rules can change after you’ve played” scares investors, increases risk, and pushes capital and talent toward places where the rules are clear and stable.
What could be done instead (looking forward)
If the goal is to raise revenue and organize the sector, there are better paths:
Enforce compliance going forward, using the technical and security rules already published in SPA/MF Ordinance No. 722/2024.
Establish clear and stable rules from day one, avoiding grey areas.
Shut down illegal operations, blocking those without licenses and concentrating demand on authorized operators under Law No. 14.790/2023.
In summary
Retroactive taxation clashes with both the Constitution and the National Tax Code; moreover, it sends the wrong signal to those who invest capital and create value. Discouraging entrepreneurs doesn’t just mean losing investment—it also means losing potential direct and indirect jobs (technology, support, marketing, operations, sports suppliers)—precisely what Brazil needs.
Those who know me know that, throughout my career, I have taken part in regulatory processes in several Latin American countries.
I truly believe that formal, respectful, and firm regulation against illegality is the best path to healthy revenue collection, responsible gaming control, and the generation of direct and indirect jobs. We must not treat this lightly, because in the end, the decision will impact consumers, the government, and businesses alike.
The Federal Constitution is clear: no tax can be levied on events that occurred before the law existed (Art. 150, item III, “a”).
See Constitution: The National Tax Code only allows retroactivity when the rule is more beneficial or merely interpretative, never to create a new obligation looking into the past (CTN Art. 106).
See CTN Art. 106: Enforce compliance going forward, using the technical and security rules already published in SPA/MF Ordinance No. 722/2024.
See Ordinance No. 722/2024: Shut down illegal operations, blocking those without licenses and concentrating demand on authorized operators under Law No. 14.790/2023.
See Law No. 14.790/2023.
Fernando Garita
Managing Partner and Co-Founder at Kabata Group – a business group specializing in operations, strategic consulting, representation of global brands, investments, and business development in sectors such as online betting, gaming, fintech, and technology in Latin America.
