The result of the provision of the Investment Funds Management Service is the valuation resulting from the negotiation of its assets, which has reflections outside Brazil as profits are sent abroad. However, there are controversy in relation to the place where the result of the activity relating to the administration of these funds for companies situated outside the national territory, since the occurrence or not exports of services consequently reflect in the understanding of the incidence of tax on services ( ISS).

The concept of export of services presupposes, par excellence, services provided in Brazil and that are consumed / fruits abroad. Whereas the object of such contracts is to obtain the best possible income of foreign investment funds, the results of these services (represented by the recognition of gain or loss resulting from the investments made by the managerial company) will be verified outside the national territory, in so far as The benefits generated by the activities carried out will be perceived abroad by the managed fund.

However, this is not the understanding of municipal taxations, which do not interpret as exporting services to alluded management. May be given as an example the municipality of São Paulo which, on April 26, 2016, published the normative opinion SF nº 02, by which it intends to conceptualize what should be understood by "result" for the purposes of non-incidence of iss , I have : " C " result "the realization of the activity described in the list of services, being irrelevant that any benefits or derogations from that activity fruit or verified abroad or by external resident ".

However, despite the objective of the normative opinion being interpretive, it can not go beyond what provides the law which aims to interpret, under penalty of violating the principles of legality and its own separation of powers. The Complementary Law No. 116/03, only provides that they do not fall into the hypothesis of non-incidence provided for in art. 2º, Inc. I, the services developed in Brazil whose result here becomes, although the payment is made by resident abroad. Therefore, it remains clear that the legislator segregates the implementation of the services of the respective results, otherwise it would be to mention that the services provided in national territory is not considered export.

Based on this understanding, many companies discuss this taxation before the judiciary, however, state courts have been decreased contrary to taxpayers, in the sense that the result consists of the income of the activity verified in the national territory. In any case, the Superior Court of Justice has not yet analyzed the issue of exporting financial services. Therefore, it is possible that the judicial understanding, today prevailing, is amended in the case of revenue from the positive results of foreign investment funds, managed by national companies.