Ministry of Economy asks the Constitutional Court to clarify its verdict, which will reduce the tax debt

The Ministry of Economy and Finance reported that it had submitted through SUNATa request for an annulment of the verdict and, through the MEF prosecutor’s office, a request for clarification of the verdict so that the Constitutional Court can review this decision, which, in the opinion of the institution, in addition to influencing tax policy, also affects the general public, because it defers attention to their needs.

According to the MEF, the verdict will result in a reduction in future revenues, allowing the state to carry out its functions, since Sunat estimates that the TC’s decision could result in a fiscal cost to the country of 12 million soles, which is in line with the debts. , created several years ago and not paid to date.

“By this resolution constitutional Court assumes the role of a positive legislator and thereby exceeds his powers, violating the principle of functional correctness and seriously influencing tax policy … ii) He goes against the tax policy developed by IEF over the past 30 years. This verdict in practice gives rise to an amnesty for companies that apply to the courts that do not pay compensation to the state for late payment of tax debts.

The MEF has indicated that constitutional Courtalthough it delivers judgment in the individual taxpayer’s claim process, “it also invokes a rule of general application to all pending cases, putting at risk even cases in which final judgments have been recently obtained in court. Power of attorney in favor of the Peruvian state.”

Constitutional Court ruling

The decision of the Tax Code determined that from February 8 this year, the tax and judicial administrations should not charge penalties for tax arrears after the expiration of the statutory period during which the authorities must resolve an administrative complaint.

Therefore, Sunat cannot charge the stated interest, which means all procedures are in progress, even those that are in progress.

The verdict also states that the suspension of the accrual of interest also corresponds to when the courts had expired to decide on this issue.

However, it has been established that if the taxpayer acts “procedurally in bad faith”, the collection of the penalty will continue, although the burden of proof will lie with the counterparty.