Controversial decision: What arguments support the decision of the Tax Code on penalties for non-payment of taxes?

On February 7, the Constitutional Court (CC) published a ruling according to which the tax and judicial administrations should not charge default percentage for tax arrears after the statutory time limit within which the authorities must resolve an administrative appeal.

Thus, Sunat the specified percentage cannot be recovered, which implies all procedures are in progress, even those that are in progress.

Similarly, the ruling states that the suspension of interest by default also corresponds to cases where Power of attorney the issue has expired.

controversy

Upon hearing this offer, Sunat And Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) filed appeals through their lawyers against the court’s decision. constitutional Court.

On Feb. 16, Sunat said it had filed an appeal to overturn the decision because it would “significantly reduce interest payments on disputed tax debts.”

In this sense, it was reported that the Attorney General of the said person filed an appeal, since the actions CTit “would benefit companies that are saving and maintaining million-dollar debts to the government despite endless problems.”

Similar Sunat It states that the said regulation “impedes the voluntary and timely fulfillment of tax obligations by affecting public resources and facilitating (…) the prosecution of new cases.”

For its part, on February 21, the IEF announced the submission of a request for clarification of the verdict in order to CT reconsider its decision, which, in the opinion of the ministry, not only affects tax policy, but also affects the public as a whole, as it defers attention to their needs.

He IEF pointed out that CTalthough it delivers judgment at the individual taxpayer’s request, “it also invokes a rule of general application to all pending cases, putting at risk even cases in which final verdicts have been recently obtained in court. Power of attorney in favor of the Peruvian state.”

“This is not a mechanism for irresponsible action”

Faced with such a situation, the Magistrate of the TC Manuel Monteagudoin dialogue with RPP newsjustified the decision by arguing that it “sets a rule” as to the legal time limits for resolving appeals on the matter.

“This ordinance establishes a rule with legislation already in place that recognizes that there is legal term Allow. This imposes a legal deadline on the tax administration that must be met, and outside of this deadline, no interest is charged,” he said.

In addition, he clarified that what was established corresponds to a “natural and logical” principle that is present in national legislation and international treaties.

“There is no mechanism of irresponsible action here. Here is a principle that is in the legislation and corresponds to the highest constitutional principles. The legal, reasonable period for the administrator to wait for a response within the term is in the Constitution, in the right of petition, and it is in the IACHR,” he specified.

As regards the appeals filed against the verdict, the Magistrate stressed that it was not “an opinion ordering restitution, payment, except amnesty”.

“The law has evolved to understand that no interest can be charged during the period in which the public authority is considering a claim, because this justified natural delay must not be transferred to the taxpayer within the statutory period. The term has expired, it is impossible to accrue more, this is a natural defense,” he explained.

In addition, the tribune clarified that this decision was a response to ongoing consultations on constitutionality overdue accrual of interest by legal entities and individuals. In this sense, he believed that a precedent had been created.

“In connection with the actions of the amparo, in many cases the question was asked whether this is constitutional and who should solve this problem. So, there have been different solutions in the past. Current CT He notices that there are a large number of cases that create a problem of interpretation, and he is faced with the need to speak out,” he said.

“What we have set is a precedent in that, firstly, we are saying that this issue, in which timelines, documents, etc. must be analyzed, should be decided by ordinary justice. CT He will not go into details because the evidence is not processed under the amparo procedure,” he added.

Finally, the justice of the peace argued that each case should be judged separately, since “this is a discussion of interests, not debt”, which, in his words, “has been paid in most cases”.