Leonardo López: “Affirming that the State would stop collecting S/12,000 million is relative”

The president of the Tax Commission of the Chamber of Commerce of Lima, Leonardo López, pointed out, in dialogue with La República, that the decision of the constitutional Court (TC) to prohibit the collection of default interest on unpaid tax debts responds to a sense of justice.

—What is your reading of this ruling?

—As a trade union representing businessmen of all sizes, the reading we have is that this is a ruling that finally does justice. It reminds us that in Peru we have a rule of law, that there is tax justice. What it says in good account is that the negligence or idleness of the State in resolving the appeals, or in not resolving the appeals within the legal term, cannot mean a greater damage to the taxpayer, by way of charging default interest.

—Who benefits? Isn’t it the big companies?

—I believe that it is not about a matter of benefit, but about justice. And if that justice applies to the big ones, in good time, because they will have more confidence to invest in the Peruvian market, right?

—Is it known how many cases of natural persons or mypes reach judicial instances?

—Undoubtedly most of the cases that come to the JudiciaryThey are from medium and large companies. For a small business, litigation can be quite onerous. If you lose in Tax Court (TF), they most likely won’t litigate and there’s also a high chance, too, that that company will end up going out of business. Another thing that must be taken into account, with respect to these cases, is that default interest is not relevant. When a TF resolution comes out, and it is negative for the company, that resolution is executable. The Sunat charges you the amount of the debt. And you have no choice but to pay it, because if you don’t pay it, they can make you carry out a forced execution. So what companies do is pay and that debt no longer generates interest.

—The former president of the TC points out that the ruling is unconstitutional because this entity cannot interfere in tax matters, that is the task of Congress.

—Sure, but what happens is that the TC is not legislating. What you are doing is establishing a jurisprudential criterion. The Constitutional Court, in accordance with its organic law, has the power to point out that its precedents are mandatory. Finally, a resolution of a judge or any decision-making body are ultimately interpretations of the rules. They are not norms, they are interpretations of norms. And, as such, they apply.

—The Executive points out that it is a blow to collection and, therefore, to the reduction of gaps.

—I have heard out there that the State Peruvian would stop collecting S / 12,000 million. That is quite relative, and affirming that is even dangerous. All these cases are in litigation, the only way for the Administration to collect this money is for all cases to win. So I don’t know where the authorities assume that they are going to win all the cases.

—When could the TC resolve the annulment request?

—I understand that there is no deadline to resolve it. But, as a business association, we hope that the TC resolves as soon as possible to generate certainty and legal certainty, which is what we need as country at the moment.