news agency
Renzo Díaz González: “TC does not apply tax interests with a ruling that harms all Peruvians”

Renzo Díaz González: “TC does not apply tax interests with a ruling that harms all Peruvians”

The president of the Sunat ruled on the ruling of the Constitutional Court regarding the collection of default interest from debtor companies. “This could cause everyone to say: ‘Why am I going to pay now if it still doesn’t give me interest? Best pay in five years’. It is more beneficial for me to borrow from the State, ”he said.

The attorney of the National Superintendence of Customs and Tax Administration (Sunat), Renzo Diazwarns that the ruling of the Constitutional Court (TC), restricting the collection of default interest to companies indebted to the Peruvian State, represents a severe blow to the collection responsible for cutting gaps, and does not rule out that some may even request a refund of what has already been settled.

— How do you receive this ruling?

— For Sunat, it is worrisome. In the first place, because it has prohibited the collection of interest generated when there is excess in resolving. What does that generate? In principle, detriment to State income, to the fulfillment of its purposes. In second place, inequalitybecause it creates an environment in which the common taxpayer sees this sentence, listens to it and says: “When there is a delay, there will be no payment of interest”. So, I, who am the taxpayer who complies with his obligations, what I will do is challenge, go through all the instances and reach the Judiciary (PJ), where there will be an opportunity for interests to be extinguished.

– Why would they?

— Because the delay of the Judiciary is the novelty incorporated by the TC. And the other effect that it generates, and that causes concern for the Sunat, is that it encourages litigation. The taxpayer sees in the litigation the way to leverage, generate resources for himself, but the resources do not flow to the State. Because not everyone is competing with the same elements. Inequality is generated to the extent that one has the means (to lengthen a trial), but the other does not. One has opportunities, the other does not.

— It is always said that the company is affected by delays.

— At the administrative level, Sunat does not delay. It is efficient in resolving within deadlines. This vocation solves that problem that came from the past. He Tax court it also has its specialty, mechanisms and correction policies. The delay of the PJ is a problem that involves not only tax cases, but all. And it is something that is up to you to establish.

— Wasn’t there already a penalty?

— Since 2007, there was a penalty for delays, the CPI. If Sunat missed deadlines, only the CPI was applied to that debt. Interest was no longer charged. As of 2014, there was also something similar for the Tax Court. That is why Sunat, who had nine months in his terms, only went up to six or seven, and from there the transfer was made to the taxpayer. And if he did not agree, he went to the Fiscal Court. And from there he kept running.

—Then, a precedent was not required for the matter.

— Some lawyers say that interest is applied because the process was delayed. It’s not that, it’s the debt. From the moment a taxpayer enters a process it means that he is a debtor. It is not that he complied and he is being overcharged, a series of inconsistencies have been found and, therefore, he has to pay what he owes. There is no category of ‘late interest’. The interests are only one, they suppose default of payment. So, for contesting, interest is not generated.

— What have they requested from the TC?

— What the Sunat has done is knock on the door of the TC and tell it that the resolution it has issued, in the part that establishes a binding precedent, has defects that affect the rights of the administration. But not only rights as a collector, but as an institution that represents everyone. Because what Sunat collects are the taxes that will later benefit everyone. So, If interests that are part of the tax debt are not applied, the losers are the Peruvians.

— All as a result of the Maxco case.

— The TC uses the Maxco case to issue a precedent that is not going to help resolve it. Here is the inconsistency. A device is issued that applies to everyone, but not Maxco. It does not assume jurisdiction, because it refuses to hear the company’s appeal, declaring it inadmissible. However, he makes decisions that have background content for others.

— Is there today the possibility that companies with million-dollar debts, paid or payable, request a return?

— The possibilities are wide open. The behaviors of the taxpayers and the readings of this judgment may be different. But, faced with all these situations, the administration will have a single position: respect the sentence until it remains in force.

— All as a result of those ‘vices’.

— If one reads the ruling, it could be logical if you look at it years ago, when there were no rules. So, you could say: “Hey, here they are charging you for the excess delay”. But here there was no longer that additional chargeBecause he was already grounded. The law itself had already said: “Charge based on inflation, which is the CPI.” So, if you already had the rule in force, what was the need to set a precedent?

— A universal principle of taxation is broken.

— And, furthermore, our interest rate on debt is the lowest in relation to all institutions similar to Sunat in the world. It is the lowest that exists. Even lower than the rate banks have today. It’s not even an aggressive rate. In other countries, what they do is set a very high rate, precisely, to avoid this stage —evasion—, and you reach inconsistency, that they find that you owe, that you have not declared what you must declare. Not here. Here the rate is reasonable. If you, for any reason, argue with the bank about the amount of your debt, interest is not suspended at any time.

– Isn’t that inconsistent?

— This could cause everyone to say: “Why am I going to pay now if it still doesn’t give me interest. I’m not interested, better payment in five years and that’s it”. I leverage myself with the State and no longer with the banks. More now that, for example, credits are much more expensive. So, it is more beneficial for me to borrow from the State. Of course, it is easier to owe the State than the bank.

Source: Larepublica

You may also like

Hot News

TRENDING NEWS

Subscribe

follow us