EARNINGS-RETIREMENTS – TELAM Agency
The Federal Chamber of San Martín confirmed the ruling that declared the unconstitutionality of the collection of Income Tax (IG) on the assets of a retiree, prohibited continuing with these deductions and ordered the woman to return the amounts that were withheld for this purpose. in the last five years.
Chamber II of the Chamber applied the precedent “García” of the Supreme Court of the Nation, in the “action merely declaring unconstitutionality” that MEG promoted against the Federal Administration of Public Revenues (AFIP).
In the lawsuit, initiated in February 2022, the retiree, a beneficiary of the Federal Police Retirement, Retirement and Pension Fund, proved that sums were deducted from her every month for this tax and challenged articles of Law 20,628 (On Income Tax). Profits) that determined that the pension assets were covered by this tax.
It added that these deductions affected rights and guarantees provided for in the National Constitution and international instruments on Human Rights. and that “retirement was not a profit, but a debit that the company had with the retiree, which allowed them to enjoy the benefit when their work capacity diminished or disappeared.”
When appealing the first instance ruling, the collection body stated that Law 27,617 had not been taken into account, which, it pointed out, since 2021 established “substantial modifications” in the Income Tax Law, raising the non-taxable minimums, and highlighted that the case of MEG’s retirement “greatly exceeded” that parameter.
The AFIP also questioned that the retiree did not exhaust the administrative route as a prerequisite for filing the lawsuit, which Chamber II of the Chamber considered as “excessive formal rigor incompatible with the rules of due process and adequate justice service ”.
Chamber members Néstor Barral and Alberto Lugones admitted that Law 27,617 “introduced certain modifications to the Income Tax Law”, but by maintaining the amount of assets as the “sole criterion for the imposition of this tax”, they omitted to evaluate “the situation of vulnerability of this group”, as the Court did in the “Garcia” case.
Source: Ambito
