In the Paraná justice system, the investigation against the company Río Uruguay Cooperativa de Seguros Limitada and its president Juan Carlos Lucio Godoy for the alleged tax evasion of more than 977 million pesosas emerged from the audits initiated by the AFIP on August 13, 2021 with the purpose of verifying the tax on the added value of the fiscal periods between December 2016 and June 2020.
The complaint was presented on December 29, 2023 before the Federal Prosecutor’s Office by Marcos Gastaldi in charge of the Criminal Tax Section of the Legal Division of the Paraná Regional Directorate of the Federal Administration of Public Revenue (AFIP-DGI) and Juan Carlos Leiva, lawyer for the collecting agency.
In that sense, Mariela Montefinalewho was appointed as attorney general before the Court of Appeals of Paraná, requested the opening of the investigation in a classified case “NN ABOUT TO BE DETERMINED – AFIP-DGI COMPLAINANT”, Expte. No. 1131/2024.
In the writing to which he agreed Ambitthe prosecutor maintained that the events reported by the AFIP-DGI “would constitute violations of the Criminal Tax Regime”a fact that arises from the inspection carried out on Río Uruguay Cooperativa de Seguros Limitada, with fiscal address at Congreso de Tucumán Street n° 21 in the city of Concepción del Uruguay, province of Entre Ríos.
The representative of the Public Prosecutor’s Office recalled that the purpose of the inspection was to verify the tax credits coming from receipts issued by suppliers of Río Uruguay Seguros, “as well as the possible decrease in the real value of the premiums by subtracting part of them from the imposition of VAT, also a possible calculation of inappropriate tax credits and the probable incorrect proration of the tax credit.”
Montefinale indicated that the complainants clarify that “according to current regulations, the Cooperative’s income is premiums (a concept taxed in VAT) and Social Contributions (a concept not included in VAT); that according to Law No. 20,091 (and its amendments) on the Exercise of the Activity of the Insurer and Reinsurance, article 26: ‘…The premiums must be sufficient to comply with the obligations of the insurer and its permanent economic capacity. financial…’”.
In this regard, the prosecutor pointed out that the complaining AFIP officials confirmed that Río Uruguay Seguros “has carried out a maneuver consisting of the application of Social Quota to cover concepts that should be absorbed by the Premium.”
That is why, as stated in the complaint, “with such a procedure, income accounts linked to Accrual Claims, Production Expenses and Operating Expenses would be netted, diverting an important part of the social contribution to cover expenses that, as It is a practice in the insurance business, they should have been covered with the premiums received. In this way, it is evident that RUS (Río Uruguay Seguros) resorted to covering expenses contrary to what is established by the Insurance Law, with income not taxed in the Value Added Tax, resulting in a significant decrease in the tax base of this tax.
“This is corroborated, the complaint maintains, with a sampling of policies issued by the cooperative, in order to determine the relationship between the value of the premium and that of the social fee, considering different branches with which it usually operates. In this control, it is exposed that the inclusion of the concept ‘share capital’, for significant and variable amounts, with respect to the amounts of the determined premiums, and both forming part of the policies analyzed, has the purpose of reducing the real value of the premium, subtracting part of it from the imposition of VAT,” the prosecutor said in the letter.
Along these lines, the prosecutor maintained that the insurer “repeatedly subtracted an important part of the Social Quota (on average 69.89%) from the imposition of VAT, capitalizing only 15.92% on averageas Subscribed Capital of the total Social Contribution received, which is clearly an advantage over its competitors in the insurance market, which obtain their income almost exclusively from Premiums (taxed in VAT).”
Based on the audit, the complainants estimate that the fiscal damage caused to the AFIP corresponds to the balance resulting, on the one hand, from the challenge of tax credit by suppliers and, on the other hand, from the omission of VAT Tax Debit on the applications of social contributions to income statements with a total evasion of $977,243,976.42.
The prosecutor pointed out in the letter that “entering a smaller amount into the Value Added Tax is legally-criminally relevant since it is a disapproved conduct in terms of prohibited risks according to the economic traffic that prevails in today’s society, meaning an injury to the Protected Legal Asset (Public Treasury)”.
In harsh terms against the insurer and its owner Juan Carlos Lucio Godoy, the prosecutor indicated that “the person responsible, with full knowledge, has breached the legally enforceable obligations to fully and timely declare the tax debt and make its corresponding payment, configuring the two elements necessary for the perfect consummation of the tax fraud: deception and damage.”
“In accordance with what was stated above and the accompanying evidence, There is no doubt that the person responsible for the taxpayer knew of the irregularities in his registrations since he is the obligated subject, and must correctly apply the tax laws. and correctly liquidate the tax base in accordance with the economic reality of his enterprise, having not observed any circumstance that prevented him from correctly declaring the Value Added Tax in the periods 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020,” the prosecutor stated and added that “Evidently the only reason that led the person responsible to maliciously hide the real operations and prepare their sworn statements in a misleading manner was simply to evade the correct and full payment of the obligations under their responsibility.”
The prosecutor stated that the president of the insurance company requires a “special” mention “to consider the fraudulent conduct committed by Mr. (Juan Carlos Lucio) Godoy as suitable to damage the legal property protected by the tax criminal legal normit is worth noting that this arises from the extensive inspection carried out by the ADFIP-DGI and the documentation accompanying the complaint, from which arise the irregularities in which Godoy incurred as President of the denounced firm when carrying out the VAT settlements without the legally required valid documentary support.”
Among the requirements, the prosecutor requested that Godoy be summoned to appear at trial and appoint a defense attorney. “for the purposes of giving an investigative statement for his personal responsibility and on behalf of RUS in the reported events.”
Source: Ambito
