Experts and Taxes agree that the new fiscal package announced by the Government, based on the alleged innocence of the taxpayer against the Customs Collection and Control Agency (ARCA), generates A much safer legal environment so that people Use unplaceding funds, but does not eliminate 100%risks, As would happen in a traditional laundering.
Is that, although Ark will have less information from people, That does not mean that there is no mechanisms to control evasion, so that there are still risks.
All this makes the package a limited capacity to achieve The mission of the Minister of Economy, Luis Caputo, of that dollars not declared abundantly.
“Mattress dollars”: the key points of the bill
Among the points to highlight of the bill of “fiscal innocence” is the creation of the new Simplified sworn declaration regime, which is only for human persons, and in which there cannot be great taxpayers. The monotributistas who want to obtain the benefit of receiving fewer controls would have to stop being and pass to the general regime as registered responsible.
The law does not establish differences between Revenue from local sources from those abroad, which would be remedied by the situation of freelancers and investors abroad.
Another element is that it is established that, when the taxpayer makes his affidavit and presents it, The criterion of discrepancy with Arca, which will be its own liquidation, will be only 15%.
Sebastián DomínguezCEO of SDC Tax Advisors, he told Scope that “a 15% difference It is low. ” “If there are some criteria that are not shared that the taxpayer presented in good faith And the treasury says ‘this is not deductible’, it is easy to reach that discrepancy, with which The statements are unlocked and can control the person, ”he warned.
Purchase of real estate with dollars not declared
Domínguez commented that, when a person uses not declared to buy a property, for example, Arca It cannot use the patrimonial increase not justified by that property to determine if there is a significant discrepancy of 15%.
The expert said that, as Arca stops receiving information from banks and notaries, “it is more difficult for it to detect it and, not allowing the presumption of non -justified patrimonial increase, it is more difficult than determining, But it does not mean that I cannot do it if it detects purchases of real estate or cars with unjustified funds. ”
For a lawyer there is a political problem
Diego Fraga, a lawyer specialized in tax issues, When asked about the security offered by the system to the people who want Use the “dollar mattress” He maintains that “It’s not that there is no way that Arca finds out”. “The issue is how the law comes out. They have already sent a preliminary draft that is supposedly going to shield. You have to see what comes out of Congress,” explained the lawyer. Nevertheless, Beyond the strictly legal, he considered that the problem “is political, trusted and If people believe that this model or this system will continue for several years. “Faced with the minimum risk, people in general will not exhibit what they have “he said.
The problem of apocryphal invoices
The project provides that One of the causes to lose the benefits of the simplified earnings regime is that the taxpayer present apocryphal invoices in order to get greater credit in your favor and pay less taxes.
In this regard, the professor of the UBA, Mario Volman points out that “the issue of apocryphal vouchers has a very long history in matters of jurisprudence of the Fiscal Court because perhaps a taxpayer of good faith buys five pencils and it turns out that the seller at the time of the sale is fulfilling its tax obligations, but six months later and the Treasury includes it in a list of the Apoc base. ”“ Many times to include it in an APOC base 6 months later or 2 years later it becomes that previous purchases are also challenging by the Treasury, ”he explained.
Volman indicated, on the other hand, in relation to using unst declared funds, that “It can be said that this is a somewhat complex laundering, because those we know are amnesty regimes based on article 75 of the Constitution and of course established by law as would be this case. ”
Caranta: “Greater legal certainty is not impunity”
Meanwhile, the tax Martín Caranta indicated that “The regime what it intends is to give greater legal certainty, not impunity.”
“Taxes are legislated, what is supposed toE ark has to have the faculties so that, in case there is no voluntary compliance, induce it through the exercise of the powers and functions of the law, ”he said,
In that sense Caranta stressed that the project that reforms the Tax Criminal Law returns to the historical levels of what is known as aggravated evasion to the equivalent of about US $ 100,000 But it states that “the law does not establish inflation adjustment mechanisms.”
On the other hand, he said that “It is a safe regime, which can be used for many things “ although he insisted that “what seems important to me and distinguish that one thing is security and another thing is impunity.”
Source: Ambito
