It is due to the alleged evasion of the payment of the Personal Property Tax corresponding to 2019.
The Federal Court of Cassation confirmed the rejection of a complaint from the AFIP against the television host Susana Gimenez for the alleged evasion of the payment of the Personal Property Tax corresponding to 2019 for more than 50 million pesos.
The highest criminal court, with the signatures of the judges Carlos Mahiques and Javier Carbajoendorsed what was decided by the previous instances, despite the fact that the AFIP complaint had been fiscally motivated by the prosecutor’s office, which considered that it should be investigated whether the television diva had actually committed a tax crime.
What does the ruling say that benefits Susana Giménez
The ruling confirms that the conduct of María Susana Giménez Aubert “does not constitute a crime with respect to the attributed act, in relation to the evasion of payment of the sum of 50,377,401.90 pesos as Personal Property Tax corresponding to the fiscal year 2019.”
The AFIP, when appealing the dismissal of the complaint – says the ruling – “limits the expression of its grievances to mere dissenting judgments, all of which is not enough to distort the reasoning that the Chamber carried out on the matter and whose foundations it is unable to refute.” .
The decision that benefits the actress rules out that he has engaged in a “scheme” to evade paying the tax.
“Giménez Aubert provided the same explanation throughout the audit regarding the reason why he had not submitted the sworn declaration of the Personal Property Tax for the 2019 fiscal year,” the file explains.
“Such reasons respond to the questioning of the constitutionality of the tax rates established as of fiscal year 2019 and the impossibility of presenting a sworn statement exposing a rate different from the one that the taxpayer questions (that is, taking into account the one in force before of the reform of the regulations)”, described the magistrates.
Susana Giménez, the judges concluded, “did not engage in any conduct that could be considered deceptive or deceptive in the strict terms required by the criminal law, having instead limited itself to channeling its claim aimed at mitigating the tax obligation, through the use of appropriate legal tools.”
Source: Ambito
I am an author and journalist who has worked in the entertainment industry for over a decade. I currently work as a news editor at a major news website, and my focus is on covering the latest trends in entertainment. I also write occasional pieces for other outlets, and have authored two books about the entertainment industry.
