Does the tax administration know the principle of bureaucratic efficiency?

Among the important modifications introduced by Law No. 27,742 to the Administrative Procedures Law No. 19,549, we must highlight the incorporation of its article 1 bis where the fundamental principles of the administrative procedure, legality, reasonableness, proportionality, good faith, legitimate trust, transparency, effective administrative protection, administrative simplification and good administration, thus giving them an unquestionable legal status.

Additionally, the standard establishes that administrative procedures will comply with a series of principles and requirements that it lists and defines, among which it is unavoidable to highlight “bureaucratic efficiency.”

In this regard, subsection d) of the aforementioned statement states that the interested parties will not be obliged to provide documents that have been prepared by the centralized or decentralized Administration, with prior consent of the administrator to be consulted or certified, adding that they may also collect the documents in electronic form through their networks or state bases or by consulting intermediation platforms and other systems enabled for this purpose.

AFIP requirements

Curiously, a few months after the validity of these regulations, AFIP has begun to issue requests to groups of taxpayers selected from different Regional Directorates of the country, of diverse activities, requesting the contribution of daily information related to “…Sales and/or Benefits of Services carried out between 10/01/2024 and 12/31/2024, both inclusive, through electronic data transfer, via “Internet”. To this end, you must access the “Electronic Sales Monitoring” service, through the “website” of this Federal Administration…”

Adds the order that the total amount including VAT must be reported within 48 hours following the billing date, being able to modify the data entered only during the 24 hours following the date and time in which the respective data upload was carried out. . Once these deadlines have passed, you must contact the tax official.

Those taxpayers who have installed equipment that complies with the provisions of RG 3561/13 Fiscal Controllers of New Technology are excluded from this obligation, which must be reported to the inspection, because the weekly sales report in the terms of the Article 19 of the aforementioned standard exempts you from compliance with the sending of daily information in the form required here.

Request for data held

It is unquestionable that the Tax Administration has sufficient powers to issue this type of requirements for the purposes of verifying or supervising taxpayers’ compliance with their different tax obligations.

What is striking and, at the same time, contrary to the fundamental principles of the administrative procedure stated above, is that the tax agency requests information that is already in its possession.

In effect, just as it is recognized that those who have New Technology Fiscal Controllers that issue a weekly report should not report, it is even more obvious that those who use electronic billing systems (RECE, online receipts) that do so should not do so either. They work under the “on-line” methodology and, therefore, provide information instantly.

Additionally, and in all cases, even in which the receipts are not issued through the systems indicated in the previous paragraph, the information is detailed in the Digital VAT Book that is presented monthly.

This additional administrative burden that is intended to be imposed on taxpayers, requesting redundant information that is already in the possession of AFIP, is not really understood, which clearly fails to comply with the principle of “bureaucratic efficiency” stated above. We must not fail to highlight that Law No. 19,549 results in supplementary application to the tax procedure regulated by Law No. 11,683.

We do not know the objectives pursued with this type of requirements, but if what is wanted is to turn it into a tool to induce better tax compliance, it is far from it since the information requested refers to documentation already issued and externalized, surely included in the relevant affidavits.

If the latter were not met, a simple systemic control would serve to claim possible tax differences.

Background that should not be ignored

In this regard, one should not lose sight of that provision issued by the fiscal body itself that maintains its validity despite the fact that in practice it is generally ignored, which sets guidelines and limits for the Administration: “In all cases, if applicable possible, and in accordance with the nature, reliability and probative value of the information, it will be obtained directly by the department’s personnel, avoiding the burden of tasks on the third party, without prejudice to requiring their collaboration when necessary.” (Circular 916/1970 DGI).

We consider that the time of taxpayers and their advisors as well as that of tax officials is extremely valuable, which is why we advocate that it be used in the most productive way possible and that resources are not wasted in the preparation of inappropriate information.

Public accountant. Tributary. Consultant.