A recurring theme that we observe in professional practice is that once the taxpayer finishes the repetition action, giving rise to the claim for tax and interest, the Treasury requires something else, which consists of the taxpayer complying with the claim for return provided for by General Resolution 2224.
This implies that it is RG 2224 that governs the issue for the purposes of quantifying the amount to be reimbursed in favor of the plaintiff, since only in administrative headquarters can the pertinent legality controls be carried out to guarantee that the judicially recognized credit complies with the law. tax in force.
The “García” case
A recent jurisprudential precedent ([1]) allows us to analyze the topic in question.
The taxpayer filed an appeal for repetition of the income tax based on the breaking of the employment relationship that linked him to his employer, giving rise to the repetition for the amount of capital plus interest.
In this sense, the AFIP obliges the taxpayer to comply with the procedure provided for in RG 2224, that is, the administrative claim for refund.
In turn, the first instance judge dismissed the criticisms made by the National Treasury regarding the plaintiff’s compliance with the procedure provided for by RG 2224.
Given the appeal filed by the AFIP, the Chamber confirms the appealed resolution.
Thus, the Court recalls that RG 2224 provides that refunds of excess payments or income may be requested when the credit balances emerge from ex officio determinations, from primitive or corrective sworn statements, provided that the latter reduce the credit balance established in the former. or that said balances have been considered freely available or that they are assimilated to such.
Previously, the Court had already ruled on the protestant or non-obligatory nature, based on the optional word “may”.
By way of conclusion
Furthermore, it would be unreasonable to impose on the actor the obligation to submit to a new administrative procedure, since he has won the judicial contest, stipulating art. 16 of Law 23982, the way in which convictions against the National State must be carried out ([2]).
On the other hand, art. 6 of RG 2224, which referred to cases of refunds of balances from administrative or judicial resolutions issued in repetition appeals, was repealed by art. 1, inc. e) of RG 2076.
Given this position assumed by the AFIP, it is worth highlighting the modifications introduced to the administrative procedures law ([3]) by the Bases law ([4]), through which a series of fundamental principles are introduced, among which that of bureaucratic efficiency stands out.
Therefore, the attitude assumed by the Treasury, forcing the taxpayer to resort to justice, is precisely against said principles, hoping that, from now on, it will not reiterate such positions.
[1] “García, Gustavo Hernán” CCAF, Room IV of 10/1/2024.
[2] “Autopistas del Sol SA” from 10/1/2013, “Central Térmica Loma de la Plata SA” from 8/25/2016, “BBVA Banco Francés SA” from 4/27/2021, “Exterran Argentina SRL” from 15/15 7/2021, “Industrial and Commercial Bank of China” dated 11/7/2023.
[3] Law 19549.
[4] Law 27742.
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.
