The tax agency determined income taxes, VAT and undocumented outputs, due to the challenge of the invoices issued by a supplier for fuel sales commissions, applying fines for tax fraud.
The inspection report highlights that the supplier was included in the e-apoc base of the tax agency in the condition of “without economic capacity”, pointing out that it does not have assets that allow it to be assumed that it has the capacity to provide services, resisting the inspection, not having exhibited all of what was requested in the requirements submitted.
Regarding collections and payments, they are channeled through third-party securities, which are deposited in the clients’ collection accounts and the rest in their bank account.
Lack of proper weighting
The TFN concludes that the challenge to the operations of said supplier has not been adequately weighed by the fiscal body, because it has not demonstrated the concomitant existence of a series of proven, serious and precise indications, which lead to presenting a picture of serious objections regarding the validity of the invoices and the effective performance of fuel sales management operations, by the questioned supplier.
Because the adjustment is fundamentally based on the inclusion of the supplier in the e-Apoc base, with resistance to inspection, the TFN recalls that the administrative burden of said base is not, by itself, a determined and sufficient element, to that the National Treasury can challenge operations and make adjustments with respect to the suppliers included therein.
On the other hand, the TFN reasons that, in the specific case, it is not observed that the audit has carried out any specific and particular task that allows it to conclude without hesitation that the supplier did not provide such services to the appellant.
The inspection also takes into account that the supplier does not have registrable assets, although it turns out that depending on the type of activity carried out it is not necessary to have them, such as trucks, warehouses, etc., which did not merit refutation by the tax body. .
Another of the elements taken into consideration by the Treasury has been the lack of compliance with formal duties, such as display by the supplier of the Purchases and Sales VAT books or the response to the payment and collection circuit.
Likewise, the Treasury takes into consideration that the tax domicile is located in a private home, with important characteristics, which does not in itself result in a questionable aspect or that provides grounds for the negative assessment of operational capacity.
The Treasury also carried out a circular to the supplier’s 19 clients, concluding that in 7 cases the requirements were not answered and in 7 cases they recognized the contact as an agent.
TFN Conclusions
Thus, the TFN concludes that what was observed by the Treasury in no way clearly and conclusively evidences that the questioned supplier was not the actual provider of the sales management service, nor that the services were non-existent regardless of who had been its supplier. real provider.
The supplier is a company registered with the tax agency, it has a declared activity, although questioned due to its breadth by the auditors, it presents balance sheets and DJ and payments, regardless of the existence of tax non-compliance, but which are in no way sufficient to not knowing the existence of the provider and the services provided.
The analyzed clients responded to the requirements formulated, confirmed the operations carried out, the printing company recognized that the company commissioned the printing of receipts, has a bank account and is registered in the RNSS.
Nor is it observed from the payment circuit reported and documented by the appellant (payments with third-party checks) in relation to the questioned supplier, that the inspectors have collected evidence that reveals inconsistencies that allow it to be confirmed that the services did not exist and/or that They were not paid to said company as the beneficial owner.
It is clear, then, that the challenge cannot be based on generic or dogmatic statements in the abstract, but rather through documentation or other reliable evidence in that sense.
Thus, it must be kept in mind that the tax domicile and the non-compliance with the tax obligations of the suppliers are not attributable to the taxpayer who carried out commercial operations with them (2), highlighting what is indicated by jurisprudence (3) in the sense that the Treasury does not That challenge has been sufficiently demonstrated, since the non-location of the suppliers at the tax domiciles or the failure to present the DJ are not per se elements capable of concluding that the receipts are falsified.
Therefore, such probabilistic inferences are not suitable for producing certain and absolute conclusions about the fact to be proven.
Public accountant. Partner of the Bertazza, Nicolini, Corti y Asoc studio.
(1) “Petro Gar Combustibles SRL” TFN, Room “B” on 9/2/2024.
(2) “Floriner SA” CCAF, Room II of 11/25/2010.
(3) “Química Petrosil SRL” TFN, Room “A” of 4/7/2007.
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.
