An interesting ruling by the Court (1) returns to the issue of incidents of late verification in a preventive bankruptcy process, distinguishing the powers of ARCA on the one hand, contentious justice and commercial jurisdiction.
In the case under examination, the National Treasury attempted to verify various tax credits in the firm’s preventive bankruptcy proceedings, originating from fines set by administrative acts that were final and unpaid balances of Income Tax and VAT.
For his part, the contest judge understood that, since the verification incident consisted of a knowledge process, although abbreviated, the arsonist had the duty to prove the cause of the credit suggestedit is not sufficient for this purpose to provide the official determination or certificate of debt.
As a consequence of this, the magistrate had the possibility of reviewing the administrative resolutions in order to analyze the admissibility of each of the credits suggested.
Therefore, the bankruptcy judge partially admitted the credits suggested, rejecting several of the credits suggested as fines, since, Although he recognized that they were firm and the taxpayer’s right had been guaranteed, he considered that the sanctions were not materially appropriate.
Besides, also rejected the verification of the majority of the credits suggested for unpaid VAT balances, upon finding a lack of coincidence between the amounts recorded in the debt certificate, the claims in the administrative payment notices and those declared by the taxpayer himself, so the cause of the credit could not be considered proven.
He also rejected the credit originated by income tax balances because the collecting agency had not proven the date or amount of the partial payment of the sworn statement, so the cause of the credit could not be considered proven.
In turn, the Court of Civil and Commercial Appeals, Chamber I, confirmed what was decided.
To this end, he maintained that, in bankruptcy matters, the judge has broad powers to investigate the accompanying evidence material and that in the default process the presumption of legitimacy of the administrative act did not prevent the analysis of the receivership and the judge in order to corroborate that alleged legitimacy, so the judge’s actions had been correct when verifying the legitimacy of the sanctions established.
When the appeal was filed, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Province of Tucumán declared the local appeal inadmissible, confirming the aforementioned resolution.
Decision of the Supreme Court of Justice
The Court analyzes the central issue of the issue related to the possibility of reviewing administrative acts that had not been judicially questioned and that, therefore, were final.
In this sense, the Court, recalling its own doctrine (2), expressed that attributing to the commercial jurisdiction powers to review the intrinsic validity of the title invoked in support of the credit is as important as unreasonably dispensing with the provisions that constitute the specific procedural regulation and in those that provide for the challenging means that the taxpayer has at his disposal to question the determinative acts and deadlines to execute them, after which they become final.
In this way, the Court added that the position adopted by the previous instances implies the replacement of the challenge procedure, provided for legislatively, thus making up for the inactivity or lack of diligence of the interested parties.
Such a situation raises a sufficient federal question because although it refers to the analysis of issues of fact, evidence and common and provincial law, unrelated to the extraordinary instance, It is not an obstacle to recognizing the appeal deduced based on the doctrine of arbitrariness since this way tends to protect the guarantee of defense in trial and due process, requiring that the sentences be founded and constitute a reasoned derivation of the law in force. , with application to the proven circumstances of the case (3).
In such a situation, the appealed sentence is set aside.
Public accountant. Partner of the Bertazza, Nicolini, Corti y Asoc Studio.
(1) “La Nueva Fournier SRL” CSJN of 9/10/2024.
(2) “Casa Marroquin” Rulings 310: 719 and “GCBA v. Directamoint SA” Rulings 344: 3695.
(3) Rulings 297: 222 and 321: 2098.
Source: Ambito
I am a 24-year-old writer and journalist who has been working in the news industry for the past two years. I write primarily about market news, so if you’re looking for insights into what’s going on in the stock market or economic indicators, you’ve come to the right place. I also dabble in writing articles on lifestyle trends and pop culture news.
