The present analysis is based on the guidelines of the Project to reform the Tax Procedure Law and the Criminal Tax Law that have been released to date. It is important to note that the text has not yet been approved by Congress and could be subject to modifications during the legislative process.
Thresholds are significantly elevated so that certain behaviors are considered tax crimes:
Opinion:
The update was necessary due to accumulated inflation. However, it would be advisable to establish an automatic adjustment mechanism to avoid future outdates. Limiting criminal law to cases of significant evasion is reasonable and improves system efficiency.
New mechanisms to extinguish criminal action
What is amended:
Two routes are introduced to extinguish the tax criminal action:
- Before the criminal complaint: if the debt and interest is canceled totally and prior to the complaint, criminal action is not formulated. This option can be used only once by taxpayer.
- After the criminal imputation: if the debt, interest and an additional 50% are canceled within 30 business days after notification of the imputation, the criminal action is extinguished.
Opinion:
These measures provide predictability and speed to the tax criminal process. However, it would be convenient for Arca to establish a formal obligation of notification prior to the complaint so that taxpayers can effectively access the first option.
Prohibition of applying the “comprehensive damage repair” (art. 59 inc. 6 cp)
What is amended:
- The possibility of closing tax criminal cases is expressly excluded through the figure of “integral reparation” of the Criminal Code.
Opinion:
The elimination of this judicial tool can harden the system, limiting less serious conflict resolution options. Although it is gained in predictability, flexibility is lost for particular cases.
Causes not to formulate criminal complaint
What is amended:
The assumptions in which Arca can refrain from denouncing are detailed:
- Differences of technical or interpretive criteria.
- Settings based exclusively on presumptions.
- Founded presentation of the criteria at the time of declare.
- Affidavits submitted before initiating inspection.
Opinion:
The formalization of these criteria is positive. However, the practical application will depend on the interpretation of ARCA, which could generate uncertainty if objective rules and external control mechanisms are not established.
Fiscal prescription period reform
What is amended:
- The deadline for determining taxes in cases of registered taxpayers who have declared in term and without significant differences is reduced from 5 to 3 years. For not registered, the deadline remains 10 years. Automatic extension of 120 days is eliminated by notification close to expiration.
Opinion:
Term reduction improves legal certainty and limits the possibility of prolonged tax reviews. In addition, the Treasury has sufficient (material and human) resources to do its work in time, without waiting for 7 years or even more (this is what extends based on the form of computation of the prescription, which is half cheat; in addition, every so often, suspensions of the prescription) are approved every so often. The elimination of automatic extension corrects a scandalous measure that benefited employees who left their work for the end of the taxpayer (that suspension of the term had been introduced in Law 27,430 at the request of AFIP itself).
Concept of significant discrepancy
What is amended:
It is defined as significant discrepancy:
- An increase in tax or broken reduction equal to or greater than 15%.
- Differences that exceed the minimum amount of simple evasion.
- Use of apocryphal invoices.
Opinion:
The concrete definition provides some predictability. However, the practical application will depend on the interpretation of ARCA, which could generate controversies if additional objective criteria are established.
Simplified Affidavit Regime
What is amended:
- An optional regime for human persons and undivided successions with income and heritage smaller than $ 1 billion is established. It allows to accept an affidavit suggested by ark, pay it and be released from the tax, with presumption of accuracy for non -prescribed periods (it is an undercover laundering for those who adhere to this regime).
Opinion:
The regime facilitates preventive regularization and can be beneficial for low or medium profile taxpayers. However, the automatic exclusion of the monotax for those who adhere can discourage their adoption, especially among service providers to final consumers (for example, doctors, lawyers, counters, dentists, etc.) that could face difficulties in transferring VAT to their clients.
Armor of the “Colchón Plan”
What is amended:
- ARCA may not be used as an inspection trigger for the unjustified patrimonial increase within the simplified regime. Nor can the inspection extend to previous periods if the taxpayer adhered to bleaching (Law 27,743).
Opinion:
This armor reinforces legal certainty for those who regularize their fiscal situation. However, their application is limited to those who adhere to the simplified earnings regime, which could generate inequities. In addition, recent experiences indicate that Arca has interpreted similar benefits in restrictive ways (it occurred with the money laundering that has just ended), applying criteria not provided for in the law and generating significant adjustments to taxpayers that regularized their fiscal situation.
Unified prescription for local taxes
What is amended:
- It is established that provinces, CABA and municipalities must apply the same prescription terms as national law.
Opinion:
The unification of deadlines is necessary: it improves legal certainty and promotes administrative efficiency. It prevents jurisdictions from claiming unpayable debts after many years due to their own inefficiency.
Fine update for formal infractions
What is amended:
- The amounts of the fines for formal infractions are updated, such as the non -submission of affidavits.
Opinion:
While the fines update is logical due to inflation, it is important that the amounts are proportional and reasonable. Excessive fines for late presentations could be disproportionate, especially when delays are due to delays in the implementation of applications by the treasury.
This analysis seeks to provide a critical and constructive vision of the proposals for tax reform in discussion, considering both its positive aspects and the areas that might require adjustments or greater clarity during the legislative process.
Lawyer specialized in tax issues and Expansion Holding partner
Source: Ambito
David William is a talented author who has made a name for himself in the world of writing. He is a professional author who writes on a wide range of topics, from general interest to opinion news. David is currently working as a writer at 24 hours worlds where he brings his unique perspective and in-depth research to his articles, making them both informative and engaging.
