Practical cases of Tax Law

1. Inspection procedure case

Mr. Luis Vargas Benavides whose business is the “ALE” SAC hardware store located in the city of Lima on
Av. Abancay 2083. SUNAT wants to verify the correct compliance with tax obligations in Mr. Luis's business.
So to do this, some representatives of said entity investigate the business.

According to the Tax Code, SUNAT, among many powers, has:

“The oversight power of the Tax Administration is exercised on a discretionary basis, in accordance
with the provisions of the last paragraph of Rule IV of the Preliminary Title […]” (Book II, art 62)

The article alludes to the fact that SUNAT exercises its function in a discretionary manner, which means
according to Huamani in (p.576):

“[…]"freedom of action" in the interests of "public interest...must be framed within the limits
established by the principles, and constitutional provisions, fundamental rights (for example,
the rights to banking reserve, professional secrecy, privacy , property, inviolability of the
domicile) and legal norms, and as pertinent, the other sources of Tax Law.”

Therefore, SUNAT does not need to justify to Mr. Luis the reasons that are motivating said entity to
supervise him nor the time spent on said action. As a first step, SUNAT will present a letter to the inspection
agent, who will carry out such procedure. The document presented is like the following document:

2050364496
ALE SA
Lime
Lime
In front of Fire Station
4663
The power of inspection implies, according to the Tax Code (Art. 62), that SUNAT inspect, investigate and
control compliance with tax obligations in Mr. Luis Vargas's business. The period of one year will begin from
the date on which the tax debtor complies with delivering all the information or documentation that SUNAT
has requested through a notified requirement for the definitive audit, which is according to the case of Mr.
Luis. Therefore, the requirement has the following form:

August 2, 2019

Luis Vargas Benavides

 From 201501 to 201512

August 2, 2019

Once the inspection or verification process is concluded, the SUNAT according to the Tax Code (Art. 75)
issues a corresponding RD, RM or OP. In the case of Mr. Luis Vargas Benavides, SUNAT has issued him a
Fine Resolution. Then said resolution n will have the following nature:
 2019

ALE SA

2050364496
Lime
In front of Fire Station

2019

Date September 17, 2019

SEPTEMBER 2019

COATIVE COLLECTION CASE

In the period March 2016, the company ALE SAC, owned by Mr. Luis Vargas Benavides. Whose due date for
tax payment is April 19, 2016. On this date, the company submitted its monthly tax return on the last day of
the deadline. And as a result you have to pay a total tax of S/ 14,618 (including VAT and IR).

However, as of the date of presentation of PDT621, it does not have immediate liquidity for the payment of
taxes. Therefore, on April 27, 2016, the company is notified electronically with the payment orders for the
VAT and IR taxes for the period March 2016. Said document has the following nature:
 Lime

ALE SA
2050364496
Lime c

However, the company ignored this notification. Thus, on May 2, 2016, the company was notified with a
Coercive Execution Resolution, thus beginning the coercive collection process. According to the Tax Code
(Art. 117) The Coercive Execution Resolution must contain: name of the tax debtor, the payment order or
resolution number, the amount of the tax or fine as well as the interest and the corresponding tax or fine
and period. Said document has the following nature:

Lime
ALE SA
2050364496
c
Lime
As can be seen, this resolution grants a period of 7 (business) days for payment. Thus, May 11, 2016 is the
date indicated for the payment of taxes. If payment is not made, SUNAT will proceed to collect it through
seizures. Which according to the Tax Code (Art. 118) explains that there are forms of embargo. In this case,
SUNAT acted according to (Article 118, subsection (4)), which authorizes it to seize the current accounts of
the company ALE SAC that it owns.

Thus, the third party (banking entity) is obliged to inform the Coercive Executor within a maximum period
of 5 days. In conclusion, the first notification will be a payment order to the company, the second
notification will be at the beginning of the coercive collection procedure. On the other hand, according to
the Tax Code (Art. 118, subsection (4)) if the entity denies the existence of the debtor's credits even though
they exist, said banking entity is obliged to pay what it should have withheld, likewise if it fails to comply
with the withholding it also runs the same fate as the case former.

SUNAT collects the debt through seizure in 22 days from the date on which it fell due. On the other hand, if
the banking entity made the withholding, it earns its “judicial withholding” commission (of S/ 200) for
carrying out the embargo withholding.

Tax Litigation Procedure Case

Following a fine resolution from SUNAT regarding an alleged infraction by the company El Reclamante SAC
due to Carlos Aguirre, the company's accountant, forgetting to declare fifth category taxes for the months
of January to December 2018.

This is an infraction as indicated in the Tax Code (Art. 176), however the company has its version of the case
according to the Tax Code (Art. 132) mentions that the taxpayer has the right to file the “recourse of claim”
in the first instance before the SUNAT, thus the same article mentions the requirements for the
admissibility of said resource of claim. Therefore, this document is where the taxpayer will explain his
arguments and relevant evidence. Said document has the following nature:
Previously, in the Tax Code, in article 137, it was established that form 6000 or Summary Information Sheet
must be attached to this document, which said document was the following:
However, through Legislative Decree 1263, this paragraph was modified. On the other hand, the company
El Reclamante SAC according to the Tax Code (Art. 137, subsection (2)), the company has 20 business days,
which begin from the business day following the notification of the SUNAT Fine Resolution.

After this presentation of the claim act, SUNAT will request the evidence that will be evaluated by said
entity. Such tests may be according to the Tax Code (Art. 125):

- Documents (payment records, accounting records, etc.)

- The expertise of accounting professionals.
- Inspections of the body in charge of resolving said case.

Note: the cost of the expertise, according to the Tax Code (Art. 126), will be the responsibility of SUNAT
whenever it requests it from other entities to better resolve the case, otherwise if the Tax Court requires
expert reports, the cost of this will be the responsibility of SUNAT and the appellant.

The deadline to deliver the respective evidence is 30 business days from the date on which the appeal is
filed.

Once the Claim Appeal has been delivered to the SUNAT Party Desk, you will be given a charge or proof of
presentation showing the file number, although now SUNAT has enabled the virtual party table.

Finally, if Mr. Carlos Aguirre is not satisfied with the resolution of the Tax Administration, according to the
Tax Code (Art. 143) the final body to resolve this case is the Tax Court. Once the period has expired, the
SUNAT or the Tax Court issues an Administrative Tax Resolution, declaring: appropriate, inadmissible,
partially founded and unfounded the claimable act of Mr. Carlos A.

Carlos Aguirre
Bibliography

Book

Huamani, R. (2013). Commented Tax Code Volume I. Lima, Peru: Jurista Editores.

Websites:

Diaz, R. (2017). Tax Procedures: General Aspects . Recovered from

file:///C:/Users/Miguel/Downloads/CXLV_dcho_tributario_2017%20(2).pdf

Accounting News Website. (2018). Sunat inspection (Real case 2018) . Recovered from
https://www.noticierocontable.com/fiscalizacion-sunat/

Studylib Website. (2019). Inspection Notification Format. Recovered from

https://studylib.es/doc/8847534/carta-n%C2%BA-190011647720

Accounting News Website. (2016). 4 Tips to avoid a Coercive Collection Procedure . Recovered from
https://www.noticierocontable.com/procedimiento-cobranza-coactiva/

Raymundo, F. (2012). Fine Resolution Model . Recovered from

https://es.scribd.com/doc/109096462/modelo-de-resolucion-de-multa

Machuca, J. (2017). About SUNAT withholdings in the accounts of tax debtors. Retrieved from
https://www.parthenon.pe/columnas/pesquisas-financieras/acerca-de-las-retenciones-de-sunat-en-
las-cuentas-de-los-deudores-tributarios/

Website box. (2020). Written SUNAT Claim model. Retrieved from

https://app.box.com/s/6e7oorqg95rot8da7a2fgunqwe7tuule