Tax Newsletter - August 2026

The application of the provisions on transaction records for hydrocarbon users is postponed

Through Superintendence Resolution No. 000170-2026/SUNAT, published on August 30, 2026, SUNAT postponed until February 1, 2027 the application of Superintendence Resolution No. 000135-2026/SUNAT to hydrocarbon users, in order to facilitate their compliance with the registration and reporting obligations established under Law No. 32412.

Accordingly, for such users, the opening inventory will comprise the stock at the beginning of the current authorized annual period, plus purchases and imports made through January 31, 2027. Likewise, February 2027 will be the first month subject to the consolidated monthly filing of the daily transaction record. For users of mercury, potassium cyanide, and sodium cyanide, the provisions will continue to apply as of September 1, 2026.

The application of the discretionary authority not to impose penalties for infringements related to the use of the Integrated Electronic Records System (SIRE) is expanded

Through National Deputy Superintendence of Internal Taxes Resolution No. 000041-2026-SUNAT/700000, published on August 30, 2026, SUNAT expanded the application of its discretionary authority not to impose penalties for the infringements established in paragraphs 2 and 10 of Article 175 of the Tax Code, relating to the maintenance of the electronic Sales and Income Ledger and the electronic Purchase Ledger through SIRE.

This discretionary authority will apply to infringements arising in connection with the periods of August, September, October, November, and December 2026, as well as January 2027. In addition, the deadline to remedy the generation of such records and/or make the corresponding adjustments through SIRE has been extended until February 28, 2027, provided that the criteria established in National Deputy Superintendence of Internal Taxes Resolution No. 000039-2023-SUNAT/70000 are met.

Draft bill on the delegation of tax legislative powers

The Executive Branch submitted to Congress a bill proposing the delegation of legislative powers for a period of one hundred twenty (120) calendar days, including powers relating to tax matters, the strengthening of micro and small enterprises, and the promotion of investment through the Works for Taxes mechanism. The main tax-related aspects covered by the bill are as follows:

New SUNAT Superintendent is appointed

Through Supreme Resolution No. 027-2026-EF, published on August 7, 2026, Mr. César Alfonso Luna Victoria León was appointed National Superintendent of Customs and Tax Administration.

New President of the Tax Court is appointed

Through Supreme Resolution No. 028-2026-EF, published on August 7, 2026, Clara Rossana Urteaga Goldstein was appointed President of the Tax Court.

Effects of an amended return supported by the cancellation of invoices issued in error (Tax Court Resolution No. 06775-9-2026)

The taxpayer filed an amended VAT return for August 2024, reducing the gross sales reported from S/ 4,733,406 to S/ 0.00. This reduction was supported by the cancellation of invoices issued for licenses corresponding to the period from February to July 2024.

SUNAT determined that the amended return was not effective, considering that the taxpayer had failed to prove that the invoiced services had not been provided or to submit sufficient evidence supporting the issuance of credit notes to cancel the invoices.

The Tax Court verified that, prior to the invoiced period, the taxpayer had assigned its contractual position to another company and, therefore, as of February 2024, was no longer the party responsible for performing the obligations arising from the contract. Accordingly, it concluded that it had been established that the invoices were issued in error and, therefore, that the information reported in the amended return was true and accurate.

Consequently, the Tax Court reversed the appealed decision and recognized the effects of the amended return, without prejudice to SUNAT’s authority to conduct a subsequent audit of the tax and period concerned.

Limits on the Tax Court’s power of reexamination when the basis for a tax assessment adjustment is changed (Supreme Court Cassation No. 27205-2024 Lima)

SUNAT assessed non-deductible financial and common expenses related to the amortization of premiums paid in the acquisition of securities that generated exempt income. Subsequently, when ruling on the appeal, the Tax Court introduced as an additional basis the distinction between income and revenue, as well as certain considerations based on IAS 18.

The Supreme Court held that the power of reexamination provided for in Article 127 of the Tax Code allows the adjudicating body to conduct a new examination of the aspects of the matter in dispute. However, such power must be limited to the tax assessment adjustments raised during the audit and exercised in compliance with due process and the taxpayer’s right of defense.

In this case, the Court determined that the basis developed by the Tax Court differed from that relied upon by SUNAT, as it introduced the concept of revenue and IAS 18, neither of which had been raised during the audit or at the objection stage. Consequently, the taxpayer did not have an opportunity to challenge that basis in a timely manner.

On that basis, the Court concluded that Article 127 of the Tax Code had been misinterpreted and that the taxpayer’s right of defense, due process, and the principle of legality had been violated. Accordingly, it declared the Tax Court’s decision null and void with respect to the matters in dispute and ordered that body to issue a new ruling.

Attribution of the status of Entity Without Operating Capacity (SSCO) (Tax Court Resolution No. 02643-9-2026)

The Tax Court upheld SUNAT’s attribution of the status of Entity Without Operating Capacity (SSCO), after finding that the taxpayer lacked sufficient and suitable resources to carry out the transactions for which it had issued payment receipts.

The Tax Court considered the attribution of SSCO status valid, as the taxpayer’s lack of infrastructure, assets, personnel, and economic, financial, material, or human resources to support the transactions carried out had been established. SUNAT verified that the tax domicile was a family residence with no economic activity, that certain annexes were occupied by third parties, closed, or could not be located, and that the taxpayer had no significant assets registered in its name.

A significant disproportion was identified between the volume of sales reported and the resources available, given that the company had share capital of S/ 500, had not declared any real estate, machinery, or equipment, and had only one employee registered during part of the period under review. The Tax Court emphasized that the taxpayer had not submitted evidence during the SSCO attribution proceeding, despite being requested to do so by SUNAT. Accordingly, documents submitted only at the objection or appeal stage could not be considered.

The Tax Court also rejected the taxpayer’s claim of nullity, finding that SUNAT had communicated the observations identified, set out the factual and legal grounds supporting its position, and complied with the procedure established under Legislative Decree No. 1532.