Tax Newsletter - July 2025

Discretionary power not to penalize violations related to the use of the Integrated Electronic Records System (SIRE).- Tc classified in paragraphs 2 and 10 of Article 175 of the Tax Code to those taxpayers who:

The maximum period of delay for certain books related to tax matters is modified.- Superintendency Resolution No. 000257-2025/SUNAT, published on July 31, 2025, in a Special Edition, establishes a maximum delay period for the following accounting books: Inventory and Balance Sheet Book, Journal, Simplified Journal, and Ledger, as long as they are related to the filing of PDT – Virtual Form No. 0625 “Modification of the coefficient or percentage for calculating income tax payments on account,” as well as the affidavit containing the statement of income and losses as of April 30 and/or July 31.

This is intended to ensure the correct determination of income tax payments on account and to facilitate the verification of the information recorded in these books.

The maximum amount of the Selective Consumption Tax (ISC) refund is determined for taxpayers who provide land transportation services.- Through Superintendency Resolution No. 000242-2025/SUNAT, published on July 18, 2025, the percentage for determining the maximum ISC refund amount referred to in the Regulations of Emergency Decree No. 012-2019 is approved:

Deduction of expenses for compensation arising from breach of contract (Cassation No. 29406-2023, Lima).-The Fifth Chamber of Constitutional and Transitional Social Law of the Supreme Court affirm that expenses for penalties arising from breaches of contract are not deductible from income tax.

In this case, the taxpayer entered a fuel supply contract committing, among other obligations, to charge a certain price to its counterparty; however, it exceeded that limit and, following an arbitration award, had to refund the excess amounts charged.

In this regard, the Chamber pointed out that expenses for penalties for breach of contract do not comply with the Principle of Causality because: i) they are caused by the taxpayer's negligence, and the taxpayer cannot benefit from them; and ii) they are not intended to generate taxable income or maintain the source of such income.

Commissions paid to a foreign company for guaranteeing letters of guarantee (RTF No. 05426-11-2025).- The Tax Court states that commissions paid to a non-domiciled company for guaranteeing necessary letters of guarantee qualify as Peruvian source income and are subject to income tax withholding at a rate of 30%.

The taxpayer was required to provide guarantees to secure its commitments assumed in connection with the concession of the Paita terminal; to this end, it had various letters of guarantee, which were ultimately backed by a foreign financial institution. For this granting and renegotiation of guarantees, the taxpayer paid various sums to said institution in the form of commissions.

Both SUNAT and the Tax Court have affirmed that the aforementioned commissions for guaranteeing letters of guarantee constitute income derived from a financial transaction, specifically, from an indirect loan, resulting in the application of the provisions of paragraph c) of Article 9 of the Income Tax Law. Therefore, as they were paid by a national company, they qualify as Peruvian source income subject to withholding at a rate of 30%.