Tax Newsletter - July 2026

Amendments to Law No. 30479 – Sports Patronage Law

On July 5, 2026, Law No. 32708 was published, amending Law No. 30479 with the aim of optimizing the funding of high-performance athletes and strengthening the tax incentive regime applicable to sports patrons and sponsors. The Law introduces the following amendments:

The Law has been in force since July 6, 2026, except for the new category of eligible sports equipment, the increase in the deduction limit to 15%, and the requirement to use banked payment methods, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027.

A Profit Reinvestment Regime Is Introduced to Promote Coastal Shipping and the Domestic Shipbuilding Industry

Through Law No. 32706, published on July 4, 2026, Congress enacted the Law Promoting the Development of Coastal Shipping and the Strengthening of the Domestic Shipbuilding Industry, establishing a profit reinvestment incentive regime applicable to domestic shipping companies.

The benefit consists of a deduction equal to 100% of the amount effectively reinvested from the taxable net income of the relevant fiscal year, provided that the reinvestment is allocated to the acquisition of domestically built vessels, fleet modernization, complementary port infrastructure, or investments in shipyards, machinery, and equipment related to coastal shipping.

The deduction may not exceed 30% of the taxable net income or the annual maximum amount established by the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF). In addition, the regime requires prior approval of a reinvestment program by the Ministry of Transport and Communications (MTC), with a favorable opinion from the MEF, and will remain in force for five years from the publication of its implementing regulations.

Entry into Force of Provisions on the Electronic Issuance of Authorized Documents and Attribution Documents Postponed

Through Superintendence Resolution No. 000143-2026/SUNAT, published on July 31, 2026, SUNAT postponed the entry into force of Superintendence Resolution No. 000048-2026/SUNAT from August 1, 2026, to January 1, 2027.

Likewise, the effective date for the designation of electronic issuers under the Electronic Issuance System for taxpayers required to issue certain authorized documents and attribution documents, as well as companies responsible for collecting the Main Network Guarantee, has been postponed from November 1, 2026, to April 1, 2027. The purpose of the measure is to provide additional time for the proper implementation of the systems required to comply with these obligations.

Extension of the Maturity Date of a Hedging Derivative Financial Instrument

Through Report No. 000044-2026-SUNAT/7T0000, SUNAT concluded that extending the maturity date of a derivative financial instrument intended to hedge the risk of a decline in oil prices does not, by itself, cause the instrument to lose its classification as a hedging derivative for Corporate Income Tax purposes.

To preserve such classification, the taxpayer must maintain documentation identifying the new maturity date of the contract and continue to comply with the remaining requirements set forth in Article 5-A of the Income Tax Law, including the identification of the hedged risk, the assets subject to the hedge, and the characteristics of the derivative instrument.

Proper Service of Notices in Tax Audits and Limits on the Exclusive Use of the SOL Mailbox (Constitutional Court Judgment in Case No. 04436-2025-PA/TC)

The Constitutional Court upheld the constitutional relief action (amparo) filed by Grupo 5 S.A.C. against SUNAT and the Tax Court, finding that service of the initial tax audit request exclusively through the SOL Mailbox was insufficient to establish that the taxpayer had been timely notified of the tax audit initiated in relation to the 2020 Corporate Income Tax. Consequently, the Court declared the service of Request No. 0521230000089 null and void, together with all subsequent administrative actions arising from that notification, and ordered that the request be served at the taxpayer's tax domicile to allow the exercise of its right of defense.

The Court held that, although Article 104 of the Tax Code permits electronic notifications, in tax audit proceedings the Tax Administration must have absolute certainty that the taxpayer has become aware of the commencement of the audit. Accordingly, formal notification through the SOL Mailbox is insufficient where it does not ensure actual and timely notice. In the case at hand, SUNAT itself acknowledged that some notifications were first accessed on March 30, 2023, even though the deadlines for responding to the requests had already expired.

On that basis, the Court found that the lack of timely notice violated the taxpayer's right of defense and due process, particularly because the alleged failure to submit documentation was used by SUNAT to reject deductible costs and expenses, issue penalty assessments, and justify interim precautionary measures. The ruling reinforces the principle that, in tax audit proceedings, SUNAT must adopt reasonable complementary measures to ensure that taxpayers are effectively notified of the audit and have a genuine opportunity to submit their defense within the applicable time limits.

Foreign Exchange Differences Related to Mine Closure Provisions (Supreme Court Decision No. 33568-2025 Lima)

The Supreme Court held that foreign exchange differences arising from accounting provisions for mine closure recorded in foreign currency must be taken into account in determining taxable income, as they are connected with a legal and environmental obligation inherent to mining activities.

The Court explained that mine closure is not an isolated event or merely an accounting estimate, but rather a set of mandatory activities forming part of the economic cycle of mining operations and directly linked to the income-producing activity. Accordingly, it found that the lower court had interpreted Article 61 of the Income Tax Law too narrowly by requiring that foreign exchange differences arise from a transaction directly generating income, a condition that is not established by the statute.

Joint and Several Tax Liability of a Consortium Member that Privately Assigned Its Interest in the Consortium (Tax Court Resolution No. 01221-5-2026)

The Tax Court upheld the imposition of joint and several tax liability on a member of a consortium with independent accounting records for the tax debts incurred by the consortium. The taxpayer argued that it had privately assigned to another consortium member all of its interests, rights, and obligations under the consortium agreement and therefore had no operational or administrative involvement in the consortium.

The Tax Court held that the joint and several liability established in the final paragraph of Article 18 of the Tax Code arises solely from having been a member of the consortium during the periods in which the tax obligations were incurred, regardless of the percentage interest held, the role performed, or any internal agreements among the consortium members. It further stated that the private assignment relied upon by the taxpayer was not effective against the Tax Administration, particularly since, in the context of public procurement, the assignment of contractual positions is restricted and the taxpayer failed to demonstrate that the contracting public entity had granted its consent.

Accordingly, the Tax Court concluded that private contractual arrangements do not limit liability before the Tax Administration, without prejudice to any right of recourse that may exist among the consortium members.