Tax Newsletter - June 2026

Regulation on Tax Incentives for Cinematographic and Audiovisual Activities Approved

Through Supreme Decree No. 099-2026-EF, published on June 11, 2026, the Regulation implementing Law No. 32309 was approved with respect to the deductibility of donations as expenses, the audiovisual tax credit, and the customs duty exemption applicable to goods intended for cinematographic and audiovisual activities.

The regulation primarily governs the following:

Exceptional Extension of the Deadline for Filing the 2025 Local File

Through Superintendency Resolution No. 000113-2026/SUNAT, published on June 14, 2026, SUNAT exceptionally extended the deadline for filing the Informative Tax Return – Local File (Virtual Form No. 3560) for fiscal year 2025.

The return must be filed by the due dates applicable to the October 2026 tax period, in accordance with the schedule established for monthly tax obligations. The extension responds to SUNAT's ongoing adjustments to the form following the amendments introduced by Legislative Decree No. 1663 concerning transfer pricing.

Provisions Established for Requesting the VAT Refund in the Agricultural Sector

Through Superintendency Resolution No. 000119-2026/SUNAT, published on June 21, 2026, SUNAT approved the provisions governing applications for the VAT refund established under Law No. 32434 (the Agrarian Law) and its implementing regulations.

The regulation provides that eligible small-scale agricultural producers and agricultural companies must submit Virtual Form No. 1649, “Refund Request,” through SUNAT Online Operations. It also regulates the possibility of amending the amount claimed before the resolution on the request becomes effective upon notification, and establishes the procedure by which the Ministry of Agrarian Development and Irrigation (MIDAGRI) must submit to SUNAT the legal-technical report and supporting information relating to the acquisitions or imports covered by the benefit.

Amendment to the Regulation of Law No. 30309 on the Additional Deduction for R&D&I Projects

Through Supreme Decree No. 116-2026-EF, published on June 25, 2026, the Regulation of Law No. 30309, which promotes scientific research, technological development, and technological innovation, was amended to align it with the changes introduced by Law No. 32539 regarding the additional Income Tax deduction for expenses incurred in research, development, and innovation (R&D&I) projects.

The regulation clarifies that, if a tax audit determines that a project was not completed within the prescribed deadlines or, although completed, failed to achieve its approved objective, CONCYTEC will revoke the corresponding qualification and authorization resolution and notify SUNAT. As a result, the taxpayer must amend its annual Income Tax returns and, where applicable, repay the tax together with the corresponding interest, without prejudice to any applicable penalties.

Amendment to the Coactive Enforcement Procedure Regarding the Lifting of Precautionary Measures

Law No. 32678, published on June 25, 2026, amends Law No. 26979, the Coactive Enforcement Procedure Law, and Article 118 of the Tax Code in order to strengthen the rules governing the lifting of precautionary attachment measures in coactive enforcement proceedings conducted by SUNAT and other public administration entities.

i) Amendments to the Coactive Enforcement Procedure Law

A twenty-four (24)-hour deadline is introduced for the coactive enforcement officer to issue and serve the resolution lifting the precautionary attachment over bank accounts once the obligation has been paid in full or the debt installment arrangement has been approved.

The law also establishes that the bank or financial institution that executed the attachment must lift it on the same date it receives the official notice issued by the coactive enforcement officer or, if the notice is received outside business hours, on the following business day, under responsibility.

In addition, failure by the responsible public officials or civil servants to comply with these deadlines constitutes a serious administrative offense, subject to administrative liability under the applicable regulations.

ii) Amendment to Article 118 of the Tax Code

The amendment expressly provides that, once the tax obligation has been paid in full or the debt installment arrangement has been approved, the Coactive Enforcement Officer must issue the resolution lifting the precautionary measures over the attached funds and send the corresponding official notices to the relevant entities within a maximum period of twenty-four (24) hours.

Discretionary Authority Not to Impose Penalties for Infractions Related to the Integrated Electronic Records System (SIRE)

Through Deputy National Superintendency Resolution for Internal Taxes No. 000032-2026-SUNAT/700000, published on June 28, 2026, SUNAT extended the period for applying its discretionary authority not to impose administrative penalties for the infractions set out in paragraphs 2 and 10 of Article 175 of the Tax Code, in accordance with the Annex to Deputy National Superintendency Resolution for Internal Taxes No. 000039-2023-SUNAT/700000, when such infractions relate to the June and July 2026 tax periods.

The resolution also extends until August 31, 2026, the deadline for correcting the generation of records and/or making the corresponding adjustments in the Integrated Electronic Records System (SIRE).

Extension of the Discretionary Authority Not to Impose Penalties for Infractions Related to Electronic Waybills

Through Deputy National Superintendency Resolution for Internal Taxes No. 000031-2026-SUNAT/700000, published on June 28, 2026, SUNAT extended the application of the discretionary authority not to impose penalties established under Resolution No. 052-2022-SUNAT/700000, as follows:

Application of Other Transfer Pricing Valuation Methods

In Report No. 000042-2026-SUNAT/7T0000, SUNAT addressed the timing for the application of the other transfer pricing valuation methods incorporated by Legislative Decree No. 1663 into paragraph 7 of subsection (e) of Article 32-A of the Income Tax Law.

SUNAT concluded that these methods apply to transactions for fiscal year 2025 that remained pending valuation as of the effective date of Supreme Decree No. 302-2025-EF, namely December 18, 2025. Conversely, they do not apply to transactions that had already been valued before that date.

Use of Payment Methods in Imports Involving Netting and Factoring

Through Report No. 000038-2026-SUNAT/340000, SUNAT analyzed the requirement to use payment methods in international sales of goods destined for the import-for-consumption regime under the Consolidated Text of Law No. 28194.

SUNAT concluded that the use of payment methods is not mandatory when payment obligations between companies within the same corporate group are extinguished through compensation or netting, since no actual transfer of money occurs. However, proof of the use of payment methods will be required during customs clearance if, after the netting process, a debit balance remains whose FOB value exceeds the threshold established in Article 3-A of the Consolidated Text of Law No. 28194 (PEN 7,000.00 or USD 2,000.00), provided that such balance must be paid in cash and is directly related to the import transaction subject to customs clearance.

Additionally, regarding payments made to a factor under a factoring agreement related to an international sale transaction, SUNAT stated that the factor qualifies as a third party designated to receive payment. Accordingly, such designation must be communicated to SUNAT before the importer makes the payment. Failure to provide prior notice results in the application of infringement P52 under the Sanctions Table, as it is deemed evidence of non-compliance with the payment-method requirement.

Peruvian-Source Income for Compensation Paid to a Non-Domiciled General Manager Working from Abroad

In Report No. 000040-2026-SUNAT/7T0000, SUNAT examined the tax treatment applicable to compensation paid by a company domiciled in Peru to a general manager who, after losing his tax-domiciled status, continues to provide services remotely from abroad.

SUNAT concluded that such compensation qualifies as Peruvian-source income under subsection (b) of Article 10 of the Income Tax Law, on the grounds that managers form part of the company’s administrative bodies under the General Corporations Law. Therefore, the rule applies even when the services are performed remotely from outside Peru.

Violation of the Right of Defense During a Tax Audit (Tax Court Resolution No. 06213-8-2025)

The Tax Court reviewed a case in which SUNAT notified the taxpayer of certain adjustments to the deduction of Income Tax expenses in the outcome of an information request and, on the following day, issued the corresponding tax assessments without giving the taxpayer an opportunity to submit arguments in response to the adjustments as ultimately formulated.

The Tax Court held that, although SUNAT had initially requested information regarding various accounting accounts, it was only in the outcome of the information request that it set out the factual and legal grounds for treating part of those expenses as non-deductible. Accordingly, because those conclusions were not communicated through a subsequent information request allowing the taxpayer to substantiate or refute the proposed adjustments, the taxpayer's right of defense during the audit was violated. Consequently, the Tax Court concluded that the adjustments were not properly supported and set aside the corresponding assessment.

Parent Company's Liability for the Tax Debts of Its Branch (Cassation No. 15880-2025, Lima)

The Fifth Chamber of the Supreme Court held that a parent company may be held liable with its assets for obligations incurred by its branch in Peru, without thereby acquiring the status of taxpayer or tax-liable party under the Tax Code.

The Court clarified that, although a branch has separate legal standing for tax purposes and qualifies as an Income Tax taxpayer, this does not preclude the application of civil and corporate law rules to determine the assets subject to enforcement. In this regard, because a branch does not have separate legal personality from its principal, the parent company cannot be regarded as a third party for purposes of filing a third-party ownership claim over assets attached in coactive enforcement proceedings.

Nullity of a Transfer Pricing Adjustment Due to Deficiencies in the Comparability Analysis (Cassation No. 828-2025, Lima)

This case concerned a transfer pricing adjustment for omitted Income Tax withholdings arising from the imputation of notional interest on an interest-free loan.

The Supreme Court held that SUNAT's failure to analyze certain elements of the comparability analysis—such as the principal amount, guarantees, the borrower's solvency, and its credit rating—does not invalidate the adjustment itself, but instead requires the Tax Administration to issue a new decision. The Court reasoned that the determination of arm's-length value in transfer pricing forms part of the tax audit and tax assessment procedure. It further clarified that a declaration of nullity does not necessarily extinguish the tax obligation; rather, its effects depend on whether the identified defect can be remedied.

Accordingly, the Court upheld the declaration of partial nullity, requiring the Tax Administration to issue a new decision correcting the comparability analysis instead of permanently withdrawing the adjustment.