Tax Newsletter - October 2025

Amendments to the Tax Credit for Public Works Program (OxI).- Law No. 32460, published on October 2, 2025, introduces various changes to the OxI program provided for in Law No. 29230, which promotes regional and local public investment with private sector participation. The most notable changes are as follows:

The maximum amount of Selective Consumption Tax (ISC) refunds is determined for taxpayers who provide ground transportation services.- Through Superintendency Resolution No. 000319-2025/SUNAT, published on October 22, 2025, the percentage for determining the maximum ISC refund amount referred to in the Regulations of Emergency Decree No. 012-2019 is approved:

Documentation related to the CDI signed with the United Kingdom is sent to Congress.- Through Supreme Resolution No. 151-2025-RE, published on October 21, 2025, documentation relating to the “Agreement between the Republic of Peru and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to eliminate double taxation in relation to income tax and capital gains tax and to prevent tax evasion and avoidance,” signed in London on March 20, 2025, was sent to the Congress of the Republic.

Enforced collection of amounts due for the additional 5% tax.- Report No. 0105-2025-SUNAT/7T0000 analyzes a scenario in which assessments are issued for income tax (IR) and for the additional 5% tax, but the taxpayer only challenges the assessment related to IR.

In this regard, SUNAT states that the enforced collection of the amount charged for the additional 5% tax is applicable, even when it is linked to the objections that support the contested amount.

Scope of Law No. 31110, Law on tax incentives for the agricultural sector.- Report No. 0106-2025-SUNAT/7T0000 states that the activities of sorting, refrigerating, packaging, and storing fruit in storage chambers for stabilization and subsequent marketing in foreign markets (export) qualify as “agro-industrial activity” (Class 0163 - post-harvest activities) for the purposes of Law No. 31110.

It is not appropriate to determine carryforward losses from prescribed fiscal years that have an impact on a non-prescribed fiscal year (Cassation 26823-2024, Lima).- The Supreme Court established that issuing a determination resolution on a prescribed fiscal year (2002), which recalculates the balance of losses carried forward to the following non-prescribed fiscal year (2003), violates the principles of legality and legal certainty, by unduly extending the auditing power beyond the term provided for in Article 43 of the Tax Code.

The Chamber made a systematic interpretation of the aforementioned article, pointing out that the statute of limitations operates as a substantive and temporal limitation on the exercise of the powers of determination, control, sanction, and collection by the Tax Administration. Its expiration extinguishes, as of right, the possibility of issuing substantive rulings that affect the existence or amount of the tax obligation corresponding to a prescribed period. This restriction includes, in particular, the issuance of assessment decisions on prescribed fiscal years, even when they do not generate enforceable debt, insofar as their content involves the formulation of objections or the adjustment of elements previously declared by the taxpayer that ultimately affect subsequent fiscal years.

He also pointed out that the possibility of the Administration evaluating records from previous years is not excluded when such a review does not result in a new determinative act or a material alteration of its legal effects, as could occur in specific cases under Article 78 of the Tax Code.

Proof of means of payment of computable cost (RTF No. 01786-3-2025).- It is analyzed whether, in order for a non-domiciled taxpayer to prove the computable cost of shares acquired through credit capitalizations, for the purposes of calculating the gain on an indirect sale of shares, it was necessary to document the means of payment for the credits granted, in application of Article 5 of Law No. 28194.

The Tax Court concludes that proof of means of payment is not required. This is because the special rule is the last paragraph of Article 21 of the Income Tax Law, whereby the taxpayer is only required to submit documentation issued abroad, in accordance with the legal provisions of the country corresponding to the residence of the non-domiciled legal entity issuing the shares. In this regard, Law No. 28194 is not applicable.