The entry into force of SUNAT’s Regulation of Organization and Functions (ROF) is extended – Through Superintendence Resolution N° 007-2024/SUNAT, published on January 24, 2024, the entry into force of the ROF is postponed until March 1, 2024.
Special Regime for the recovery of the investment in real estate assets that are part of the Cultural Heritage of the Nation (Downtown Lima).- Law No. 31980, published on January 17, 2024, created the above mentioned regime, establishing the following provisions:
(i) Individuals or legal entities that develop interventions of refurbishment, remodeling, expansion, new work and monumental historical value enhancement, according to the definitions of 3° of Law No. 29090, Law for the Regulation of Urban and Building Qualifications, may participate.
ii) Taxpayers may recover: a) 30% of the amount of the investment in real estate projects in properties with monument or monumental value status or declared uninhabitable; and/or, b) 15% of the amount of the investment in other properties in the Historic Center of
This tax credit may be used against income tax from the year in which the investment is made until it is exhausted or up to 5 years after the investment. It will not give the right to a refund.
iii) The investment projects will be approved by the Metropolitan Municipality of Lima.
iv) It is also provided that cultural patrons who make donations in the form of personal property, real estate, services or money in order to support activities related to cultural heritage, may deduct them as an expense, in an amount of up to 10% of their third category net income and up to 10% of their net income from work and from foreign sources.
Maximum amount of Selective Consumption Tax (ISC) refund is determined for those who provide land transportation services – Through Superintendence Resolution No. 004-2024/SUNAT, published on January 17, 2024, the percentage to determine the maximum amount of ISC refund referred to in the Regulation of Emergency Decree No. 012-2019 is approved:
| Month | Percentage of ISC participation |
| October 2023 | 9.11% |
| November 2023 | 9.18% |
| December 2023 | 9.78% |
Case No. 17824-2023 Lima: Transfer Pricing Control.- By means of this ruling, published on January 10, 2024, the following Binding Precedent is established:
(i) In order to determine whether, within an administrative procedure of partial or definitive audit referred to transfer pricing, the guarantee of reasonable time has been violated, the following must be analyzed and evaluated: (i) that the partial or definitive audit carried out by the tax administration is referred to the application of transfer pricing rules; (ii) that it involves companies linked to or through countries or territories of low or no taxation; (iii) the complexity to obtain the information and if the same is located in other territorial areas; (iv) the conduct of the taxpayer in the delivery of information and/or the requested extensions; (v) the conduct of the administration; and (vi) the evaluation as a whole of the above-mentioned factors.
ii) In the partial and/or definitive audit in which the transfer pricing rules are applied, the suspension of the audit period regulated by numeral 6 of 62-A of the Unified Text of the Tax Code is applicable, respecting the reasonable period of
Case No. 079-2023 Lima: Deduction of antidumping duties.- By means of this ruling, published on January 10, 2024, the following Binding Precedent is established:
The legal nature of the anti-dumping duties, set forth in the original text of 46 of Supreme Decree No. 006-2003-PCM, does not constitute a fine, and therefore, such duties do turn out to be deductible for income tax purposes, since the “Agreement on Implementation of VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade of nineteen ninety-four” does not determine that whoever practices dumping incurs in an infraction. The payment of anti-dumping duties is justified as a surcharge or levy ordered by Indecopi for the sole purpose of correcting the injury caused by the practice of dumping to a domestic industry.
Cassation N° 16618-2023 Lima: Mandatory nature of cassatory judgments.- By means of this judgment, published on January 10, 2024, the following Binding Precedent is established:
(i) The cassation judgments issued by this Supreme Court, by virtue of their binding force, have a degree of obligatory nature and authority that derives from the level of this jurisdictional body that issues them and the area of competence in which they are applied, which means that they must be followed by the jurisdictional bodies of merit in similar cases.
ii) Cassation rulings create a legal precedent that establishes a standard to be applied by other jurisdictional bodies, as well as by the administrative courts and the public administration, given its scope in contentious-administrative matters.
Cassation N° 16018-2023 Lima: The Tax Administration may not modify its acts after notification of the fine resolution.- Through this ruling, published on January 13, 2024, the following Binding Precedent is established:
Once the tax audit procedure is concluded with the notification of the resolution of determination and/or fine, as applicable, in merit of numeral 1 of 108 of the Sole Ordered Text of the Tax Code, the tax administration may not revoke, modify, substitute or complement its acts, in order to apply the penalty contemplated in numeral 1 of 178 of the Tax Code, when it sustains its acts on the same facts or circumstances of which it became aware during the audit procedure that has already ended.
Cassation No. 36229-2022 Lima: Validity of foreign means of payment.- The Supreme Court states that the obligation to use means of payment for tax purposes, contained in Article 8 of Law No. 28194, is not limited to documents issued in the national bank, but admits the possibility of using means of payment banked abroad, provided that the expenses and costs can be reliably verified.
The claimant acquired shares of a Peruvian company and credited costs and expenses with means of payment consisting of SWIFT codes. Both SUNAT and the Tax Court limited themselves to validating whether the payment had been made through Peruvian banks, ignoring any documents from foreign financial entities for the purpose of verifying the payments thus made and, therefore, the cost or expense associated with them.
