REGULATIONS OF INTEREST
Discretion not to penalise infringements linked to the use of the Integrated Electronic Records System (SIRE). – By the Resolution of the National Superintendency of Internal Taxes N° 017-2024-SUNAT/700000, published on 8 May 2024, the discretionary power to not impose administrative penalties for offences covered by paragraphs 2 and 10 of article 175 of the Tax Code has been applied, to those taxpayers who:
NATIONAL CURRENT ISSUES
Scope of application Law N° 31556, Law for the reactivation of MYPES for the categories of restaurants, hotels and accommodation. – Report N° 037-2024-SUNAT/7T0000 states that micro and small enterprises whose main activity is restaurants, hotels and/or tourist accommodation, who have economic links with other national or foreign companies or economic groups, shall not benefit from the reduced rate of IGV of 8%, as established in Law No. 31556.
The above criterion does not change even if the groups or companies in question comply with the requirements of Law N° 31556.
Exemption from income tax (IR) on interest on foreign loans. – Through the Report N° 034-2024-SUNAT/7T0000 it is noted that the interest from financing provided by foreign entities and paid by Municipal Savings Banks are exempt from payment of the IR Credit (CMAC) of the Peruvian financial system.
CASE LAW
Accounting for exchange differences for taxpayers who keep accounts in foreign currency (RTF of Compulsory Compliance No. 04154-9-2024). – The Fiscal Court establishes the following precedent of mandatory compliance:
«In the case of taxpayers who keep accounts in foreign currency, the exchange differences resulting from expressing in foreign currency the balances in national currency of the accounts accountants, The General Sales Tax and Income Tax are included in the determination of net income».
Non-domiciled company must register with the RUC to request refund (Cassation No. 26035-2023, Lima). – The Fifth Chamber of Constitutional and Social Law of the Supreme Court establishes that companies not domiciled in the State which need to apply for a refund are obliged to to register for RUC, Article 2 d) and 3 f) of the Superintendence Resolution N° 210-2004/SUNAT.
In this case, a branch retained excess income tax to a non-resident company, therefore, on behalf of the latter, requested SUNAT to return these overpayments. However, SUNAT refused the refund on the grounds that the non-domiciled company had to apply directly and register with RUC.
Both the Fiscal Court and the Judiciary have confirmed SUNAT’s position, despite the fact that the foreign company granted the branch the necessary powers to request repayment.
Validity of the extension of the audit period (RTF No. 8221-11-2023). – The Fiscal Court states that SUNAT must support and justify extensions of the audit deadline when there is an allegation of complexity in the review and evaluation of documents.
In this case, SUNAT notified a letter of extension with undue reasons, Therefore, the Tax Court declared that the act and the requests issued during the period of the invalid extension were void.
