The rules of the Tax Obligations Payment System (SPOT) applicable to the mining sector have been modified.- With Superintendency Resolution No. 000175-2025/SUNAT published on May 30, 2025, the shipments of gold ores and their concentrates, as well as non-gold metallic minerals included in Class 26 of the Customs Tariff, are excluded from the SPOT, when said shipment does not originate from a sale transaction subject to VAT. This exclusion applies only to shipments, not to local sales or withdrawal transactions considered local sales, which remain subject to VAT and the SPOT.
Schedule for filing the beneficial owner declaration is approved.- Superintendency Resolution No. 000168-2025/SUNAT, published on May 28, 2025, approves the following provisions:
The November 2026 period should be considered for legal entities domiciled in the country that: i) are not required to file all the determining tax returns; ii) are not included in any of the previous sections; iii) obtained their RUC by December 31, 2024, but did not activate it; or iv) register or activate their RUC between January 1, 2025, and November 30, 2026.
Finally, this regulation specifies that non-domiciled legal entities and legal entities incorporated abroad must comply with this obligation on the date SUNAT establishes through a Superintendency Resolution.
Application of the Amazon tax regime benefits is required.- Law No. 32317, published on May 1, 2025, specifies that the department of San Martín is included in the scope of the VAT tax credit established in section 13.2 of Article 13 of Law No. 27037, the Law for the Promotion of Investment in the Amazon.
It is proposed to incorporate new obligated entities into the Electronic Seizure System.- Through Superintendency Resolution No. 0000149-2025/SUNAT, published on May 8, 2025, a draft regulation is published that would modify Superintendency Resolution No. 344-2010/SUNAT. This modification proposes to incorporate into the Electronic Seizure System companies that act as acquirers in credit and/or debit card payment systems that are not yet included; as well as companies that fulfill the role of payment facilitators and participate in the fund transfer process to affiliated merchants that accept payments with these cards.
Change in criteria regarding qualification as digital services.- As background, Report No. 000039-2024-SUNAT/7T0000 concluded that non-automated technical support and consulting services provided online via videoconference, electronic platform, or email, used or consumed in Peru, qualify as digital services for Income Tax purposes.
This criterion has been repealed by Report No. 000046-2025-SUNAT/7T0000, where SUNAT indicates that the following services provided by a non-resident do not qualify as digital services for Income Tax purposes:
For the Administration, the use of platforms or email is for communication purposes only and does not constitute the means of accessing or executing the service itself (whether technical support or consulting). Therefore, they do not meet the essential characteristics of a digital service provided over the internet.
Attachment in the form of a withholding on a deduction account.- Report No. 000047-2025-SUNAT/7T00000 states that the amount withheld from a deduction account due to a garnishment in the form of a withholding levied within the framework of a coercive collection procedure cannot be imputed to a debt that is not part of said procedure, or if, having been imputed by the Tax Administration to the debt subject to said procedure, such imputation can be rescinded and imputed to a debt that is not part of it, at the request of a party.
Application of Rule XVI in the attribution of joint and several liability (RTF No. 03025-1-2025).- The Tax Court concludes that Rule XVI of the Preliminary Title of the Tax Code does not grant the Administration the power to assign joint and several liability, but only the power to determine the true nature of the taxable event.
In this case, a Peruvian company had a non-resident company among its shareholders, which transferred its shares to another entity abroad. In this regard, SUNAT, applying Rule XVI of the Tax Code and based on an audit of a prior fiscal year, determined that the value of the non-resident company’s shares did not represent 0.12% of the Peruvian company’s share capital, as the company had claimed, but rather 85.40%.
Consequently, it concluded that the Peruvian company was jointly and severally liable for the Income Tax generated by the sale of said shares, given that it was economically linked to its shareholder, the latter holding more than 10% of its capital.
The Tax Court concluded that Rule XVI does not allow for the attribution of joint and several liability, but rather that this rule allows for the disclosure of the true nature of an impossible event, that is, an event subject to a tax to which a tax rule will apply. And in this case, the application of the anti-avoidance rule did not culminate in the application of a tax rule, but rather sought to give it corporate effects and, worse still, to make these effects affect a subsequent fiscal year. Therefore, it revoked the issued securities.
