The registration in the RUC of non-domiciled companies subject to the Tax on Remote Gambling and Sports Betting is regulated through Superintendence Resolution No. 267-2024/SUNAT, published on November 30, 2024, provides for the following:
1. The mechanism for the referred subjects to register in the RUC and update and/or modify the data in said registry, by virtual means.
2. It is not mandatory to submit the translation into Spanish of the documentation required for these purposes.
3. Natural persons who do not carry out business activities and who acquire the status of IGV taxpayers for using digital services and/or importing intangible goods through the Internet in the country are not obliged to register in the RUC, nor are taxpayers of the ISC levied on remote games and remote sports betting developed in technological platforms operated by non-domiciled companies, whose tax must be withheld or collected, as appropriate.
These provisions are effective as of December 1, 2024.
Payment vouchers for educational institutions.- With Official Communication No. 034-2024-SUNAT/7T0000, SUNAT states that authorized public educational institutions with RUC are obliged to issue payment vouchers when transferring goods or rendering services – within the framework of the provisions of Decree Law No. 25632 and the Payment Vouchers Regulation – for the productive and/or business activities they perform such as rentals of premises of the educational institution, educational extension services and/or development of cultural or sports activities, only in the cases in which these are for valuable consideration.
Issuance of an adjudication policy.- With Report No. 088-2024-SUNAT/7T0000, SUNAT states that the trustee of a guarantee trust is not obliged to issue an adjudication policy when, in compliance with the provisions of the constitutive act, it disposes of the assets that make up the trust patrimony in order to compensate the credit defaulted by the trustor.
Housing and school expenses for mining workers (RTF No. 04658-4-2023).- The company, in application of Article 206 of the General Mining Law, granted housing and school facilities to its workers who worked in areas far from the population and their families. SUNAT denied the deductibility of these expenses, stating that the company’s operation was located in an urban area and not more than 30 kilometers or 60 minutes away from the nearest town, which is a requirement of the law.
The Tax Court upheld the Administration’s assessment and affirmed that in order to grant the referred benefits the company had to validate that the work center was located in an area far from the town, according to the regulatory definition, which was not fulfilled, therefore, the expenses were not necessary and should not be deducted.
Correction of the issuance of electronic vouchers after the deadline (RTF No. 04350-2-2024).- The taxpayer was obliged to issue electronic vouchers since April 2022; however, he issued sales slips in May. After noticing the error, in November 2022, he corrected it and issued electronic sales slips indicating the same description and amount of the transaction as the physical ones.
In this respect, the Tax Court states that this correction does not imply the obligation to file a VAT return for the period of November 2022, as long as the electronic vouchers contain the appropriate references to the documents issued in physical form. Therefore, the taxpayer did not incur in the infraction typified in numeral 1 of Article 176 of the Tax Code, as SUNAT claimed.
Application of the market value rule for remunerations (Cassation No. 2523-2024, Lima).- Applying the rule provided in numeral 1.3 of paragraph b) of Article 19 of the LIR Regulations, SUNAT repaired the remuneration of the General Manager of the company claiming that it exceeded the market value by more than double the remuneration of the worker in the next lower hierarchy. The taxpayer claimed that this rule was not applicable to his case since there was only one worker in the immediate lower hierarchy.
Both the Tax Court and the Judiciary have validated SUNAT’s position and pointed out that the fact that there is only one worker is not an obstacle to apply the referred rule, since what is relevant is to have a referent worker, even if it is only one.
The Supreme Court adds that applying numeral 1.3 of paragraph b) of Article 19 of the LIR Regulations, interpreting that it is restricted only to companies that maintain in their organizational chart more than one worker in the same grade, would contravene the principle of reserve of law.
