Informe Jurídico sobre la Resolución del Tribunal Fiscal No. 03701-9-2020
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2022-08-19
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Abstract
El presente informe tiene como objetivo
identificar y cuestionar la interpretación
en torno al cumplimiento del requisito al
que se refiere el Decreto Supremo No.
090-2008-EF (en adelante, “D.S. No. 090-
2008-EF”) a efectos de poder aplicar los
beneficios contemplados en un Convenio
para evitar la Doble Imposición (en
adelante, “CDI”). Ello a propósito de los
fundamentos planteados por el Tribunal
Fiscal en la Resolución No. 03701-9-2020
(en adelante, “Resolución”), cuya fuerza
de observancia obligatoria establece un
criterio unificado y relevante concluyendo
que, tratándose del supuesto regulado en
el segundo párrafo del artículo 76 de la
Ley del IR (en adelante, “LIR”), referido
a la obligación de efectuar el abono
equivalente a la retención por la
contabilización del gasto o costo
respectivo, a efectos de poder aplicar un
determinado CDI, no se requiere exhibir
un Certificado de Residencia (en adelante,
“CR”). Sin perjuicio de ello, el presente
trabajo encuentra su justificación en las
consecuencias jurídicas generadas por las
conclusiones a las que además arriba el
Tribunal Fiscal en los siguientes
extremos: (i) las empresas deben contar
con el CR en la fecha del pago por el
servicio prestado por el sujeto no
domiciliado (ii) el CR debe acreditar la residencia del sujeto no domiciliado
correspondiente al periodo en el que se
prestó el servicio; e, (ii)
independientemente de su fecha de
emisión, los Certificados de Residencia
están referidos a un período anterior a la
fecha de la solicitud. Así pues, en la
medida en que estas afectarán
directamente a quienes opten por aplicar
los beneficios en aplicación de un CDI, se
busca analizar los problemas jurídicos
suscitados de tal interpretación, ello en el
contexto de los criterios jurídicos
especiales propios del Derecho Tributario
The objective of this report is to identify and criticize the interpretations carried out regarding compliance with the formal requirement referred to in Supreme Decree No. 090-2008-EF in order to be able to apply the benefits contemplated in the Double Taxation Treaty (hereinafter, "DTT"). This will be carried attending to the legal arguments raised by the Tax Court in Resolution No. 03701-9-2020, whose mandatory enforcement finally establishes a unified criterion regarding the problem under analysis pronouncing on the second paragraph of article 76 of the Income Tax Law (hereinafter, "ITL") which establishes that, at the time of accounting for the expense or cost, in order to apply a DTT, it is not required to exhibit the respective Certificate of Residence. However, this work finds its justification in the legal consequences generated by the conclusions reached by the Tax Court insofar as these will directly affect the taxpayers in the following points: (i) the companies must have the certificate of residence on the date of payment for the service rendered by the non-domiciled subject; (ii) the certificate of residence must accredit the residence of the non-domiciled subject corresponding to the period in which the service was rendered; and, (ii) regardless of their date of issue, the certificates of residence refer to a period prior to the date of the application. Therefore, to the extent that these will directly affect taxpayers who choose to apply a DTT, the purpose is to analyze the legal problems arising from such interpretation, taking into account the characteristics of Tax law.
The objective of this report is to identify and criticize the interpretations carried out regarding compliance with the formal requirement referred to in Supreme Decree No. 090-2008-EF in order to be able to apply the benefits contemplated in the Double Taxation Treaty (hereinafter, "DTT"). This will be carried attending to the legal arguments raised by the Tax Court in Resolution No. 03701-9-2020, whose mandatory enforcement finally establishes a unified criterion regarding the problem under analysis pronouncing on the second paragraph of article 76 of the Income Tax Law (hereinafter, "ITL") which establishes that, at the time of accounting for the expense or cost, in order to apply a DTT, it is not required to exhibit the respective Certificate of Residence. However, this work finds its justification in the legal consequences generated by the conclusions reached by the Tax Court insofar as these will directly affect the taxpayers in the following points: (i) the companies must have the certificate of residence on the date of payment for the service rendered by the non-domiciled subject; (ii) the certificate of residence must accredit the residence of the non-domiciled subject corresponding to the period in which the service was rendered; and, (ii) regardless of their date of issue, the certificates of residence refer to a period prior to the date of the application. Therefore, to the extent that these will directly affect taxpayers who choose to apply a DTT, the purpose is to analyze the legal problems arising from such interpretation, taking into account the characteristics of Tax law.
Description
Keywords
Derecho tributario, Administración tributaria, Derecho constitucional--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Impuesto a la renta--Perú