Wealth tax: a technical resolution from the Ministry of the Economy tries to block claims in court

A technicality embodied in a resolution of the Ministry of the Economy will help the government to block one of the arguments to be used by those who plan to go to court to discuss the legality of solidarity and extraordinary contribution, called wealth tax. The Economic Portfolio published Resolution 22/2021 in which it establishes that income from disputed taxes should be calculated as “non-tax income” in public sector accounting.

The measure has gone unnoticed but it corrects something that has hit hard the idea of ​​the party in power to emphasize that the Contribution is not a tax. Initially, the Ministry of Finance, which operates under the orbit of the Minister Martín Guzmán had established that the income should be recorded in a fiscal account of the budget, recognizing this character and thus giving a weighty argument to those who will go to court to oppose its payment, which everyone considers a made.

For the tributary Sébastien Dominguez, which ensures that there is no doubt about the fact that the solidarity contribution “is a tax”, “it is so that the fact that a state body has said that it was a tax is not used as an argument in defenses or in claims “.

Although Domínguez assures that the defenses will signal the modification, he understands that this “does not change” the position of the Federal Administration of Public Revenue, which is the body that will supervise and collect it.

This implies that the law on contributions indicates that the fiscal criminal law is of additional application and that the specialist understands that beyond this resolution, “as the Treasury has already said that it will file a criminal complaint, it that is, it will apply the criminal law. tax, then it will be discussed in court whether it is a tribute or not whether the law is enforced or not. This does not change the criteria held by the Treasury ”.

Finally, Domínguez points out that in this discussion of whether it is a tax or not, what can generate another controversy is that AFIP would apply the business model to designate those who must pay it and that it is they who claim later in the Tax Court of the Nation with suspensive effects. In his opinion, AFIP should use this ex officio determination procedure.

For your colleague, Ivan Sasovsky, the Economy resolution does not block the judicial process in itself but “gives more arguments to consider that it is not a matter of a tribute in principle, therefore the penal tax system or the procedural law could not be applicable “.

On this basis, the taxpayer understands that the specific endowment available to this tax “is what leads the Ministry of the Economy not to consider it as fiscal income so as not to have to send it by the law on co- participation”.

However, he understands that “there is a very big contradiction in the definition because if we ask the Ministry of the Economy what the solidarity contribution is, they will say that it is not a tax but for the AFIP it will be, because it is the only means which must fight and seek to be paid. In any case, it is one more element to take into account for all those who want to plead, because these contradictory interpretations relax the tax ”.

In the middle of this process, AFIP launched an investigation into a group of taxpayers who are allegedly affected by wealth tax but who, in order not to pay it, have not submitted affidavits of personal property.

The tax authorities put the magnifying glass on a universe of taxpayers of approximately 13,000 people who would be those who would be affected by the wealth tax and, above all, on a group of people who have not filed the 2019 patrimonial affidavit and who, given the strengths possessed by these subjects, the AFIP suspects elusive maneuvers not to pay the solidarity contribution.

From the AFIP, they explained that, in particular, the magnifying glass is put in 2,500 cases where the failure to present the affidavit constitutes “an unmistakable indication of a regime tending to avoid the payment of the contribution of solidarity”. If the maneuver is verified, the agency’s intention is to advance justice with criminal complaints against these taxpayers for aggravated fraud.

KEEP READING