A project is being discussed in Argentina “tax innocence”: the idea that The taxpayer does not have to live under constant suspicionthat the state must act in good faith and not treat everyone as an evader. On paper it sounds reasonable. But at the same time also from the debt collection agency For many indebted companies, the exact opposite is encouraged.
The problem is complex, but can be easily explained. In a country with high inflation, companies that take on debt to invest are registering real losses but fictitious “gains” in the eyes of the Treasury. Because? Because their debt is adjusted for inflation, but They are denied the opportunity to update their cumulative losses adjusted for inflation. The result is this You are forced to pay income tax as if they had made a profit, when in reality they are still trying to recover the capital they risked.
Given this bias, many companies decided to use a palliative: a interpretation which relies on the Constitution itself and Supreme Court precedents to accurately reflect its losses, Update their losses due to inflation. That is, they have not hidden anything: they have explained everything, but they have done so in a way that respects economic logic and the real capacity to contribute.
The tax authority’s response differed significantly from the principle of “tax innocence”. Instead of arguing on a technical level, They were asked to correct their statements and enter into a payment plan in accordance with the Threat of very serious sanctions. In some cases, rules were used that provided for this Fines of two to six times the tax allegedly owed and even the possibility of criminal charges. The implicit message is clear: If they do not accept the capricious criteria of the administration, the directors are treated as alleged fraudsters.
So while the speech promises a “presumption of innocence” for taxpayers, in practice it is a kind of “presumption of innocence”. automatic “tax liability” for those who dare to exercise their rights. They are not persecuted because they hide their income, but because they do not agree to pay taxes Income self-inflated by inflation.
There is still room for course correction. Detect the update of losses and finally resolve the criminal threat It would be a concrete gesture from Respect for legal certainty. Because The central point is not technical: it is constitutional. The property right that Alberdi dreamed of – and that our Magna Carta declares to be “inviolable” – is hardly compatible with a system in which investing, going into debt and losing can ultimately be more dangerous than avoiding it.
Diego Fraga is a tax lawyer, professor of the master’s degree in tax law at Austral University and partner at Expansion Business.
About The Author
