:quality(85)//cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/infobae/MBWJDUOVBBD73P7VAAFQNILQ6Y.jpg "ISF: Justice condemns AFIP, warning that the tax is confiscatory and affects private property 1")
A federal judge has handed down a measure that considers the new wealth tax, or “Solidarity Contribution” to be unconstitutional in the face of a taxpayer’s proposition that paying it would liquidate his capital and is confiscatory.
How to recover the 35% surcharge for purchases in dollars: everything you need to know to complete the process
AFIP has activated the system so that taxpayers who do not pay personal income or assets can obtain a refund of 2022 collections. How to request a refund and what to consider.
The magistrate of Corrientes Gustavo Fresneda it gave rise to the action of a businesswoman and declared “the unconstitutionality of the application to the particular case, of law n° 27.605 (and regulatory texts) which imposes the payment of the Contribution of Solidarity and Extraordinary to help mitigate the effects of the pandemic”.
The magistrate considered that this contribution violates the following constitutional guarantees and principles: right of ownership and principle of non-confiscation (protected by articles 4, 14, 17, 33 and 75 inc. 2 of the National Constitution), principle of character reasonable contained in article 28 of the NC; and principle of taxable capacity, contained in Articles 4, 16, 17, 28 and 33 of the National Constitution”.
AFIP went on a hunt for high-end car owners: who are the nearly 10,000 taxpayers intimidated
The agency cross-referenced data from the National Directorate of Automobile Property Registry (DNRPA) to identify vehicles which, due to their value, require their owners to pay for Personal Property.
In addition, it ordered the AFIP “to abstain from applying to the claimant the emerging provisions of Law 27.605 and its regulations”, from “dictating and/or executing acts tending to pursue the recovery of the Contribution by any means; and “to initiate and/or prosecute any administrative or legal complaint seeking to demand payment of the Solidarity Contribution”.
In the reasons, the magistrate affirmed that “the effective rate of the solidarity contribution on the applicant’s 2020 income would be 88%, to which must be added what the applicant must pay in property tax, and in notion income tax »
After the drop in the collection in January, the government points the VAT with an emphasis on mining and fishing
The AFIP aims to improve the level of compliance with the system’s main tax. They suspect under-invoicing in mining and high informality of labor in the fishing sector
For this reason, he asserted, “the solidarity and the extraordinary contribution would entail in the specific case a manifestly inadmissible absorption of income and patrimony, already taxed by personal property and benefits, exceeding the reasonable limits of taxation and being confiscatory and in violation of the right of ownership with regard to the doctrine emanating from the CSJN”.
“A careful examination of the records of the case leads me to the certain conviction that its application violates the constitutional guarantee of the inviolability of private property and impermissibly undermines the principle of non-confiscation, given that it has been proven with expertise and supporting accounting documents, in a concrete and categorical manner, how excessive the charge imposed is, and that it would inadmissibly restrict her assets and totally distort the plaintiff’s right to property ” , determined the magistrate.
“Beyond the aim pursued by the law (to protect the health of the population on the basis of the health, economic and social crisis caused by the pandemic) in the specific case that I am analyzing the application of the law would be unreasonable for undermine the plaintiff’s right to property, since the established constitutional and conventional norms are not respected,” he concluded.
In 2020, the government created this tax, which caused wide controversy due to its overlap with personal property and for considering the benefits but not the costs to taxpayers due to the pandemic. Moreover, in 2021, it barely collected $248,006 million as a non-tax resource, which equates to only a third of gross VAT collection and nearly half of a single month’s profit.
Instead, it has generated countless lawsuits and a shrinking of the largest taxpayer base, which in many cases has “moved” to other countries for tax purposes.
Continue reading: