PROBLEMS
In use of its powers of verification, the area of Collection and Employer Service of the Institute of the National Housing Fund for Workers of the Delegation of Sinaloa, issued a home visit order to our client, hereinafter the “Taxpayer”, to carry out the verification and compliance with the tax provisions to which he was affected by the fiscal year 2017.
The referred home visit spanned two years, beginning in June 2018 and concluding in July 2020, concluding that the “Taxpayer” did not comply with its tax obligations, specifically the one related to the payment of contributions.
Thus, by means of a resolution contained in official letter number IV/RF/RG/4xx/2020, issued by the Institute of the National Housing Fund for Workers, a tax credit was determined to be borne by the taxpayer in a total amount of $ – ́000,000.00 pesos (figures in millions, expressed with — for confidentiality of the information).
In view of the above, we proceeded to design and implement a Legal Defense strategy, based on the following:
ACTIONS AND STRATEGIES IMPLEMENTED BY OUR FIRM
Considering that the supervisory authority determined that the company failed to pay the contributions that corresponded to it on the years reviewed and in favor of INFONAVIT, taking for the purpose “items of unproven expenses”, it proceeded to file the Nullity Trial, before the First Regional Chamber of the Northwest III, of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice, asserting as a core strategy the following:
It was shown that the procedure used by INFONAVIT to determine the alleged omissions of payment of the contributions was improperly applied.
The foregoing, since the following items were considered as workers’ income: EXPENSES TO BE CHECKED, STORAGE OF RAW MATERIALS AND ADVANCE TO SUPPLIERS, TRAVEL EXPENSES – PER DIEMS and TRAVEL EXPENSES AND NON-DEDUCTIBLE EXPENSES.
Which, it was considered and raised before the Court that it was inadmissible since these concepts are used for the realization of the purposes of the business in terms of the Income Tax Law, in terms of their treatment of costs and expenses; since the aforementioned concepts did not represent income for the workers in the terms mentioned in article 34 section II of the Registration Regulations for the payment of contributions and full discounts of INFONAVIT.
In this regard, in accordance with the applicable regulations indicated in Article 32 of the RIPAEDI, the procedure to be followed to determine such aspect, it is clear that the authority did not observe the aforementioned procedure.
RESULT.
In this sense, the aforementioned Court considered it appropriate to resolve the argument raised and with that, grant for reasons of MERITS the Nullity Plain and Plain of the contested Resolution.
In the same way, the argument put forward related to the lack of compliance with the essential formalities of the audit procedure was founded, since the authority exceeded the term provided for in numeral 46-A, to issue the resolution corresponding to the taxpayer’s tax situation.
Based on the above, a successful result was achieved in favor of our client, avoiding a very relevant contingency for his assets.
Legal Notice and Copyright
The content of this article is for informational and general information purposes only. It does not constitute a legal opinion, personalized advice, or specific tax advice. Consequently, ST STRATEGO assumes no liability arising from the interpretation or use of this document.
Reproduction of this publication in whole or in part, by any means or format, is strictly prohibited without prior, express, and written authorization from the author. Any unauthorized use will be punished in accordance with the Federal Copyright Law and other applicable provisions.
If you would like more information on the information presented here or to learn more about our legal, tax, and foreign trade solutions, please do not hesitate to contact us at info@stratego-st.com.