This is so, because as can be seen in the challenged resolution, the tax authority imposed two fines on this plaintiff, in the total amount of VGR. $28,460. 00 (twenty-eight thousand four hundred and sixty pesos 00/100 national currency), for having filed the declarations of Monthly Provisional Payment of Income Tax and Monthly Definitive Payment of Value Added Tax, for the period of *** of ***, “outside the terms established in the tax provisions”; and, since, prior to such filing, there had been a requirement with control number *** notified to the plaintiff, on ***, this was not considered a spontaneous compliance.
Establishing that, with such conduct of the now plaintiff, the infraction foreseen in numeral 81, section I, of the Fiscal Code of the Federation was actualized, for which it was creditor to the sanction established in the diverse 82, first paragraph, section I, subsection d), in force in 2018, which establishes:
“Article 81. The following are infractions related to the obligation to pay taxes; to file returns, applications, documentation, notices, information or issuance of certificates, and the entry of information through the Tax Administration Service’s website:
I. Failure to file the returns, applications, notices or certificates required by the tax provisions, or failure to do so through the electronic means indicated by the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit or to file them at the request of the tax authorities. Failure to comply with the requirements of the tax authorities to file any of the documents or electronic means referred to in this section, or to comply with them outside the terms indicated therein.”
“Article 82. Whoever commits the infractions related to the obligation to file returns, requests, documentation, notices or information; with the issuance of digital tax vouchers through the Internet or certificates and with the entry of information through the Internet page of the Tax Administration Service referred to in Article 81 of this Code, the following fines shall be imposed:
I. For the one indicated in section I:
(…)
“(d) From $14,230.00 to $28,490.00, for not filing the returns in the electronic media being obligated to do so, filing them after the deadline or not complying with the requirements of the tax authorities to file them or complying with them after the deadlines indicated therein.”
From the aforementioned ordinal 81, section I, it is clear that the following conducts constitute a tax infraction:
(a) Failure to file the returns, requests, notices or statements required by the tax provisions.
b) Failure to do so through the electronic means indicated by the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit.
c) Submit them at the request of the tax authorities.
d) Not complying with the requirements of the tax authorities to file any of the documents or electronic means referred to in this section.
e) Complying with the requirements outside the terms indicated therein.
On the other hand, article 82, first paragraph, section I, subsection d), specifies that taxpayers who do not file the returns in the electronic media being obligated to do so, file them after the deadline or do not comply with the requirements of the tax authorities to file them or comply with them after the deadlines indicated therein, will be sanctioned with a financial fine.
Therefore, being that the conduct attributed to the plaintiff was that of filing the monthly declarations of Monthly Provisional Payment of Income Tax and Monthly Definitive Payment of Value Added Tax, for the period of *** of ***, “outside the terms established in the tax provisions”, it is unquestionable that article 81, section I, cannot serve as a basis for the challenged resolution, since such conduct does not fit exactly in the normative hypothesis previously established in such section, when examining the normative portions under a literal interpretation.
And, consequently, the fines imposed have the same fate, since there is no causal nexus between the infringing facts and the legal provision that contemplates the fine, to which the conduct of the taxpayer must be adapted. Since the conduct of the plaintiff does not typify the legal hypothesis foreseen by the aforementioned legal provision.
The jurisdictional criterion 6/2022 issued by the Technical Committee of Regulations of the Procuraduría de la Defensa del Contribuyente (Taxpayer’s Defense Attorney’s Office) is illustrative of this issue:
Do you need a lawyer?
Are you in Baja California Sur, Mexico? Todos Santos, Los Cabos, La Paz, Loreto, San Jose Del Cabo, Los Cabos, El Pescadero… Are you in Nuevo Leon, Mexico? Apodaca, Cadereyta Jiménez, El Carmen, García, San Pedro Garza García, General Escobedo, Guadalupe, Juárez, Monterrey, Salinas Victoria, San Nicolás de los Garza, Santa Catarina and Santiago…
At Law In Cabo we seek to satisfy the different legal needs of our clients, both in their business and personal matters. Contact us at: (+52)8119384461, where we will gladly advise you.
Continue reading here:
