Argentine Tax Agency Faces Scrutiny Over Interpretation of Income Tax Regime
A dispute is brewing over the interpretation of Argentina’s Special Regime for the Income of the Tax on Personal Assets (REIBP), with critics alleging the tax agency, known as Arca, is wrongly demanding payments on advances for the 2023 fiscal year. The core of the contention lies in whether the REIBP encompasses the 2023 tax period, and whether previously paid advances should be considered credits against future obligations.
According to sources familiar with the case, Arca’s position hinges on a narrow reading of the law, arguing that the omission of 2023 from certain articles implies it falls outside the scope of the REIBP. “The agency interprets that Article 45, which creates the REIBP ‘for all fiscal periods until December 31, 2027,’ must be understood restricted by the subsequent enumeration of article 47,” a senior official stated. This interpretation would leave 2023 subject to the standard tax regulations, requiring the payment of outstanding advances and accruing interest.
However, legal experts contend that this reading directly contradicts the explicit language of Law 27,743. Article 45 clearly states the REIBP applies “for all fiscal periods until its expiration,” encompassing all relevant years, including 2023. Furthermore, Article 49 explicitly includes 2023 when outlining the unified payment schedule for the years 2023, 2024, 2025, 2026, and 2027. “The express inclusion of 2023 demonstrates the will to consolidate five exercises in a single determination, stripping each year of its typical autonomy,” one analyst noted.
This consolidation, experts argue, fundamentally alters the nature of the 2023 tax obligations. Instead of being subject to partial payments throughout the year, the 2023 tax liability is integrated into a global assessment finalized with the REIBP affidavit. Consequently, any advances paid in 2023 should be treated as credits against this consolidated tax, not as outstanding debts. Article 53 of Law 27,743 reinforces this view, authorizing the computation of “advances and payments on account of the fiscal period 2023” as tax credits.
The dispute also extends to the issue of interest on unpaid advances. Arca maintains its right to collect interest from the original due date of each advance, even if the obligation is now considered part of the consolidated REIBP assessment. However, critics point to Article 58 of Law 27,743, which unequivocally exempts taxpayers who adhere to the REIBP from “any obligation… to pay the tax or its advances or payments on account and of any other related obligation.” This includes, crucially, any associated interest.
“Consequently, having legally ceased the obligation to enter the advances of the fiscal period 2023, the claim to demand interest on a non-existent main basis becomes illegible,” a legal source explained. The insistence on collecting interest, therefore, is seen as a violation of the principle of reasonableness.
The core argument against Arca’s position is that it undermines the very purpose of the REIBP – to simplify the tax process and provide predictability. By attempting to reinstate obligations that the law expressly absorbed, the agency is effectively negating the benefits of the special regime. The omission of 2023 in Article 47 is not an exclusion, but a logical consequence of the fact that the period was already settled and extended for declaration purposes following the law’s enactment on August 7, 2024.
Ultimately, the debate centers on a fundamental question of statutory interpretation. Is Arca justified in prioritizing specific clauses over the overarching intent of the law? Critics argue that the agency’s approach is not only legally unsound but also borders on confiscatory, imposing an unjustified financial burden on taxpayers who acted in good faith by opting into the REIBP. Demanding advanced payments on an already consolidated basis, they contend, fundamentally misrepresents the fiscal relief objective that inspired the REIBP, transforming a simplification regime into an additional and unjustified charge for the taxpayer.
