With a delay of 5 yearsthe Supreme Court of Justice of the nation upheld the Section II ruling of the Federal Chamber of Social Security in the “Calderón, Carlos Héctor” case, in which he declared the income tax deduction unconstitutional on the pensioner’s assets, regardless of his or her vulnerability or state of health.
So the High Court rejected the extraordinary appeal presented by ANSeSconsidering that the “Calderón” sentence of Section II it was not arbitraryit was not institutionally serious or contrary to its jurisprudence (CPCCN art. 280), according to what the former president of Section II and of the Social Security Chamber, Luis Herrero, told Clarín.
The Section II ruling is from 2017 and was signed by judges Luis Herrero and Norma Carmen Dorado.
“In doing so, the Court validated the advanced criteria applied by the Social Security Chamber in the Calderón case, consisting in declaring unconstitutional the juridical norm that registered the pensioner’s assets with said tax (art. 79 sub. “c” of Law 20.628), and not its application to the case in point, as had been decided by the one in the previous “García María Isabel” and for reasons of illness and vulnerability”, added Luis Herrero.
The ratification of the Court benefits all retirees and retirees who have submitted a similar request.
Herrero also pointed this out “the social security jurisdiction should not apply the “García” sentence. to cases in which there is no vulnerability, old age or illness, but simply declaring the unconstitutionality of the tax for the benefit of all pensioners, as the Supreme Court of Justice of the nation has just ratified with a sentence of February 28, 2023” .
After the Section II ruling of the Social Security, the AFIP raised the non-taxable minimum of income for retirees and retirees and currently equals 8 minimum tasks ($58,665.43 x8 = $469,323.44) limiting the application of the discount of this tax to the sector.
However, the AFIP makes this clear “This specific deduction cannot be applied by subjects who receive income of a different nature than those indicatedhigher than the non-taxable profit for the period. Nor will it correspond to those who are obliged to pay personal wealth tax, unless this obligation arises exclusively from owning a property for a single residence.
NS
Source: Clarin
