They oblige AFIP to inform which companies will benefit from the tax exemptions

The Federal Contentious-Administrative Chamber confirmed the judgment for the first time ordering the Federal Administration of Public Revenues (AFIP) to comply with the resolution of Agency for Access to Public Information who ordered him to provide data to companies beneficiaries of resources that the State failed to collect by applying the tax customs regime.

This is a sentence that promotes transparency of information key to knowing who benefits from differential treatment in paying taxes, and that is equivalent to the jurisprudential standard in the case of “CIPPEC”, where the Supreme Court forced the Ministry of Social Development to make public the list of people beneficiaries of transfers and/or subsidies granted as “social assistance to the people”. On that occasion, he said this information promotes a transcendental public interest: the ability to control the management of public funds.

Every year, Argentina stopped collecting approximately 1 billion 587,258 million pesos for tax costs, amount representing between 2 and 3% of Gross Domestic Product and around 12% of public spending. Like most countries in the regioninformation about costs associated with tax expenditures is scarce. These are not discussed or reviewed in depth as is usually done with direct transfers (such as Universal Allowance for Children, or other social spending policies), their pros and cons are not adequately explained. , and their benefits are not evaluated. results and impact. For this reason, in many cases, they result in financial privileges that eliminate resources that the State can invest in guaranteeing rights.

In November 2018 the Civil Society for Equality and Justice (ACIJ) requested from the Federal Administration of Public Revenues (AFIP) information regarding the tax benefits provided in Law No. and computing Tax on Credits and Debits and productive investments as payments to the Income Tax account). In response to this request, AFIP provided aggregate amounts and denied information to benefit companies and broken down amountbased on tax secrecy.

Faced with responding to the denial from AFIP, the ACIJ filed a claim under the terms of article 15 of Law No. 27,275 before the Agency for Access to Public Information (AAIP), which admitted the claim (by resolution 95/19) to consider that it is not appropriate to apply tax secrecy because it is information of public interest related to the management of state resources that, in turn, is contemplated in the active transparency obligations of Law No. 27,275. It also takes into account that, by receiving differential tax treatment, it can be assumed that the information was delivered by companies with the knowledge that will be subject to the publicity regime of state governance reason why the public interest involved in the case should prevail over the private interest of the beneficiary companies. To this end, it applied the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation to “CIPPEC”, where the principle of maximum disclosure is granted privilege in a case where it intends to access the personal data of those who have received direct transfer of social protection.

AFIP failed to comply with the AAIP resolution and did not deliver the information. For this reason, ACIJ filed an injunction requesting compliance with that law by the Agency. Although in December 2019, Justice ordered AFIP to comply with the resolution, it decided to appeal the judgment insisting on the application of fiscal secrecy. By decision dated May 26, 2022, the House rejected AFIP’s appeal and, referring to the Agency’s arguments, ordered it to provide the necessary information.

In its decision, the House focused on clarifying whether there is — or is not — a duty governing AFIP to comply with the AAIP resolution, as long as it imposes an obligation to disclose the identity of the beneficiary companies and the individual value. of its benefits. In this regard, it considers that AFIP, as a subject obliged to provide public information in accordance with Law No. 27,275, could no longer question the validity of AAIP’s action in court to challenge its compliance and deny the information, as it would be detrimental to the contrary legal procedures designed to access public information.

Information relating to transfers of state funds -as requested by the ACIJ in this case- is clearly in the public interest and essential for adequate analysis, social control and debate by citizens. However, despite their high financial cost, tax expenditures are still defined and carried out in an ambiguous manner, with little participation and behind society. Having data on tax benefits is essential to move towards a fair and equitable tax structure.