PERU Law and Practice Contributed by: Tania Quispe, Martín Ramos, Raquel Cabrera and Ramzi Benzaquen, +Value
scribed timeframe, the taxpayer must make the necessary payment or provide a bank guarantee.
lysed company must be the same as that used to express the financial statements for determining margins and ratios applying the TNMM, which in this case is US dollars (func - tional currency). 15. Foreign Payment Restrictions 15.1 Restrictions on Outbound Payments Relating to Uncontrolled Transactions Regarding the nature of the transaction, there is no restriction on the payment made; however, certain formalities must be complied with for its execution. Indeed, Article 3 of Law No 28194 (Law Against Evasion and for the Formalisation of the Economy) stipulates that obligations ful - filled through the payment of sums exceeding PEN2,000 or USD500 must be paid using pay - ment methods (deposits into accounts, drafts There is no restriction on payments abroad addi - tional to that indicated in 15.1 Restrictions on Outbound Payments Relating to Uncontrolled Transactions . 15.3 Effects of Other Countries’ Legal Restrictions Article 32-A of the ITL mandates the application of transfer pricing rules: • to transactions conducted by taxpayers with their related parties; • to transactions carried out from, to or through non-co-operative countries or territories or those with low or no taxation; or and fund transfers, among others). 15.2 Restrictions on Outbound Payments Relating to Controlled Transactions
14. Judicial Precedent 14.1 Judicial Precedent on Transfer Pricing Transfer pricing audits have significantly increased since 2016, leading to very few cases progressing from the Tax Court to the Judicial branch. As a result, there are limited judicial precedents concerning transfer pricing rules. 14.2 Significant Court Rulings Currently, there are three notable cassation deci - sions in the transfer pricing field. • Cassation No 26524-2023, related to the nul - lity of a resolution issued by SUNAT: during an audit in which the market value of a financing was analysed, SUNAT did not make a cor - rect comparison, since it did not take into account the debtor’s solvency and risk rating, which could have an impact on the setting of the interest rate to be charged. The Supreme Court indicated that by not considering these elements, the market value analysis deter- mined by SUNAT was not correct, so the resolution was revoked. • Cassation No 17824-2023, concerning the audit period for transfer pricing regulations: while the causes for suspension of the audit period refer only to the auditing of internal taxes, the Supreme Court indicated that this suspension also applies to transfer pricing regulations. • Cassation No 19941-2023, related to the adjustment to market value concerning the application of the functional currency: the Supreme Court noted that the currency used in the Transfer Pricing Reports of the ana -
307 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook