Tax audit in Peru: When contradictions and inconsistencies invalidate tax authority’s assessments

Growing pressure to collect tax revenue has intensified audit activity in Peru. This has led to significant inconsistencies in the assessments of the Peruvian National Superintendence of Customs and Tax Administration (SUNAT). However, a recent ruling by the tax court demonstrates that legal coherence remains essential. The Ecovis consultants explain and evaluate the ruling.

In recent months, Peruvian taxpayers have experienced an unprecedented wave of tax audits. The aggressiveness of SUNAT’s verification procedures — particularly towards formal and compliant businesses — has reached levels not previously seen. This heightened scrutiny appears closely tied to the tax administration’s efforts to meet its ambitious revenue targets for fiscal year 2025.

While such goals may be fiscally justified, the means of achieving them must still respect fundamental legal principles. This was reinforced by tax tribunal decision no. 6435-12-2024, which invalidated an income tax adjustment on the grounds of logical inconsistency in the tax authority’s arguments.

Contradictory grounds for disallowance

The case at hand reveals a serious contradiction in SUNAT’s assessment. On one hand, the tax authority rejected the deduction of certain service expenses by asserting that the services had not been rendered (questioning item by item the evidentiary support). On the other hand, it also claimed that such services were not causally linked to the generation of taxable income, implicitly acknowledging their occurrence.

This double argument – both denying the transaction’s existence and simultaneously analysing its relevance – was found to be legally incoherent.

The tax tribunal ruled in favour of the taxpayer, concluding that the adjustment lacked a rational, non-contradictory foundation and therefore was “not in accordance with the law.” Consequently, it ordered the annulment of the challenged portion of the tax assessment.

We challenge inconsistent tax rulings or incorrect assessments by the Peruvian tax authorities for you.

Octavio Salazar Mesias, Partner, ECOVIS Peru, Lima, Peru

Legal framework and the principle of congruence

This ruling upholds the constitutional requirement that tax assessments and administrative actions observe the principle of congruence, meaning arguments must be coherent and logically structured. This principle has been recognised by the Peruvian Constitutional Court in case no. 00487-2022-PHC/TC, which affirmed that inconsistencies in administrative reasoning may result in violations of due process.

The tribunal’s decision adds to a growing body of precedents (e.g., resolutions nos. 0297-5-2017, 05788-8-2021 and 0366-11-2023) that stress the need for rational legal justification in tax controversies. These rulings remind both taxpayers and SUNAT that enforcement cannot disregard legal certainty in favour of collection efficiency.

Conclusion: towards balanced tax enforcement

The decision marks a key moment for the defence of legal rationality in tax audits. While fiscal pressure may drive more rigorous controls, contradictions in assessments cannot be tolerated. For both multinational and domestic taxpayers operating in Peru, this case reinforces the importance of challenging tax determinations that lack consistent logic or violate due process principles.

For further information please contact:

Octavio Salazar Mesias, Partner, ECOVIS Peru, Lima, Peru
Email: octavio.salazar@ecovis.com.pe