Mediante la Primera Disposición Complementaria Transitoria del Decreto Legislativo No.
1421 (PDCT), publicado en septiembre de 2018, se reguló legislativamente el inicio del
plazo de prescripción de la acción para exigir el cobro de las deudas tributarias, sobre
deudas tributarias cuyo plazo de prescripción en mención ocurrió hasta el 1 de enero de
2012.
La entrada en vigencia de la PDCT generó -en su momento y hasta la fecha- discusión
en diversos foros acerca de si se infringió o no diversas disposiciones, constitucionales
y legales, asociadas -principalmente- a la aplicación correcta de la ley en el tiempo y a
la seguridad jurídica.
Esta controversia, en el plano judicial, se resolvió con la sentencia No. 556/2020, emitida
por el Tribunal Constitucional, en la que se analizó la declaración de inconstitucionalidad
de la PDCT.
En el presente trabajo, sobre la base previa del análisis de los principales aspectos
jurídicos involucrados en la materia, se advertirá si la sentencia 556/2020 incurre en
errores al realizar el análisis jurídico constitucional del principio de irretroactividad de las
normas tributarias. Así, de un lado, apreciaremos si ha considerado en su análisis las
decisiones previas sobre tal principio, afectando la predictibilidad que debe tener todo
órgano del Estado que resuelve controversias y, con ello, la seguridad jurídica. Y, por
otro lado, si al disponer la aplicación de la PDCT a situaciones que a su entrada en
vigencia constituían hechos consumados, se ha generado dos (2) efectos
inconstitucionales: (i) que la prescripción ya consumada se haya reiniciado; y, (ii) que,
al día de hoy, el régimen de prescripción extintiva en materia tributaria sea
imprescriptible. / By means of the First Transitory Complementary Provision of Legislative Decree No.
1421 (PDCT by its acronym in Spanish), published in September 2018, the beginning of
the statute of limitations period of the action to demand the collection of tax debts was
legislatively regulated, on tax debts whose statute of limitations period in mention
occurred until January 1, 2012.
The entry into force of the PDCT generated -at the time and to date- discussion in various
forums as to whether or not it violated various constitutional and legal provisions, mainly
associated with the correct application of the law in time and legal certainty.
This controversy, at the judicial level, was resolved with Ruling No. 556/2020, issued by
the Constitutional Court, which analyzed the declaration of unconstitutionality of the
PDCT.
In this paper, based on a previous analysis of the main legal aspects involved in the
matter, it will be noted whether Ruling 556/2020 incurs in errors when carrying out the
constitutional legal analysis of the principle of non-retroactivity of tax rules. Thus, on the
one hand, we will appreciate whether it has considered in its analysis the previous
decisions on such principle, affecting the predictability that every State body that resolves
controversies must have and, thus, legal certainty. And, on the other hand, if by providing
for the application of the PDCT to situations that upon its entry into force constituted
consummated facts, two (2) unconstitutional effects have been generated: (i) that the
statute of limitations already consummated has been reinitiated; and, (ii) that, as of today,
the extinctive statute of limitations regime in tax matters is imprescriptible.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:PUCP/oai:tesis.pucp.edu.pe:20.500.12404/22437 |
| Date | 25 May 2022 |
| Creators | Bardales Castro, Percy Enrique |
| Contributors | Díaz Colchado, Juan Carlos |
| Publisher | Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, PE |
| Source Sets | Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú |
| Language | Spanish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/pe/ |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds