A fiscal discrepancy faces these days Manfred Paulmann Koepfer, Horst's eldest, controller and chairman of the Cencosud group. Together with his legal advisors, he has launched a new strategy to resolve its differences with the Internal Revenue Service (SII).
On January 11, SII Santiago Oriente Regional Director Christian Soto received the former vice president of the retail holding company that participated in the meeting accompanied by his legal advisors Gonzalo Schmidt and Joaquin Urra, a partner in the Department of Tax Services of PwC Chile. Tax and legal counsel for the auditor, respectively.
The reason for the hearing, as recorded in the Lobby Law Register, was to address "RAF proceedings". As explained by the SII through an informative guide, the Audit Law Review (RAF) is an available means for the taxpayer to request from the SII, generally formally pronounced, before filing a legal claim, in the correction of defects or errors incurred in the institution's supervisory actions.
In this case, the discrepancy arises because, according to Paulmann Koepf, the IRS must authorize a tax refund. However, the authority has been intransigent at the request of the taxpayer.
Although the amount in question is not possible due to the restrictions that the law imposes on the SII in its reserve duty, it has been found that Paulmann's defense is to avoid a conflict that results in the Tax and Customs Courts, and that it may take years processing.
As it turned out, the conflict between Paulmann and the SII should be resolved during the course of this year on the administrative route. This is considered if the hearing was held a few days after the first submission of their statements to the authority.
For experts on tax divergences, today a trial in a Tax Court and Customs can wait between three or four years to have only one trial in the first instance.
But the outcome in the first instance does not predict the end of the conflict. In fact, if the taxpayer is doing well in general, the SII is common to appeal, citing the interest of the treasury and litigation is transferred to the Court of Appeals. Here you can spend up to four more years of processing.
In addition, the controversy may end in the Supreme Court, where another four years may pass.
In contrast, in the new cases of tax justice can be extended to six years maximum.