2aS-70
NOT SUITABLE PROFF TO DEMONSTRATE THE TAX DOMICILE OF THE PLAINTIFF AS OF THE DATE OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE CLAIM. ITS CONSTITUTED BY THE REPORT THAT CONTAINS ONLY THE NAME OF THE PLAINTIFF, ITS FEDERAL TAXPAYER REGISTRY AND ITS TAX DOMICILE, ISSUED BY A COMPETENT AUTHORITY OF THE TAX ADMINISTRATION SERVICE BY EXPRESS REQUEST OF AN AUTHORITY OF THE INSTITUTE FOR SECURITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES FOR STATE WORKERS.- In light of the jurisprudence thesis VI-J-2aS-64 of this Second Section, the report that contains only the name of the actor, its Federal Taxpayer Registry and tax domicile, without said address being referenced at the date in which the plaintiff filed the annulment claim, does not constitute a suitable proof to demonstrate the pretention of the authority in the sense that the Regional Chamber is knowing of a trial which lacks of territorial jurisdiction, even when said report has been provided by the corresponding authority, as it is a Local Administration of Taxpayer Services of the Tax Administration Service, at the express request of the Institute for Security and Social Services for State Workers, since the mentioned report only proves, with the information it contains, the tax domicile of the plaintiff as of the date in which said report was issued, taking into account that article 34 of the Organic Law of this Court establishes, in its first paragraph, that the Regional Chambers will know of the trials for reason of territory attending the place in which the plaintiff’s tax residence is located, and in its last paragraph establishes that the residence included at the claim will be presumed as the tax residence, unless that the defendant proofs otherwise, from this is understood that what it must demonstrate if the tax residence of the plaintiff as of the date of the presentation of the claim, and therefore, if the proof that the person presenting the incident offers consists in the report in question, with which it is not demonstrated the extent it pretends, the incident must be considered as unfounded of incompetence for prevailing the presumption established in the last paragraph of the article mentioned above.
(Thesis of case law approved by agreement G/S2/7/2015)
PRECEDENTS:
VII-P-2aS-651 Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction Incident No. 1100/14-17-01-3/786/14-S2-06-06.-Solved by the Second Section of the Superior Chamber of the Federal Court of Tax and Administrative Justice, in session of August 14, 2014, by unanimity of 5 votes in favor: Reporting Judge: Juan Ángel Chávez Ramírez.- Secretary: Lic. José Luis Reyes Portillo. (Thesis approved in session of August 14, 2014)
R.T.F.J.F.A. Seventh Era. Year IV. No.41. December 2014. pg. 1007 VII-P-2aS-653 Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction Incident No. 2722/14-17-10-7/897/14-S2-09-06.- Solved by the Second Section of the Superior Chamber of the Federal Court of Tax and Administrative Justice, in session of August 21, 2014, by unanimity of 5 votes in favor: Reporting Judge: Juan Ángel Chávez Ramírez.- Secretary: Lic. José Luis Reyes Portillo. (Thesis approved in session of August 21, 2014) R.T.F.J.F.A. Seventh Era. Year IV. No.41. December 2014. pg. 1007 VII-P-2aS-654 Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction Incident No. 7234/14-17-01-8/1184/14-S2-10-06.-Solved by the Second Section of the Superior Chamber of the Federal Court of Tax and Administrative Justice, in session of September 4, 2014, by unanimit