PRESUMPTION OF OPERATIONS INEXISTENCE. MOTIVATION OF THE OFFICIAL LETTER WITH WHICH THE PROCEDURE REGULATED IN ARTICLE 69-B OF THE FEDERAL TAX CODE STARTS. – In accordance with what is established in the first paragraph of the article 69-B of the Federal Tax Code, when the tax authority detects that a taxpayer has been issuing tax receipts without having directly or indirectly, the assets, personnel, infrastructure or material capacity, to provide services or produce, commercialize or deliver the goods regarded in those receipts, or that said taxpayers are not located, the inexistence of the operations regarded in said tax receipts will be presumed; and in accordance with what the second paragraph of the aforementioned legal provision establishes, in said case, the authority will proceed to notify taxpayers who are in such situation, so they can state before the tax authority, whatever is in their best interest, and provide the documentation and information they consider relevant to refute the facts that led the authority to notify them. In those terms, in order to consider the constitutional requirement of motivation as properly fulfilled in the official letter through which the tax authority notifies the taxpayer who is in such situation, it is enough to specify the special circumstances, particular reasons, or immediate causes that allowed him to detect that the taxpayer had been issuing tax receipts without having directly or indirectly, the assets, personnel, infrastructure or material capacity to prove the pretended relative presumption (iuris tantum), established in the first paragraph of article 69-B of the Federal Tax Code; as it happens, when it points out the facts that it knew obtained from the domiciliary visit that it practiced to the taxpayer, as well as from the database search with which it has and has access to, specifying the tax receipt number, date, concept, amount, in favor of who it was issued, and the federal tax payers registry of said person; without being necessary to precise what must be understood by assets, personnel, infrastructure or material capacity; since at the time of issuing said official letter, the authority doesn’t have the certainty that the taxpayer effectively doesn’t have the elements to provide services or produce, commercialize or deliver the goods covered by the tax receipts in question, but from known facts carries out a logical deduction that allows you to presume the inexistence of the operations covered by said tax receipts; especially since the presumption it makes has the character of provisional truth, that is to say, it admits opposing evidence, and therefore, it is able to be destroyed with the evidence provided for that purpose by the taxpayer, within the period of fifteen days that the tax authority grants in respect of its fundamental right of prior hearing.
(Jurisprudential thesis approved by agreement G/33/2018)
VII-P-SS-346 Administrative Proceedings No. 1936/14-02-01-4/1054/15-PL-01-04.- Solved by the Plenary of the Superior Chamber of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice in its session of January 27 , 2016, by unanimity of 10 favorable votes. Reporting Judge: Carlos Chaurand Arzate.- Secretary: Lic. María Ozana Salazar Pérez.
(Thesis approved in session of March 16, 2016) F.C.A.J.J. Seventh Era. Year VI. No. 59. June 2016. p. 81 VIII-P-SS-228 Administrative Proceedings No. 472/