Simplified Sworn Tax Return Regime Approved by the Fiscal Innocence Law

Analysis of the Simplified Sworn Tax Return Regime Approved by the Fiscal Innocence Law

1. Preliminary considerations

Law No. 27,799, known as the “Fiscal Innocence Law,” introduces, through Chapter III, a Simplified Sworn Tax Return Regime for Income Tax (the “Regime”), applicable to individuals and undivided estates that meet certain asset and income thresholds.

The statute fits within a clear trend in contemporary legislation: replacing traditional ex post audit schemes with cooperative compliance models, supported by preexisting information held by the Tax Authority, and offering significant incentives to compliant taxpayers.

However, the Regime goes beyond mere operational simplification and introduces legal effects of enormous significance, such as the discharging effect of payment, the presumption of accuracy of prior tax returns, and the release from civil, criminal, and administrative actions.

2. Article 38: subjective scope, requirements, and optional nature

Article 38 of Law No. 27,799 defines the universe of eligible taxpayers, establishing that the Regime applies to resident individuals and undivided estates that voluntarily opt for the simplified modality implemented by the Revenue Collection and Customs Control Agency (ARCA).

2.1. Objective requirements

Access to the Regime is conditional upon the concurrent verification, as of December 31 of the preceding year and during the two prior fiscal years, of the following parameters:

  • Total income (taxable, exempt, or non-taxable): up to ARS 1,000,000,000.

  • Total assets, in Argentina and abroad: up to ARS 10,000,000,000.

  • Not qualifying as a large national taxpayer, according to the criteria of the tax authority.

These are high thresholds, placing the Regime far from a “small taxpayer” logic and closer to a mid-to-high segment with significant contributory capacity and a high level of fiscal information available to the authorities.

2.2. Regulatory powers and risk of expansion

The final paragraph authorizes the Executive Branch to establish additional requirements, raising an initial constitutional question: to what extent may regulations restrict access to this Regime without undermining the principle of statutory reservation in tax matters.

2.3. Retroactive exclusion

The statute provides that if ARCA verifies that the taxpayer did not meet the requirements at the time of opting in, it may exclude the taxpayer from the Regime and exercise its full audit and ex officio assessment powers with respect to non-statute-barred periods, applying penalties pursuant to Law No. 11,683.

This point introduces a significant risk: opting into the simplified regime does not operate as an automatic shield if objective noncompliance with the access conditions is established.

3. Article 39: the discharging effect of payment

Article 39 enshrines one of the pillars of the Regime: once the taxpayer accepts the tax return proposed by ARCA and makes payment, the formal and substantive Income Tax obligations for the relevant fiscal period are deemed fulfilled.

3.1. Scope of the discharging effect

The discharging effect operates broadly, definitively closing the tax legal relationship for the period, except in expressly provided cases:

  • Omission of income.

  • Claiming improper deductions.

  • Use of false or sham invoices or documents.

4. Article 40: absolute presumption of accuracy and criminal release

Article 40 introduces an iuris et de iure (irrebuttable) presumption of accuracy regarding Income Tax and VAT returns for non-statute-barred periods, which is likely the most disruptive aspect of the Regime.

4.1. Temporal and material scope

The presumption extends even to periods in which the taxpayer was not required to file tax returns, provided that the exception applicable to the last period filed under the simplified modality does not arise.

4.2. Significant discrepancy as a resolving condition

The presumption is lifted only if, upon challenging the return for the last period, ARCA detects a significant discrepancy, alternatively defined as:

  • Differences equal to or greater than 15%;

  • Exceeding the amount set forth in Article 1 of the Tax Criminal Regime;

  • Use of false invoices that have not been rectified or regularized.

4.3. Release from actions

The legal consequence is far-reaching: while the presumption applies, the taxpayer is released from all civil actions and from liability for tax and customs crimes and administrative offenses.

From a doctrinal perspective, this amounts to an ex ante conditional amnesty, structured not through a traditional regularization mechanism, but through a simplified compliance scheme validated by the Tax Authority itself.

5. Article 41: exclusion of statutory tax presumptions

Article 41 expressly excludes the application of subsection (f) of Article 18 of Law No. 11,683 (unjustified increase in assets) when assessing the existence of a significant discrepancy.

6. Article 42: extension of audits and their limits

Finally, Article 42 regulates the effects of a valid challenge to the simplified return, authorizing ARCA to extend audits to non-statute-barred periods and to apply penalties.

However, it establishes two situations of enhanced protection in which such extension does not apply:

  • Taxpayers who validly benefited from the Regime in prior periods, even if they are later excluded.

  • Taxpayers adhering to the Asset Regularization Regime under Law No. 27,743, with respect to the periods covered by that regime.

The provision thus consolidates a logic of watertight compartments, whereby each regularization or simplification regime generates its own closing effect.

7. Final reflection

The Simplified Sworn Tax Return Regime approved by the Fiscal Innocence Law redefines the relationship between the Tax Authority and the taxpayer, shifting the focus from permanent auditing to prior administrative validation, with legal incentives of maximum intensity.

Nevertheless, its proper implementation will require:

  • Prudent regulations;

  • Objective and verifiable criteria; and

  • Attentive judicial oversight, to prevent simplification from devolving into discretion.