tlc@tlcasociados.com.mx

El Amparo contra la Contabilidad Electrónica:

El Amparo contra la Contabilidad Electrónica:

Como es de todos conocido, 2014 significó un año de grandes cambios en materia fiscal, sobre todo con la implementación de nuevos sistemas o herramientas de fiscalización por parte del Servicio de Administración Tributaria, las cuales se tradujeron en una loza demasiado pesada para los contribuyentes, e inclusive legalidad dudosa.

Una de estas nuevas obligaciones impuestas a los contribuyentes que entraron en vigor con las reformas al Código Fiscal de la Federación el 01 de enero de 2014 lo es la “Contabilidad Electrónica”, obligación sobre la cual, muchos contribuyentes a nivel nacional, optaron por promover un juicio de garantías, en la modalidad del Juicio de Amparo Indirecto, contra esta nueva disposición que constreñía a todos los contribuyentes que se encontraban obligados a llevar una contabilidad, a conservarla en forma electrónica y su posterior envío a la autoridad fiscal en forma mensual.

Para alivio de los contribuyentes, la Segunda Sala de la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación resolvió en la mayoría de los casos, otorgar a quienes hubiesen promovido su demanda de amparo, la suspensión de la obligación de cumplir con la “Contabilidad Electrónica”, así como para el también controvertido “Buzón Tributario”.

La medida concedida a los contribuyentes amparados, trajo consigo una problemática para aquellas empresas que requerían del cumplimiento de dicha obligación para gozar de ciertos beneficios, como es el caso de las empresas Certificadas en IVA e IEPS que optaron por esta medida.

Ahora bien, como conocerán las empresas que se ubican en este supuesto, lo anterior no fue impedimento para que el Servicio de Administración Tributaria, a través de sus Administraciones de Certificación y Asuntos Internacionales de Auditoría de Comercio Exterior, otorgaran las certificaciones a las empresas promoventes, al tener por cumplida su obligación de llevar la contabilidad en medios electrónicos e ingresarla mensualmente a través del portal del SAT, de conformidad con el artículo 28, fracciones III y IV, del Código y las reglas 2.8.1.6 y 2.8.1.7 de la RMF, prevista en la regla 7.1.1 de las Reglas de Generales de Comercio Exterior para 2016.

Declaración de constitucionalidad de la Contabilidad Electrónica y su cumplimiento:

Para todas las empresas que cuentan con Registro en el Esquema de Certificación de Empresas en materia de IVA e IEPS, y que optaron por acudir a la protección del amparo, para efecto de suspender su obligación de ingresar la contabilidad electrónica, deviene de vital importancia conocer el estado procesal que guarda dicho proceso jurisdiccional, puesto que, desde el mes de julio del presente año la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación declara constitucional contabilidad electrónica.

Por lo anterior, la recomendación para nuestros clientes y usuarios, de mantenerse informados sobre el estado procesal que guardan sus respectivos juicios de amparo, para que tengan plena certeza de mantenerse dentro del margen de cumplimiento en ese requisito general específico, y en consecuencia mantener la Certificación en la modalidad IVA e IEPS.

Para más información o comentarios sobre esta publicación contacte a:

División legal

yadira@www.tlcasociados.com.mx

Prohibida la reproducción parcial o total. Todos los derechos reservados de TLC Asociados, S.C. El contenido del presente artículo no constituye una consulta particular y por lo tanto TLC Asociados, S.C., su equipo y su autor, no asumen responsabilidad alguna de la interpretación o aplicación que el lector o destinatario le pueda dar.

Amparo against Electronic Accounting:

As it is known by everyone, 2014 was a year of great changes in the fiscal matter, especially with the implementation of new systems or audit tools by the Tax Administration Service, which translated into a very heavy burden for the taxpayers, also being of questionable legality.

One of these new obligations imposed on the taxpayers that took effect with the reforms to the Fiscal Code of the Federation on January 1st, 2014, is the “Electronic Accounting”, obligation on which many taxpayers, nationally, opted to promote a guarantee trial, in the modality of Indirect “Amparo” Trial, against this new disposition that constrained all the taxpayers that were obligated to handle accounting, to keep it electronically, and send it monthly to the tax authority.

For the relief of the taxpayers, the Second Chamber of the Nation´s Supreme Court of Justice solved in the majority of the cases, to grant to those who submitted their amparo lawsuit, the suspension of the obligation to comply with the “Electronic Accounting”, as well as for the controversial “Tax Mailbox”.

The measure granted to the protected taxpayers, brought with it a problematic for those companies that required the compliance of such obligation to have certain benefits, as is the case of the companies Certified in VAT and STPS that opted for this measure.

Now, as the companies found in this scenario know, the previously mentioned was no obstacle for the Tax Administration Service, through its Certification Administration and International Affairs of Foreign Trade Audit Administration , to grant the certifications to submitting companies, given that they had complied their obligation to handle the accounting in electronic means and monthly entering it through the SAT´s portal, according to the article 28, sections III and IV, of the Code and the rules 2.8.1.6 and 2.8.1.7 of the RMF, stated in the rule 7.1.1 of the Foreign Trade General Rules for 2016.

Declaration of constitutionality of the Electronic Accounting and its compliance:

For all the companies that have a Registry in the Certification of Companies Scheme in the VAT and STPS matter, and that opted to search for the amparo´s protection for the purpose of suspending their obligation of entering the electronic accounting, it is of great importance to know the procedural status that such legal proceedings have, from July of this year the Nation’s Supreme Court of Justice declared the electronic accounting as constitutional.

For the previously mentioned, the recommendation to our clients and users, is to be informed about the procedural status that their respective amparo trials have in order for them to have total certainty of being within the compliance margin in this general specific requirement, and as a result maintaining the Certification in the VAT and STPS modality.

For more information or comments about this publication, contact:

Legal Division

yadira@www.tlcasociados.com.mx

Partial or total reproduction is prohibited. All rights reserved to TLC Asociados, S.C. The content of this article is not a private consultation, therefore, TLC Asociados, S.C., and its team and author, are not responsible for any interpretation or use that the reader or recipient could give to it.

Company certified in VAT and STPS, do you know the status that your ‘Amparo’ Trial against the Electronic Accounting has?

Amparo against Electronic Accounting:

As it is known by everyone, 2014 was a year of great changes in the fiscal matter, especially with the implementation of new systems or audit tools by the Tax Administration Service, which translated into a very heavy burden for the taxpayers, also being of questionable legality.

One of these new obligations imposed on the taxpayers that took effect with the reforms to the Fiscal Code of the Federation on January 1st, 2014, is the “Electronic Accounting”, obligation on which many taxpayers, nationally, opted to promote a guarantee trial, in the modality of Indirect “Amparo” Trial, against this new disposition that constrained all the taxpayers that were obligated to handle accounting, to keep it electronically, and send it monthly to the tax authority.

For the relief of the taxpayers, the Second Chamber of the Nation´s Supreme Court of Justice solved in the majority of the cases, to grant to those who submitted their amparo lawsuit, the suspension of the obligation to comply with the “Electronic Accounting”, as well as for the controversial “Tax Mailbox”.

The measure granted to the protected taxpayers, brought with it a problematic for those companies that required the compliance of such obligation to have certain benefits, as is the case of the companies Certified in VAT and STPS that opted for this measure.

Now, as the companies found in this scenario know, the previously mentioned was no obstacle for the Tax Administration Service, through its Certification Administration and International Affairs of Foreign Trade Audit Administration , to grant the certifications to submitting companies, given that they had complied their obligation to handle the accounting in electronic means and monthly entering it through the SAT´s portal, according to the article 28, sections III and IV, of the Code and the rules 2.8.1.6 and 2.8.1.7 of the RMF, stated in the rule 7.1.1 of the Foreign Trade General Rules for 2016.

Declaration of constitutionality of the Electronic Accounting and its compliance:

For all the companies that have a Registry in the Certification of Companies Scheme in the VAT and STPS matter, and that opted to search for the amparo´s protection for the purpose of suspending their obligation of entering the electronic accounting, it is of great importance to know the procedural status that such legal proceedings have, from July of this year the Nation´s Supreme Court of Justice declared the electronic accounting as constitutional.

For the previously mentioned, the recommendation to our clients and users, is to be informed about the procedural status that their respective amparo trials have in order for them to have total certainty of being within the compliance margin in this general specific requirement, and as a result maintaining the Certification in the VAT and STPS modality.

For more information or comments about this publication, contact:

Legal Division

yadira@www.tlcasociados.com.mx

Partial or total reproduction is prohibited. All rights reserved to TLC Asociados, S.C. The content of this article is not a private consultation, therefore, TLC Asociados, S.C., and its team and author, are not responsible for any interpretation or use that the reader or recipient could give to it.

Nuestros servicios