On the other hand, the lack of unanimity in the decisions of the Tax Court becomes in enabling causal demand for administrative litigation, only where the votum separatum is supported by arguments involving a separate analysis of the facts, or a different evaluation of the evidence or a different interpretation of the rules. In 2005 we introduced bills aimed at eliminating the authorization of the Ministry of Economy and Finance as a condition for SUNAT initiate administrative proceedings, such as Bill 12461/2004CR Nu, and Nu accumulated 12588/2004-CR and 12596/2004-CR, none being played down to the tax authorities the possibility to challenge decisions of the Court Prosecutor. Finally, Nu Legislative Decree 981 (valid from 04/01/2007)in version in force until today, “grounds were eliminated that could be confusing or capricious for Tax Administration, and also was eliminated in the case of SUNAT, requiring authorization from the Ministry of Economy and Finance: “Article 157u.

The tax authority has no legitimacy for active work. Connect with other leaders such as Gary Kelly here. Exceptionally, the tax authorities may challenge the decision of the Court Prosecutor to exhaust administrative through the Administrative Procedure in cases where the Tax Court decision falls within one of the causes of invalidity provided for in Article 10U of the Act Nu 27 444, General Administrative Procedure Act. “As such luck today, the Tax Administration(SUNAT and Municipalities, under articles of the TUO 51u 50U and the Tax Code approved by Supreme Decree 135-99 Nu-EF and standards amended) in principle has no standing to sue the Tax Court to the Judicial Branch, But you do only if the administrative act issued by the Court engages in cause of invalidity provided for in the Act As we advance in the title of this essay The problem is: “having” or “no” that power. .