Hola a Todos!
This is Augusto Corallo from Mexico City.
SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT TO REPORT 09/2015 (Part III)
Moreover, the SAT´s information system in different cases after the field clarification, kept reporting the same omission, causing taxpayers in some cases could not conclude contracts with the Federal Public Administration or could not perform the procedure they required before the tax or customs[1] authorities, because of the time it took to update the system -Periods over a month- even though taxpayers were already current in their tax obligations.
Also, in cases reported to this Office shows that the various authorities of SAT do not notify taxpayers the status that their processes hold, that is to say, they do not emit response that the clarification has been solved as established in the third paragraph of rule 2.1.35.of the RMF for 2015, noting that in the cases set out in that paragraph –inconsistencies related to the situation in the register of the RFC or filing with which the taxpayer does not agree- do not state the term in which the authority must give an answer to the clarification presented by the taxpayers, situation that leaves them in a state of legal uncertainty.
It should be emphasized that the assumptions made in the last paragraph of the rule commented –inconsistencies related with tax credits or the granting of security with which the taxpayer do not agree- a deadline of three days is indicated for the authority to solve clarifications entered by taxpayers, a fact that generates unequal treatment with respect to those that are located in any of the situations listed in the third paragraph, for which a period of response is not fixed.
Now, it does not go unnoticed that in some cases the authority by submit its report to this Office, said that the application from which the Opinion on Fiscal Obligation Compliance is issued eventually presents flaws or inconsistencies, same as said, can be addressed.
