RJT (Tax Case Law Report) is a monthly publication featuring a curated selection of decisions from the Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court that we consider relevant due to their subject matter, legal reasoning, and practical implications. In this second edition, RJT covers decisions on:
(1) a minority approach holding that the Regional Treasurer’s Office (Juez Sustanciador, TGR) does not exercise judicial jurisdiction in tax collection proceedings; and
(2) the tax authority’s duty of confidentiality over audit/enforcement materials (tax secrecy vs. access to information).
s
Court of Appeals of San Miguel, February 3, 2026
Case No. 122-2025 | Recurso de hecho (complaint appeal) | Tax collection proceedings | TGR | Administrative nature of the procedure
Outcome: In favor of the Treasury (TGR).
Key holding. The initial stage of statutory tax collection before the Treasury is administrative, and the Regional Treasurer’s Office does not exercise judicial jurisdiction. Accordingly, a civil appeal is not available at that stage.
Dispute. The Regional Treasurer declared inadmissible an appeal filed against a decision dismissing a motion for abandonment of proceedings. The taxpayer then filed a recurso de hecho before the San Miguel Court of Appeals.
Decision. The Court dismissed the recurso de hecho and upheld the refusal to grant the appeal. The decision is based on the following:
Administrative stage before the Treasury (TGR). The first phase is administrative; therefore, the Examining Officer does not perform judicial activity, since there is no proper lawsuit or controversy.
Even assuming jurisdiction, no appeal lies. Even if this stage were deemed jurisdictional, a decision rejecting abandonment does not meet the criteria for appealability under the Civil Procedure, and would therefore remain non-appealable.
Dissent. A dissenting member would have granted the complaint appeal, holding that the Regional Treasurer does exercise jurisdiction, allowing supplementary application of the Civil Procedure, and that the abandonment decision could establish permanent rights and should be appealable.
Significance. This decision departs from the prevailing case law, which tends to recognize a jurisdictional character to the Regional Treasurer’s role at this stage. In February 2026 alone, other Courts of Appeal reaffirmed the majority approach, including a decision from the San Miguel Court of Appeals (Temuco Case No. 1850-2025; Santiago Case No. 534-2025; San Miguel Case No. 112-2025).
a.1
Santiago Court of Appeals, February 5, 2026
Case No. 732-2024 | Illegality claim | Transparency Act | Anti-Avoidance Committee | Tax secrecy
Outcome: In favor of the tax authority.
Key holding. Minutes and internal communications of the Anti-Avoidance Committee, insofar as they relate to audit/enforcement actions aimed at determining tax liabilities or sanctioning a taxpayer, are covered by tax secrecy. Accordingly, they fall within the statutory exemption that allows the SII to deny disclosure in whole or in part.
Dispute. A taxpayer requested access to the Committee’s “minutes, memos, and emails” reflecting the debate and grounds for the SII’s decision to initiate an anti-avoidance (elusion) declaration procedure. The SII denied disclosure based on confidentiality grounds. The Council for Transparency (Consejo para la Transparencia, CPLT) upheld the taxpayer’s request and ordered disclosure subject to redactions (personal data and third-party information). The SII filed an illegality claim against the CPLT decision.
Decision. The Court upheld the SII’s claim, overturned the CPLT decision, and denied disclosure. While the Court rejected the SII’s arguments based on third-party rights (finding the CPLT’s redaction/divisibility measures sufficient) and on national interest (for lack of evidence), it upheld the claim on the following grounds:
Classification by purpose and function (not by format). The analysis must focus on the content and purpose of the requested materials. Because they concern deliberations and background elements inherent to an audit/enforcement process aimed at determining liabilities or imposing sanctions, they are confidential.
Confidentiality of the audit process and limits of redaction. The duty of confidentiality is not limited to protecting third parties; it extends to the audit/enforcement process itself. Redaction is therefore not enough: even after removing third-party data, the documents would still reveal protected audit/enforcement content.
A.2
