The RJT (Tax Case Law Report, by its Spanish acronym) is a monthly publication featuring a curated selection of decisions from the Chilean Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court that we consider relevant due to their subject matter, legal reasoning, and practical implications.
In this third edition of the year, RJT covers five decisions issued during March 2026 on:
(1) the duty of the Tax and Customs Courts (TTAs) to provide reasoned final judgments;
(2) the statutory criteria governing amendments to real estate tax valuations;
(3) the timing for raising defenses in tax collection proceedings before the Treasury Service (TGR);
(4) tax loss carryforwards and the effects of pending litigation concerning prior tax years; and
(5) presumptive assessment of the tax base under section 35 of the Income Tax Law.
___
___
___
___
Court of Appeals of Santiago, March 9, 2026
Case No. 487-2025 | Duty to state reasons in TTA judgments | Due process | Principle of non-refusal to adjudicate | Nature of tax claim proceedings
Outcome: First-instance judgment set aside ex officio
Key holding. The Court held that the TTA must rule on all issues raised and submitted to evidence, even if it upheld the claim based on formal defects in the administrative act.
Dispute. The taxpayer challenged an SII resolution that amended its tax loss, alleging both formal defects and the substantive validity of the reported loss. The SII defended the legality of the resolution and argued that prior litigation concerning the transactions underlying the loss carryforward was relevant to the case. Although the TTA set points of proof on both form and substance, it upheld the claim only on formal grounds and did not reach the merits.
Decision. The Court of Appeals set aside the TTA judgment ex officio and ordered a new decision addressing all claims raised in the case, based on the following considerations:
Tax claim as full judicial review. The TTA was required to review the challenged act in full and resolve all issues defining the scope of the dispute.
Omission of disputed issues. The judgment should have addressed not only the formal defects of the administrative act, but also the validity of the tax loss and the relevance of the prior litigation invoked by the SII.
Duty to adjudicate and effective judicial protection. By omitting a ruling on substantive issues, the judgment lacked the reasoning required by law and prevented proper appellate review.
Relevance. This decision reinforces the TTAs’ duty to rule on the issues actually litigated, especially where they themselves have set points of proof on those matters. Its value lies in requiring consistency between the evidentiary order and the final judgment. That said, its application in this case is debatable, since the TTA did explain why it did not reach the merits: it found formal defects that, in its view, invalidated the administrative act.
___
___
___
___
___
Supreme Court, March 18, 2026
Case No. 17490-2024 | Real Estate Tax | Amendment of assessed value | Valuation criteria
Outcome: In favor of the taxpayer
Key holding. In valuing real estate for tax purposes, the SII must follow the objective criteria set out in section 4(2) of Law No. 17,235: location, urban infrastructure, and available amenities. A method based on comparisons with other properties and transaction values cannot be upheld.
Dispute. The taxpayer filed a disciplinary complaint (recurso de queja) against the members of the Special Real Estate Appeals Tribunal after that tribunal reversed a TTA judgment that had set aside the reassessment of a shopping center in Maipú. The issue was whether the appellate tribunal could uphold the increased assessed value based on a comparative method not contemplated by law and without explaining how the SII had supported that approach.
Decision. The Supreme Court upheld the disciplinary complaint, set aside the appellate decision, and confirmed the first-instance judgment ordering a recalculation of the property’s assessed value. The decision rests on two main grounds:
Valuation criteria. Although the appellate tribunal identified section 4(2) of Law No. 17,235 as the applicable rule, it upheld the wrong method by relying on comparisons with similar properties and their transaction values. The Court held that the assessment must be based on the statutory criteria, not on a comparative mechanism not provided for by law.
Lack of reasoning. The appellate tribunal upheld the SII’s position without explaining what evidence supported that conclusion. Nor did it identify the background used for the comparison, making it impossible to reconstruct the reasoning behind the increase.
___
___
___
___
___
Court of Appeals of Valdivia, March 24, 2026
Case No. 227-2026 | Treasury (TGR) | Tax collection proceedings | Time limit to oppose enforcement | Seizure
Outcome: In favor of the taxpayer
Key holding. In tax collection proceedings, the debtor may raise defenses within ten business days from service of the demand for payment. The fact that the law allows the debtor to wait until the first seizure is an additional benefit, not an obligation. Filing earlier therefore cannot justify dismissal.
Dispute. In tax collection proceedings, the debtor raised a statute of limitations defense within ten business days of being served with the demand for payment. The TGR official acting as examining judge dismissed it as inadmissible, arguing that the time limit only began to run once the first seizure had been carried out. The debtor appealed and requested a ruling on the merits of the defense.
Decision. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered the TGR examining judge to rule on the merits of the statute of limitations defense, based on the following considerations:
Timing of the defense. Under section 176(1) of the Tax Code, the debtor may oppose enforcement within ten business days from service of the demand for payment. This is reinforced by section 462 of the Code of Civil Procedure, under which the time limit runs from the day of service.
Time limit in the debtor’s favor. The longer period under section 171 of the Tax Code operates for the debtor’s benefit and may therefore be waived.
___
___
___
___
Court of Appeals of Puerto Montt, March 10, 2026
Case No. 50-2023 | Tax losses from prior years | Pending prior litigation | Adjustment of carryforward balances
Outcome: Both parties’ appeals dismissed
Key holding. The determination of a tax loss must be based on the evidence established in the case. It is not legally acceptable to recognize amounts that depend on uncertain outcomes in other pending proceedings, nor to leave reservations of rights tied to those future decisions. Unless prior-year balances are effectively modified, the court must decide on the basis of the current record.
Dispute. The taxpayer argued that the loss carryforward used in the disputed year could change depending on what the Supreme Court might decide in other pending cases concerning prior tax years. It therefore sought a judgment that would not treat those balances as final or prevent future adjustments. The SII, in turn, alleged errors in the assessment of the evidence.
Decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed the appealed judgment on the following grounds:
No breach of the rules on assessment of evidence. The SII’s challenge sought to replace the trial court’s factual assessment rather than show a real breach of the applicable evidentiary standards.
No reservation of rights. It is not legally acceptable to recognize amounts dependent on uncertain outcomes in other cases or to leave open a reservation for possible future adjustments. The Court added that if prior carryforward balances are effectively modified in other proceedings, the appropriate procedural mechanisms must then be used to revisit their effects on later tax years.
___
___
___
___
Supreme Court, March 30, 2026
Case No. 5501-2020 | Section 35 of the Income Tax Law | Presumptive tax base assessment | First Category Tax
Outcome: In favor of the SII
Key holding. The SII’s power to determine the tax base presumptively under article 35 of the Income Tax Law is not limited to cases where the taxpayer fails to appear or fails to provide supporting records. It also applies where, despite appearing, the records submitted are insufficient to justify the tax position under review.
Dispute. The taxpayer filed an appeal on points of law against a judgment of the Arica Court of Appeal, which had reversed the TTA’s earlier decision upholding a tax claim against an assessment issued under article 35. The taxpayer argued that this provision only applies where the taxpayer fails to act during the audit or fails to provide records, which was not the case because it had appeared and participated in the audit.
Decision. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on points of law on the following grounds:
Scope of article 35. The SII may rely on this power not only where the taxpayer fails to act or fails to provide sufficient records, but also whenever taxable income cannot be clearly and reliably determined for any other reason. Mere appearance during the audit is not enough to rule out its application.
Insufficient evidence. The use of article 35 was justified by the insufficiency of the records provided by the taxpayer to explain the origin of the funds questioned by the SII.
___
___
