It has been publicly known that the General Directorate of Revenue (DGI), through the Auditor’s Technical Report of October 9, 2025, refers to a network of public servants and private individuals, publicly denounced by the Director General of Revenue in the media (investigations called “Operation Pandora”). The following irregularities have been detected in transactions involving payment slips: cancellation of tax returns, payment credits not applied to other Taxpayer Identification Numbers (RUCs), alterations to code 202-ITBMS, adjustments without supporting documentation, and adjustments supported by memorandum 210-02-099.
As a first point, we cannot overlook the following provisions of the Tax Procedure Code regarding tax credits and their assignment:
“Article 82. Tax Credits. Only those sums actually paid by the taxpayer to the tax authorities or arising from a tax benefit or incentive shall be recognized as tax credits.”
“Article 83. Assignment of Tax Credits. Liquid and enforceable tax credits of a taxpayer or responsible party may be assigned to other taxpayers or responsible parties, solely for the purpose of offsetting the assignee’s tax debts. For this purpose, the following requirements must be met:
- The taxpayer or responsible party must notify the Directorate General of Revenue of the assignment.
- Only credits administered by the Directorate General of Revenue may be assigned.
- The credits must be duly identified with respect to the type of tax, tax period, and amount.”
“Article 84. Non-existence or Illegitimacy of the assignment. The compensations made by the assignee in accordance with the provisions of the preceding article shall only have the effect of payment to the extent of the existence or legitimacy of the assigned credits. The Directorate General of Revenue shall not assume any responsibility for the assignment made, which in any case shall correspond exclusively to the respective assignor and assignee.
The rejection or challenge of the compensation due to the non-existence or illegitimacy of the assigned credit shall give rise to the personal liability of the assignor. Likewise, the assignor shall be jointly and severally liable with the assignee for the assigned credit.
It is established that the assignment of tax credits between merged or spun-off companies must be reported to the Directorate General of Revenue for them to have tax effects.”
Taxpayers who have been victims of the events related to Operation Pandora should primarily consider the criminal and administrative aspects in order to defend and/or protect the rights, assets, and/or values that have been violated.
The affected party, in the administrative sphere, could consider taking action before the General Directorate of Revenue (DGI), and the Tax Administrative Court (TAT):
(1) A request to the DGI to correct the data in the Single Taxpayer Registry (RUC), with the aim of restoring their account statement and correcting the legal representation and digital identity data in the E-Tax 2.0 system.
a) Request the removal of the alleged legal representative and the reinstatement of the correct one.
b) Request the reinstatement of the contact email address, replacing the incorrect one.
c) Provide the affected taxpayer’s corporate documentation that proves the validity of their correct legal representative and authorized agent.
(2) Request for rectification of factual errors, pursuant to article 299 of the Tax Procedure Code:
“Article 299. Correction of errors. The Tax Administration shall correct material, arithmetic or factual errors at any time, provided that there is no expiration or loss of competence due to prescription.
The rectification may be adopted ex officio or at the request of the interested party. In the latter case, if the request for rectification is rejected, it may be challenged through the procedure referred to in Article 176.”
(The underlined text is ours).
Arguing that the tax administration acted fraudulently, based on the DGI Auditor’s own Technical Report, which refers to a criminal network comprised of public servants and private individuals who accessed the E-Tax system to submit applications that, without the corresponding controls and audits, were approved within the system by other DGI officials who were part of the criminal group.
If the tax administration rejects the request, the taxpayer may file for reconsideration and/or appeal.
(3) Request for revocation of the administrative act, pursuant to article 300 of the Tax Procedure Code:
“Article 300. Revocation. The Tax Administration may, exceptionally, revoke its own acts in which it recognizes or declares rights in favor of taxpayers in the following cases:
- When they manifestly violate the law.
- When the act was issued without the authority to do so.
- When the beneficiary of the act has made false statements or provided false evidence to obtain a benefit.
- When the beneficiary of the act consents to its revocation.
- When it is verified that the act was issued with a calculation error, arithmetic error, or without a legal basis to support the granting of the right or benefit.
- When it is determined that circumstances have arisen after its issuance that demonstrate its impropriety.
- When so provided by a special rule.
The procedure will be initiated ex officio or at the request of the interested party, provided that the statute of limitations has not expired and even if the act is under appeal before the administrative or judicial courts, and the interested parties must be given a hearing.
The effects of the revocation will depend on the nature of each case.
The power to modify or revoke an administrative act ex officio does not prevent any interested third party from requesting it based on legal grounds.
Against the decision to modify or revoke an administrative act ex officio, interested parties may file the appeals granted by this Code.”
(The underlined text is ours).
It could be argued that: (a) The act manifestly violated the law; (b) False statements and evidence were used by alleged agents to obtain the release of the credit; and (c) There was an error in the justification and issuance of the adjustment.
If the tax administration rejects the request, the taxpayer may file for reconsideration and/or appeal.
(5) Filing a Special Claim Process for Violation of Taxpayer Rights before the Tax Administrative Court: based on Articles 377, 378, and 381 of the Tax Procedure Code, grounded in institutional failures that resulted in actions that violated the legal certainty and rights of the affected taxpayer.
In the next installment (Part 2), we will discuss the potential criminal liabilities.
At EVANS GROUP, we maintain our commitment to providing specialized legal advice and representation in tax matters, always ensuring the protection of our clients’ rights and guarantees.