Administrators of consortiums have no obligation to periodically provide the Federal Tax Authority with information about co-owners

On December 2, 2008, Tribunal II of the Federal Court of Appeals on Administrative Matters ruled in “Cámara Argentina de la Propiedad Horizontal” declaring null and void AFIP’s resolution which ordered administrators of apartment blocks (assembly of owners of a form of common ownership of a building called “propiedad horizontal”), country clubs, ranch clubs, gated communities and the like to periodically report co-owners’ information to the AFIP.

The AFIP’s General Resolution No 2159/2006, as amended, established a compulsory biannual report regimen for administrators. The Resolution ruled that the administrators had to report co-owners or payers of expenses’ information to AFIP. The report included but was not limited to the following information: (i) first and last name; (ii) CUIT (tax identification number), CUIL (worker’s identification number), DNI (identity card number) or passport; (iii) address; (iv) size of the property; (v) total amount which must be paid for expenses and / or contributions for semester; (vi) amount actually paid; (vii) means of payment. Likewise, the Resolution established that administrators who did not fulfill their obligations would be subject to a fine.

The case law in question was originated when the Argentine Chamber of Propiedad Horizontal filed an amparo. The judge in the first instance dismissed the petition. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling, declaring the AFIP’s resolution null and void.

To rule thus, the Court of Appeals found that administrators of these kinds of properties are not included in the concept of ‘private entities’ appointed as possible recipients of AFIP information requests by the Federal Tax Proceedings Law. The Court of Appeals also expressed that the Resolution did not adhere to the facts and rules which sustain the reporting obligations nor was there any relation between the aims and the measures taken. Finally, it was pointed out that the administrative judges’ faculties to request information do not imply that the AFIP is entitled to pass resolutions requesting information where there is no actual case.