With a delay of 5 years
, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation
confirmed the ruling of Chamber II
of the Federal Chamber of Social Security in the "Calderón, Carlos Héctor" case,
in which it had declared the discount unconstitutional for income tax
on the retiree's assets, regardless of their vulnerable situation or state of health.
Thus, the High Court
rejected the extraordinary appeal filed by the ANSeS
, considering that the "Calderón" sentence of Chamber II
was not arbitrary
, did not have institutional gravity or went against its jurisprudence (CPCCN art. 280), according to what Clarín was told by the former President of Chamber II and of the Social Security Chamber, Luis Herrero.
The judgment of Chamber II is from 2017 and was signed by judges Luis Herrero and Norma Carmen Dorado.
"In this way, the Court validated the advanced criterion applied by the Social Security Chamber
in the Calderón case, consisting of declaring unconstitutional the legal norm that recorded the retiree's assets with said tax (art. 79 sub. "c" of Law 20,628), and not its application to the specific case, as it had been decided in the precedent "García María Isabel" and for reasons of illness and vulnerability," added Luis Herrero.
The Court's ratification
benefits all retirees and pensioners who made a similar claim.
Herrero also pointed out that
"the social security jurisdiction should not apply the "García" sentence
to cases in which there is no vulnerability, old age or illness, but simply declare the unconstitutionality of the tax for the benefit of all retirees, as the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has just ratified it in its sentence of February 28, 2023”.
After the ruling of Chamber II of Social Security, AFIP gradually raised the minimum non-taxable earnings for retirees and pensioners and is currently
equivalent to 8 minimum assets ($58,665.43 x8 = $469,323.44)
limiting the application of the discount of this tax on the sector.
However, the AFIP clarifies that
“this specific deduction may not be applied by subjects who obtain income of a different nature from those indicated
, greater than the non-taxable profit for the period.
Nor will it correspond to those who are obliged to pay the Personal Assets Tax, except that this obligation arises exclusively from the possession of a property for a single residence.
NS
look also
In 2022, the minimum retirement beat inflation?
