¿Puede un acto nulo suspender la prescripción tributaria? La respuesta divergente entre el Tribunal Fiscal y el Tribunal Constitucional

Abstract

The suspension of the statute of limitations for tax purposes during the processing of tax litigation proceedings that culminate in the declaration of nullity of administrative acts constitutes an unresolved legal problem in the Peruvian legal system. The coexistence of divergent criteria between the Tax Court (RTF No. 00549-Q-2024), which allows suspension even with null acts, and the Constitutional Court (STC No. 99/2026), which rejects it because these acts lack effect, generates uncertainty regarding the validity of said suspension and affects the taxpayer's legal certainty. This study is developed under a qualitative, basic, and legal-dogmatic approach, at a descriptive and explanatory level, with a non-experimental, cross-sectional, and documentary design. To this end, it employs documentary analysis of national regulations and jurisprudence, specialized doctrine, and institutional documents related to the statute of limitations for tax purposes and the processing of the aforementioned procedure as grounds for suspension, as well as the nature of a null act from a tax and constitutional perspective. The research aims to compare and analyze the positions of the Tax Court and the Constitutional Court to determine whether such a suspension is legally valid. It concludes that this measure must always operate within the legal timeframe, regardless of any declaration of nullity, and that a regulatory reform binding the Tax Administration to the precedents of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court is appropriate to guarantee legal certainty and the right to a reasonable timeframe.