All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 ITR is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

Chile: New items of deductible expenses

Sponsored by sponsored-firms-pwc.png
literature-3091212-1920.jpg

Rodrigo Winter and Raúl Fuentes of PwC Chile review the changes and lay out the new requirements to be met.

Law No. 21, 210, in force as of January 2020, amended the general concept of deductible expenses by providing a more flexible definition. Expenses must have the ability or potential to generate income, and there is no longer a requirement that they must be unavoidable, as had been previously required in Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and tax courts’ interpretations.

Additionally, some extra items of specific expenses were incorporated. The expenses contained in Article 31, No. 14 of the Income Tax Law (ITL) are reviewed below, consisting of i) reimbursements to consumers ordered by a regulator, and ii) payments from a settlement (transacción) and liquidated damages (cláusula penal).

Reimbursements to consumers ordered by a regulator

Such reimbursements are deductible, provided that three joint requirements are met. However, if any of those are not met, it might still be possible to deduct the expense under the general concept of expense.

The reimbursement or rebate is ruled by a regulator

The foregoing means that if the reimbursement is ordered by a court or arbitrator, this requirement, in principle, would not be met (e.g. class actions by consumers). Nonetheless, it is debatable whether a procedure begun by a regulator that ended in court could be eligible. There are arguments to sustain a positive answer.

Examples of Chilean regulators are the securities’ authority (CMF), the electrical regulator (SEC), and the consumers’ authority (SERNAC).

Payment derived from a legal obligation to compensate damage to customers or users

It is important to highlight that a payment must be directed to customers or users, but not to the Chilean Treasury. 

Therefore, this concept does not include governmental fines, which are ruled by paragraph 2, Article 21 of the ITL, as having a special tax treatment. They are not considered deductible expenses nor subject to a penalty tax of 40%.

In most cases, the penalties provided by legislation are payments to the Chilean Treasury (i.e. fines) and not compensation to consumers.

Legal obligation to compensate does not require proving negligence (i.e. strict liability)

The extent and correct interpretation of this requirement might raise difficulties. The phrase “obligation to compensate does not require to prove negligence”, if construed restrictively, could only be applicable to a few cases, since in rare occasions, the legislation sets forth strict liability.

In this sense, as a general rule, negligence is a requirement for the existence of liabilities. Moreover, theoretically, according to some Chilean scholars, administrative procedures should be subject to criminal law principles, including the prohibition to establish strict liability. However, it could be argued that the law establishes strict liability in some administrative procedures, such as in the one before the electrical regulator in case of blackouts. 



On the other hand, such prohibitions derived from the criminal law, in accordance to some jurisprudence, is attenuated in administrative punitive law. Moreover, in practice, it is common of administrative procedures not to assess whether the offender acted with negligence or not, only seeking to establish the performance of a conduct. However, the foregoing is not exactly the same than the “legal obligation to compensate does not require to prove negligence”.



Finally, in regard to the third requirement, it is important to consider that the subsequent paragraph of the provision establishes that “if negligence is determined by the authority”, the expense is not deductible but added to the tax result (i.e. not subject to penalty tax of 40% but to corporate income tax of 25% or 27%). The foregoing, could help to attenuate the third requirement, construing it as follows: “negligence was not determined in the administrative procedure.”

Payments from a settlement and liquidated damages

The only requirement for their deduction is that payments must be made among unrelated parties.




Finally, it is important to bear in mind that by “settlement” the provision is only referring to a transacción. Therefore, other legal forms of settlement, similar to a transacción but not exactly the same, might not be eligible pursuant to this provision.



Rodrigo Winter Salgado

T: +56 229400155

E: rodrigo.winter@cl.pwc.com



Raúl Fuentes Ugalde

T: +56 229400155

E: fuentes.raul@cl.pwc.com





More from across our site

Sources at Netflix, the European Commission and elsewhere consider the impact of incoming legislation to regulate tax advice in the EU – if it ever comes to pass.
This week European Commission officials consider legal loopholes to secure minimum corporate taxation, while Cisco and Microsoft shareholders call for tax transparency.
The fast-food company’s tax settlement with French authorities strengthens the need for businesses to review their TP arrangements and documentation.
The full ALP model will be adopted through a new TP regime, which is set to boost the country’s investments and tax certainty.
Tax professionals have called on the UK government to reconsider its online sales tax as it would affect the economy at the worst time.
Tax professionals have called on companies to act urgently to meet e-invoicing compliance targets as the EU plans to ramp up digitisation.
In the wake of India’s ambitious 25-year plan for economic growth, ITR has partnered with leading tax commentators to discuss what the future will look like for India and for the rest of the world.
But experts cast doubt on HMRC's data and believe COVID-19 would have increased the revenue shortfall.
EY’s plan to separate its auditing and consulting businesses might lessen scrutiny from global regulators, but the brand identity could suffer, say sources.
Multinationals are asking world leaders to put a scale on carbon pricing to tackle climate change at the 48th G7 summit in Germany, from June 26 to 28.
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree