Chile: New items of deductible expenses
International Tax Review is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

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 across site & bottom lb ros

More from across our site

Amount B is meant to increase simplicity and reduce uncertainty, but US TP specialists claim it may lead to controversy
Tax Foundation economist Alan Cole also signalled that pillar two has a 'considerable chance' of failing
The Labour Party is working hard to convince business that it will bring stability to tax policy if it wins the next UK general election. But it will be impossible to avoid creating winners and losers
Burrowes had initially been parachuted into the role last summer to navigate the fallout from the firm’s tax leaks scandal
Barbara Voskamp is bullish on hiring local talent to boost DLA Piper’s Singapore practice, and argues that ‘big four’ accountants suffer from a stifled creativity
Chris Jordan also said that nations have a duty to scrutinise the partnership structures of major firms, while, in other news, a number of tax teams expanded their benches
KPMG has exclusive access to the tool for three years in the UK, giving it an edge over ‘big four’ rivals
But the US tax agency’s advice is consistent with OECD guidance and shouldn’t surprise anyone, other experts tell ITR
A survey of more than 25,000 in-house counsel reveals that diversity initiatives are a high priority when choosing external counsel
The report is aimed at helping 'low-capacity countries', the OECD has claimed
Gift this article