The present work aims to carry out an analysis of various practical problems that legal operators face when working with precedents, especially in tax matters. The questions to be analyzed are: (i) Which of the interpretations made by the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court are binding? (ii) In what sense are they binding? (iii) To what extent are they binding? and, (iv) who do they link?

The present work aims to carry out an analysis of various practical problems that legal operators face when working with precedents, especially in tax matters. The questions to be analyzed are: (i) Which of the interpretations made by the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court are binding? (ii) In what sense are they binding? (iii) To what extent are they binding? and, (iv) who do they link?

The aims of this paper are: (i) at a conceptual level, to present a typology (not exhaustive) of evidentiary errors that usually occur in tax proceedings and processes in Peru, grouped according to the stages of the evidentiary activity where they occur, and to propose a terminological apparatus to describe with greater explanatory power what happens when a decision is made on the factual premise in tax proceedings and processes. Similarly, (ii) with regards to the dogmatic dimension, an examination shall be undertaken to scrutinize the legal ramifications ensuing from these errors, in strict accordance with the prevailing legal framework.

The aims of this paper are: (i) at a conceptual level, to present a typology (not exhaustive) of evidentiary errors that usually occur in tax proceedings and processes in Peru, grouped according to the stages of the evidentiary activity where they occur, and to propose a terminological apparatus to describe with greater explanatory power what happens when a decision is made on the factual premise in tax proceedings and processes. Similarly, (ii) with regards to the dogmatic dimension, an examination shall be undertaken to scrutinize the legal ramifications ensuing from these errors, in strict accordance with the prevailing legal framework.

The aims of this paper are: (i) at a conceptual level, to present a typology (not exhaustive) of evidentiary errors that usually occur in tax proceedings and processes in Peru, grouped according to the stages of the evidentiary activity where they occur, and to propose a terminological apparatus to describe with greater explanatory power what happens when a decision is made on the factual premise in tax proceedings and processes. Similarly, (ii) with regards to the dogmatic dimension, an examination shall be undertaken to scrutinize the legal ramifications ensuing from these errors, in strict accordance with the prevailing legal framework.