The article begins by recognizing that the Administrative Process in Peru is full jurisdiction, protects the legal situations in addition to control the legality of the administrative acts. Then the author examines the Tax Administration, specifically if SUNAT has active legitimacy to sue in a Contentious Administrative Process against the decision issued by the Tax Court that revoked or annulled their administrative acts, concluding that it does not have legitimacy but, exceptionally, according to article 157 of the Tax Code, can sue when SUNAT demonstrates that RTFs are not according to the parameters of article 10 of the General Administrative Procedure Act, confirming that the causal most used by SUNAT are those of the numeral 1 and 2, referred to the resolutions which cause serious disability vice, which, according to the author, is not the same as a different interpretative...

El presente artículo parte por reconocer que el proceso contencioso administrativo en el Perú es de plena jurisdicción, esto es, que protege las situaciones jurídicas de los administrados además de la legalidad del acto administrativo.Así, se lleva a cabo un análisis sobre la legitimidad activa de la Administración Tributaria, específicamente la SUNAT, para interponer una demanda contencioso administrativa contra la Resolución emitida por el Tribunal Fiscal (RTF) que revocó o anuló su acto administrativo concluyendo que no la tiene pero que, excepcionalmente, de acuerdo al artículo 157° del Código Tributario, podría demandar cuando demuestre fehacientemente que la RTF es nula de acuerdo a los parámetros del artículo 10° de la Ley del Procedimiento Administrativo General (LPAG), constatándose que las causales más utilizadas por la SUNAT son las del numeral 1 y ...

In tax procedural law, when a resolutive body opts for the revocation and not for the nullity of an administrative act, the public interest is harmed, undermining the legal certainty, and generating a greater litigation at the cost of the taxpayer, both on time and money. This study shows that, on taxation matters, the consequences of both categories are completely different, and it is essential that nullity be declared when the existence of substantial defects is proved. The resolutions of the Peruvian Taxation Tribunal are evaluated to ponder which is the line followed by the collegiate, finding that not in all the cases the referred categories are respected, which results in lawsuits of SUNAT before the Peruvian Judiciary.

In tax procedural law, when a resolutive body opts for the revocation and not for the nullity of an administrative act, the public interest is harmed, undermining the legal certainty, and generating a greater litigation at the cost of the taxpayer, both on time and money. This study shows that, on taxation matters, the consequences of both categories are completely different, and it is essential that nullity be declared when the existence of substantial defects is proved. The resolutions of the Peruvian Taxation Tribunal are evaluated to ponder which is the line followed by the collegiate, finding that not in all the cases the referred categories are respected, which results in lawsuits of SUNAT before the Peruvian Judiciary.

The article begins by recognizing that the Administrative Process in Peru is full jurisdiction, protects the legal situations in addition to control the legality of the administrative acts. Then the author examines the Tax Administration, specifically if SUNAT has active legitimacy to sue in a Contentious Administrative Process against the decision issued by the Tax Court that revoked or annulled their administrative acts, concluding that it does not have legitimacy but, exceptionally, according to article 157 of the Tax Code, can sue when SUNAT demonstrates that RTFs are not according to the parameters of article 10 of the General Administrative Procedure Act, confirming that the causal most used by SUNAT are those of the numeral 1 and 2, referred to the resolutions which cause serious disability vice, which, according to the author, is not the same as a different interpretative...