In recent years, the growth of tax litigation in Argentina has been largely driven by administrative regulations impacting advance payments that generate tax credits (at both national and provincial levels), as well as by obligations imposed on withholding and collection agents, excessive tax prepayments, and municipal taxes deemed unconstitutional for failing to meet their essential elements or comply with applicable federal laws.

It has also been driven by legal regulations or substantive laws with a revenue-raising purpose that contravenes constitutional guarantees. An example of this was the restrictions on the application of tax inflation adjustment, which remained suspended for years despite the high levels of inflation in Argentina.

In transactions involving non-residents, transfer pricing and withholding income tax is often a recurring source of tax controversy.

Most tax controversies at a national level are related to corporate income tax and, to a lesser extent, value added tax, frequently for fictitious invoincing. At a provincial level, local gross income tax, especially regarding withholding and collection agents and collection regimes that generate tax credits, as well as municipal taxes, generate many tax controversies.

Knowledge of each national, provincial and municipal regulation is key to mitigating tax litigation risks, including both assessment rules and information reporting regimes. Argentina has a highly complex regulatory framework due to its three levels of taxation (municipal, provincial and national). Understanding these rules to prevent disputes with tax authorities is essential. In international transactions, it is important to consider whether operations involve related parties and to consider Argentina’s network of double taxation treaties and exchange of information. Tax advice provided by specialists in Argentine taxation prior to entering a transaction or commencing an economic activity is recommended.

Argentina has been an active participant within the OECD and has incorporated tax avoidance measures. It has signed the OECD-BEPS Action 15 MLI for compliance with the OECD minimum standards (BEPS Actions 2, 6, 7 and 14). The MLI entered into force after ratification and deposit in 2026 and will have effect for withholding tax from January 2027.

Furthermore, through the tax reform that entered into force in 2018, Argentina incorporated into its domestic legislation and international practice several of the recommendations of the BEPS Action Plan. These include:

• VAT on digital services supplied from abroad to Argentine consumers (Action 1);
• strengthening of the rules on attribution of passive income from foreign entities to their Argentine resident controlling shareholders (Action 3);
• deductible net interest on financial debt is capped at 30% of the taxpayer’s net income before the deduction of interest, income tax, amortisation and depreciation (a concept similar to EBITDA) (Action 4);
• expansion of the definition of permanent establishment (PE) in the Corporate Income Tax Law: inclusion of dependent agents playing the principal role in the conclusion of contracts and restriction of traditional exemptions (auxiliary activities) (Action 7); and
• reinforcement of the transfer pricing framework by incorporating the concept of value creation and DEMPE functions for intangibles, aligning the rules with OECD standards (Actions 8 to 10).

Through additional regulatory provisions, Argentina has also introduced BEPS-related recommendations concerning the disclosure of tax planning arrangements and country-by-country (CbC) reporting.

Finally, Argentina has signed or updated double tax treaties (including some prior to 2017) incorporating modern standards, such as anti-abuse provisions (Action 6), revised PE definitions (Action 7) and Mutual Agreement Procedures (MAP) (Action 14).

Most of these measures have had a significant impact on tax litigation in Argentina.

At national level, the taxpayer is not obliged to pay or guarantee the tax assessed to be able to lodge an administrative remedy or an appeal before the National Tax Court. At the provincial level, this will depend on each jurisdiction (24 jurisdictions). Some may require prior payment (solve et repete), particularly as a condition for initiating judicial actions or filing certain administrative remedies. Case law has mitigated this requirement by allowing its substitution with a surety bond or other forms of real guarantee, although this does not prevent the enforceability of the tax assessment.

Audits are often conducted because of data cross-checks arising from information reporting and tax collection regimes, which generate alerts that trigger audit procedures.

The national tax authority maintains a Tax Risk Profiling System to classify taxpayers according to their tax behaviour, as well as a registry of unreliable taxpayers, primarily linked to the detection of fictitious invoices.

The risk profile comprises five categories, ranging from very low to very high risk, and is based on factors such as the existence of penalties, failure to file tax returns, non-payment of taxes, ongoing audits, criminal proceedings and declared bankruptcy, among others.

Notwithstanding the above, audits are often conducted on a random basis or focused on specific issues or industries. Currently, for example, there has been a particular focus on the inflation adjustment of tax loss carryforwards for fiscal years before 2025, resulting in a significant number of income tax audits aimed at reviewing this issue.

Tax audits may be initiated at any time in respect of prior tax periods, except for the statute of limitations.

The audit authority to assess and collect taxes, as well as to impose fines and closures, is subject to a statute of limitations of five years in the case of registered taxpayers or those not legally required to register. This period shall be reduced to three years where the registered taxpayer has timely filed the tax return, provided that the tax authority does not challenge the filed return due to detecting a significant discrepancy between the declared information and the information available in its systems or provided by third parties.

In taxes levied by provinces and municipalities, the most recent reform of Argentine tax procedure regarding the statute of limitations refers to the national law under the same terms described above.

A tax audit initiates with an audit engagement order notified on the electronic tax address of the taxpayer. There is no time limit for the tax authorities to complete tax audits under tax procedure law; however, the national tax authority has internal regulations regarding the duration of a tax audit and, depending on the circumstances of each case, they could last for several months. 

Tax audits occur mainly electronically and are usually based on data made available electronically. Requests for information are issued and complied electronically, except in cases where inspectors conduct on-site visits at the company’s premises.

In corporate income tax, key matters for special attention usually are:

• deductibility of expenses (ie, correct documentation, expenses related to business purposes, payments to related parties, interest deductions and foreign exchange losses);
• inflation adjustment (ie, correct application of inflation adjustment rules, treatment of tax loss carryforwards before 2025, consistency between accounting and tax figures); and
• transfers between own accounts and bank deposits.

In value added tax (VAT):

• input tax credit (verification that credits arise from actual, documented transactions, detection of fictitious invoices, consistency between taxpayer’s credits and supplier’s reported debits);
• proportionality between declared input and output VAT; and
• exemptions and zero-rated transactions (exports and specific exemptions).

In gross income tax:

• taxable base – activities involving intermediation; discounts or rebates;
• withholding and collection agent obligations; and
• existence of financial gross income.

Cross-border exchange of information has led to an increase in tax audits.

In addition to its network DTTs and bilateral Tax Information Exchange Agreements (TIEAs), Argentina is a party to the Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters (MAAC).

Within the framework of BEPS Action 5, the spontaneous and mandatory exchange of information was established with respect to rulings or agreements entered by a tax authority with a specific taxpayer or group of taxpayers regarding their tax positions.

Furthermore, in Argentina, toward the end of 2025, the receipt of information from the United States was particularly significant as a result of FATCA (Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act), following the agreement executed with Argentina and the subsequent disclosure made by the Argentine tax authority to taxpayers regarding financial institutions and identified account numbers. This led to requests for information being sent to the taxpayers.

Additionally, in July 2025, Argentina formally adhered to the OECD’s CRS 2.0; however, it has not yet been regulated, and data collection would not be retroactive. Its scope will not be universal, as, for instance, the United States does not participate in CRS 2.0.

Working with the taxpayer in the preparation of supporting documentation and in formulating a strategic response to tax authority requests is essential.

Each case and tax will have its own strategy; however, the following key aspects may be highlighted:

• clearly identify in advance the issues that may be considered controversial by the tax authority and define a defensive strategy for addressing the requests. Anticipate potential claims so that responses address possible challenges and evidence is prepared in advance;
• to the extent possible, avoid failing to provide the information requested by the tax authority when it relates to the audited tax and fiscal year;
• comply with information requests in a properly structured manner and aligned with the defensive strategy, taking into account potential dispute scenarios; and
• maintain ongoing communication and co-operation with the acting audit team, provided that there is no departure from the law.

The administrative claim phase is mandatory before initiating a judicial phase.

Administrative tax procedure begins with a first notice given by the tax authority and ends with the tax assessment.

• The initial claim must be lodged before the tax authority that filed the first notice.
• Then, the taxpayer may choose between an administrative remedy against the tax assessment or a claim before the National Tax Court.
• Both the ruling of the Tax Authority after the administrative remedy and the National Tax Court ruling can be appealed to the Federal Courts.
• Closure sanctions fall under criminal jurisdiction.
• Administrative acts that do not involve tax assessments or fines are challenged through administrative remedies and are subsequently subject to judicial review.
• Similar provisions exist in provincial or municipal legislation, depending on the jurisdiction.

Regarding administrative remedies against tax assessments, the administration must issue a decision within 20 business days. For issues such as tax refunds, if the administration does not reply within three months, the taxpayer can file an appeal before the National Tax Court.

Judicial tax litigation can be initiated in different ways.

At the Initiative of the Tax Authority

• In the case of tax assessments, fines and general breaches of regulations being challenged by the taxpayer, and having previously exhausted administrative remedies, judicial tax litigation can be initiated directly before the Federal Courts or before the National Tax Court.
• Additionally, the tax authority may initiate tax enforcement proceedings and seek preliminary injunctive measures, where appropriate.

At the Initiative of the Taxpayer

• A declaratory judgement action or writ of amparo can be filed directly before the Federal Courts, for example, to challenge the constitutionality of a certain regulation, decree or statute. If necessary, an injunction may be sought by the taxpayer.
• A direct action for tax reimbursement can also be filed before the Federal Courts, without exhausting administrative remedies, given such action is based on the unconstitutionality of a certain statute, decree or administrative regulation. Otherwise, for tax refunds, exhausting administrative remedies prior to judicial tax litigation is mandatory.

The stages of a court tax procedure are the following.

• Initial phase – lawsuit before the Federal Courts or appeal before the National Tax Court.
• Evidence phase – the taxpayer offers any probative matter to establish the truth submitted to investigation at judicial trial.
• Allegation phase.
• Final ruling from the National Tax Court or the first instance court.
• Appeal before the Federal Court of Appeals limited to matters of law or constitutional issues.
• Extraordinary appeal before the Supreme Court of Justice.

Nevertheless, the National Supreme Court may exercise original jurisdiction if federal issues are raised or in cases involving federal laws, where a province is a defendant.

All means of evidence are admissible depending on the disputed facts and the relevance of each type of evidence. Evidence must be offered at the earliest procedural stage available to the taxpayer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, case law of the national tax court has mitigated the rule that evidence not submitted at the administrative stage may not be introduced before the tax court.

In tax matters, documentary evidence and accounting expert reports are considered the most relevant.

In civil tax litigation the burden of proof rests with the taxpayer because the administrative decisions of the tax authority are presumed to be legitimate, whereas in criminal tax litigation the burden rests with the prosecutor, because the presumption of legitimacy rule does not extend to criminal proceedings.

Early definition of the defence strategy is essential, including the decision of whether to pay the tax and litigate for a refund, or challenge the tax assessment without payment.

At a national level, most tax assessments are appealed before the National Tax Court, as it is a specialised court, and the appeal has a suspensive effect on the obligation to pay the tax until the court rules. Provinces like Buenos Aires and Tucumán also have local Tax Courts, competent in local taxes such as gross income tax.

When the matter involves a challenge to the constitutionality of the tax, the analysis should include the possibility of channelling the claim through a declaratory judgment action or a writ of amparo, which requires assessing the competent court and any relevant prior case law on the issue.

In the case of local taxation (provincial or municipal), it is important to determine whether a federal regulatory framework exists for the activity or whether there is a breach of the constitutional allocation of tax powers. In such cases, it may be advisable to bring the matter before the federal courts rather than the local courts. This may allow the dispute to be litigated without prior payment of the tax. It is also possible to analyse the local procedures of each jurisdiction to pursue direct action before provincial courts, seeking to avoid prior payment and tax enforcement proceedings.

To consider strategic options during the case, one must differentiate a purely legal case from an evidence-driven case. In the latter, evidence must be offered at the appropriate procedural stage, and expert evidence is often critical, particularly in income tax technical matters such as inflation adjustment.

The strategic approach will also have to consider the possibility and convenience to seek an injunction, if necessary, to suspend enforcement actions from the tax authorities.

The OECD guidelines are taken into consideration by the courts when litigation involves an international tax issue such as transfer pricing or DDTs. International jurisprudence and doctrine can also be relevant and sometimes taken into consideration by the courts, provided that they are not inconsistent with the applicable Argentine legal framework.

The federal courts for tax matters consist of 12 first instance courts with jurisdiction over administrative and tax litigation and a Court of Appeals with five chambers. Tax appeals can be submitted once depending on a previous contradictory decision. Appeal before the National Supreme Court is extraordinary. For local taxes, every province has its own judicial organisation. At national level and in the provinces of Buenos Aires and Tucumán, appeals against the tax assessment can be filed before the tax courts. There is a jurisdictional threshold based on the amount in dispute; however, it is not typically a relevant constraint on the jurisdiction of tax courts, particularly in the case of the national tax court.

There are two stages in the judicial tax appeal procedure before the federal court of appeals. First, the appeal is filed and subsequently substantiated. The case file is then elevated to the Court of Appeals, which proceeds to issue its decision.

Federal court of appeals competent in administrative and tax litigation matters: in the instance of appeals there are three judges per chamber and five chambers. It is always formed by three judges who are appointed by a public competition before the Council of the Judiciary, continues with the selection of a shortlist by the Executive Branch, and concludes with the approval of the Senate.

Under Argentine tax procedural law, there is a voluntary settlement mechanism, but it is not regulated and has no practical application.

The other alternative is the binding ruling system with the tax authority (consulta vinculante). The request must be submitted to the tax authority prior to the occurrence of the taxable event or before the due date for the filing of the tax return. It must refer to specific factual situations or investment projects in which the taxpayer has a direct and personal interest.

The ruling system does not apply to:

• situations covered by DTTs;
• the application or interpretation of withholding or collection regimes, except in cases expressly provided for in the applicable regulations;
• taxpayers or related parties subject to an ongoing audit, tax assessment procedure or tax litigation; and
• situations included within the APA regime.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

The effectiveness of binding advance information and ruling requests is relative. The position adopted in the interpretative ruling shall be binding until the entry into force of new legal provisions, regulations or administrative acts of general application. However, the ruling issued may be reviewed, modified or revoked ex officio at any time by the tax authority. Additionally, there is an appeal procedure available to the taxpayer against the ruling issued by the national tax authority.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

Argentina has adhered to Action 14 of the OECD BEPS Project and could apply the Mutual Agreement Procedure (MAP), where appropriate, as an international mechanism to resolve tax disputes involving transfer pricing issues or the attribution of profits between related parties.

Within tax assessments, if the tax authorities consider that the taxpayer has engaged in reprehensible conduct, they must impose an administrative fine. However, the mere assessment that the tax has not been paid in the correct amount does not automatically trigger criminal offences. For a case to have criminal relevance, first, the tax adjustment must exceed at least approximately USD71.430 (inflation-indexed) for tax evasion. Secondly, there must be sufficient evidence that the taxpayer acted with intent (dolo). Where applicable, criminal proceedings will commence with the filing of a criminal complaint.

It is important to note that no criminal action should apply when:

• the tax adjustment arises from differences in the interpretation of the law or from technical accounting issues related to the assessment;
• the tax adjustment results exclusively from the application of legal presumptions;
• the taxpayer has duly disclosed, prior to or simultaneously with the filing of the tax return, the interpretative or technical-accounting criterion used to determine the tax liability, provided that such criterion does not constitute a scheme intended to conceal or misrepresent the taxable base; or
• original or amended tax returns are filed before notification of the tax audit with respect to the same tax and fiscal year.

Criminal litigation does not suspend civil tax assessment procedures. However, the ruling in the civil proceedings must not depart from the facts established in the criminal proceedings. Finally, the administrative infringement will be suspended while the court verifies whether tax is due in the criminal process. 

If a tax assessment proceeding is in progress, the infringement must be imposed within the framework of such proceeding. Otherwise, the infringement process may be initiated on a separate basis. Criminal tax cases initiate after tax assessment. The administrative infringement process does not evolve into criminal tax cases.

Stages of Criminal Cases

• Criminal complaint.
• Preliminary investigation conducted by a federal prosecutor.
• Indictment hearing.
• Indictment or dismissal of charges.
• Review by the Court of Appeals.
• Oral criminal trial.
• First instance ruling.
• Appeals.

Typical Stages of a Tax Administrative Infringement Proceeding

• Tax audit.
• Tax assessment and infringement proceedings.
• Defensive stage before the tax authorities.
• Administrative decision.
• Appeals before the National Tax Court or administrative remedy and then claim filed before the Federal Courts. 

The court that may hear about the criminal tax case will not be the same court that decides the legality of the corresponding tax adjustment/assessment.

If upfront payment of the tax is made, the taxpayer can benefit from reductions of potential fines applicable to the corresponding tax offence. The possible reduction depends on the time the taxpayer files the tax return and pays. Before the tax audit, taxpayers may be exempt from potential fines, provided that the taxpayer is not a repeat offender. After the tax audit, depending on the status of the tax assessment process, taxpayers can benefit from different reductions, from 75% to 25%.

For certain offences, such as tax evasion, the tax authority may not file a criminal complaint when the amount corresponding to the evaded tax liabilities and related interest is fully and unconditionally paid prior to the filing of the criminal complaint. This benefit is granted only once per taxpayer.

Furthermore, if criminal proceedings have already been initiated, criminal action should be extinguished if the taxpayer accepts and unconditionally pays the outstanding tax liabilities and interest, plus an additional amount equal to 50% of the total sum, within thirty business days following notification of the criminal charges.

The possible appeal routes against the decision adopted by the court of first instance that decided on the criminal tax offence, depending on the tax (national or provincial), are the Federal Courts of Appeals, the Economic Criminal Court of Appeals and the Criminal Court of Cassation, as applicable.

Transactions and operations that have been challenged under the GAAR or anti-avoidance rules in some cases have given rise to criminal tax cases. One of the most important in Argentina was the Molinos Río de la Plata case, but the criminal complaint was dismissed.

However, the current national legislation provides that no criminal complaint should be filed in cases where the tax adjustment arises from differences in the interpretation of the law or from technical accounting issues, or the taxpayer has duly disclosed, prior to or simultaneously with the filing of the tax return, the interpretative or technical-accounting criterion used to determine the tax liability (provided that such criterion does not constitute a scheme intended to conceal or misrepresent the taxable base).

In contrast, many operations that have been challenged under the transfer pricing rules have given rise to administrative cases rather than criminal cases.         

If a double taxation situation occurs due to an additional tax assessment or tax adjustment in a cross-border situation, it is common to use domestic litigation against such administrative decisions rather than any available mechanism under the DTT. The measures adopted under the MLI do not yet have an impact on this domain.

According to the National Supreme Court of Argentina, the domestic GAAR applies in cross-border situations covered by bilateral tax treaties (Molinos Río de la Plata case, 2021). However, the National Supreme Court currently has a similar case pending decision, in which it may either uphold or revisit this criterion (Praxair case).

The PPT introduced by the MLI and the amendment of DTT preambles provide tax authorities with additional tools to audit cross-border transactions. Considering the experience in the Molinos case and others from the National Tax Court, it is expected that the courts will be receptive to applying these mechanisms. Taxpayers should take this into consideration and seek advice prior to carrying out transactions or economic activities.

The main international transfer pricing adjustments have been challenged under domestic tax courts, mainly before the National Tax Court.

The possibility of entering into Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) is provided under the Tax Procedure Law. However, to date, there is no APA programme duly regulated by decree or administrative resolution. APAs have not been developed, nor have their duration or the possibility of retroactive effect (rollback) been defined.

In Argentina, transfer pricing typically gives rise to the greatest number of complex, high-value tax disputes in cross-border situations. If the tax authority were to follow the criteria of the National Tax Court, this type of controversy would be mitigated. Also, a significant number of disputes concerning the tax residence of individuals arose during 2020 and 2021 due to the tax authority’s attempt to apply certain laws retroactively, such as the Extraordinary and Solidarity Tax on high net worth individuals.

Tax disputes have also arisen in connection with tax treaty abuse, both in income tax and in the Argentine net wealth tax (personal assets tax) with respect to shares and equity.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

Argentina did not opt for arbitration when signing the MLI. However, several DTTs signed by Argentina following the OECD Model Tax Convention include a Mutual Agreement Procedure to settle tax controversies, which is currently not regulated.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

Pillar Two in Argentina is not yet regulated. Argentina features a comparatively high corporate income tax burden, which may reduce the practical impact of Pillar Two on resident entities within a multinational enterprise (MNE). However, it may have implications for groups whose ultimate parent entity is located in Argentina, particularly with respect to the allocation of activities and profits to entities resident in other jurisdictions.

As a member of the Inclusive Framework, Argentina has approved the minimum standards and adapted its domestic legislation accordingly. Additionally, in November 2025, Argentina took a key formal step toward OECD accession by submitting its Initial Memorandum, thereby initiating the technical phase of the evaluation process.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

DTT is still the most common legal instrument to settle tax disputes. MLI is in force, but it has not yet been applied in practice.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

No costs arise in respect of litigation at the administrative level.

The cost to litigate before the federal courts is 3% of the amount in dispute, if it can be determined. This fee is usually paid at the end of the proceedings. Generally, the taxpayer pays this fee, but payment will eventually fall on the party that loses the case. In that circumstance, the other party will be refunded if payment has been made in advance, without interest.

Costs before the National Tax Court are 2,5% of the tax assessment (plus interest and fines), which is due at the beginning of the proceeding. In this proceeding, the taxpayer will also have to pay an additional 1,5% to appeal before the federal court of appeals, in case of a ruling against its claim.

Taxpayers can request indemnity to litigate without costs, but this is usually denied by the courts in tax litigation.

This is not applicable in this jurisdiction.

The available statistics in Argentina regarding the number of pending tax court cases come from the National Tax Court. During 2025, 478 new cases were initiated, for approximately USD105,987,453 as of the end of June 2025.

Argentina does not publish statistics that provide statistics regarding the number of cases initiated and terminated every year relating to different taxes.

Argentina does not publish statistics by prevailing or losing party.

Tax controversy in Argentina can be conceived not only as a defensive measure, but also as an effective tax planning tool. This distinctive approach allows the design of solutions that optimise the tax burden. A key strategic guideline to consider in tax litigation is to anticipate possible tax issues arising in each industry and suggest possible solutions in advance to mitigate them. Each matter presents a range of procedural options, along with associated advantages and risks. The key is to adopt an informed course of action that enables a decision aligned with the company’s culture and objectives.