Deductions for Purchases from Small Taxpayers: The Veracity of Transactions vs. Mere Formality

One of the contentious issues in professional practice relates to the transactions that taxpayers engage in with small taxpayers (monotributistas). This is due to the existing legal limitations in this regard.

Small taxpayers can be divided into two categories: the so-called "recurring" ones, with more than 23 invoices, and the "non-recurring" ones, with fewer than 23 invoices.

Thus, regarding recurring ones, the total deduction of the expense incurred is allowed, while for non-recurring ones, the deduction is subject to certain limits.

The Wolf Argentina Case

A recent case ("Alfred Wolff Argentina SA" TFN, Chamber "C" of 4/5/2026) processed before the National Tax Court (TFN) analyzes a particular aspect of the issue, allowing us to revisit it.

This was a case involving honey sellers, agricultural producers categorized as small taxpayers, on one side, and the plaintiff, a registered taxpayer, who was responsible for collecting the honey to later sell it in the local market or export it.

The characteristic of the activity is highlighted, its seasonality, as its production and commercialization occur entirely during certain times of the year.

The tax authority based its adjustment on the fact that, although the number of invoices issued by the supplier subjects exceeded the number established to be considered recurring transactions, the intervening audit detected that these invoices mostly corresponded to the same day, are consecutive, and for the same amount.

It is noteworthy that the audit itself recognized the recurring nature of the transactions, objecting to the consecutiveness of the receipts and the date of issuance.

On the other hand, the audit concluded that the purchases were not made with the frequency required by the applicable regulations.

This is because although the quantity exceeds 23, some are consecutive, from the same day, and of identical amount, so, in the view of the audit, there were not 23 transactions, but fewer, although documented in more than 23 invoices.

Each invoice documents a transaction

The issue in question, regarding the case where a single invoice encompasses more than one transaction, has been analyzed by jurisprudence previously.

Thus, it was addressed in the case "Golba Construcciones SA" TFN, Chamber "A" of 7/6/2006, confirmed by the CCAF, Chamber V of 30/9/2008, where the company had deducted the total of the transactions from small taxpayer suppliers, even though the operations (masonry, plumbing, gas services, etc.) had been documented in a single invoice.

In that case, the audit based its objection on the consideration that what was relevant was the documentation of the transactions, and therefore, since the minimum invoice requirement to consider the supplier as recurring was not met, it objected to the deduction made.

In turn, the TFN confirmed the tax authority's criterion, and the Chamber did the same, as, in principle, each transaction must be understood as any specified provision that has been the subject of a contract, has been assigned a specific price, and for whose fulfillment an invoice must be issued.

It is important to highlight, then, that the Appellate Court defined that, for the purpose of analyzing the involved regulations, it must be understood that transactions are those documented through the issuance of an invoice.

Therefore, such a definition resolves the controversy raised, given that each invoice instruments an operation.

The Resolution of the Tax Court

The TFN resolves to revoke the appealed resolution, with costs, with an excellent ruling by Claudio Luis, to which Viviana Marmillón adhered. Several noteworthy aspects can be extracted from this issue.

Firstly, it arises that from the applicable regulations there is no limitation or conditioning regarding the correlation, date of issuance, or periodicity of the invoice.
On the other hand, the requirement of 23 minimum operations, to consider recurrence, arises from a regulation (RG 2150 based on the delegation of art. 30, 3rd p of law 25865) of the Tax Authority, therefore it had sufficient authority to establish the conditions that it assumes as the basis for the adjustment, despite which, it did not do so.

Furthermore, it has been highlighted that the purpose of such regulation is to prevent the deduction of non-existent expenses by the purchasers, but this situation was not contested by the Tax Authority, which only limited itself to questioning a formal aspect such as the instrumentation, that is, the invoicing of the operations, but the veracity was not objected.
Regarding the issue of correlation and the proximity of dates, the TFN highlights the main characteristic of the activity carried out by the plaintiff, which is seasonality, making it inevitable that honey productions are sold within a limited period of time.

In summary, since the adjustment is based on the fact that the invoices correspond mostly to the same day, are consecutive, and for the same amount, it is not sufficient to reasonably support the tax adjustment, especially when the existence of the operations, the quantity of them, and the price paid are not in dispute, to qualify the suppliers as recurrent.

As the Court has maintained (Fallos 241: 210; 308: 215) the honest effort of the taxpayer to limit their taxes to the legal minimum is not reprehensible.

Criminal Cases

The issue also originated a criminal case ("Alfred L. Wolff Argentina SA" CNAPE of 10/2/2017) that revoked the processing order against the president of the firm, for the crime of tax evasion.

On that occasion, the Chamber stated that there was no appreciation of any trick or deception that typifies the alleged fact, given that the buying and selling operations existed, the honey suppliers were effectively registered as small taxpayers and sold their production.

This is because the Tax Authority did not question the existence of honey sales, nor the amount paid, nor the attribution of those purchases to the relevant fiscal period, nor that the merchandise had actually been paid for, nor that honey is a raw material for the taxpayer, only objecting to the multiplication of invoices by the suppliers, which cannot be claimed to be false.
It is noteworthy that another related criminal case ("Curuchet, Juan Ernesto" CNAPE, Chamber "B"), also confirmed the resolution of the previous instance regarding the dismissal for the alleged evasion of income tax.

In this case, the Federal Chamber of Criminal Cassation rejected the appeal filed by the then AFIP, on the grounds that the financial action chosen by the taxpayer is one of the modalities prescribed by law to benefit from tax regulations without falsifying the information provided to the Treasury, that is, without trickery or deceit (firm ruling).

In summary, an excellent ruling that delved into the analysis of the substantive matter at stake, dismissing the arguments raised by the Treasury, based on merely formal aspects.

Public accountant. Tax specialist. Partner at Bertazza, Nicolini, Corti and Associates.