In Peru, the mere mention of SUNAT, the National Superintendence of Customs and Tax Administration, can send shivers down the spine of even the country’s most powerful corporations. This formidable government body is the main tax authority, wielding enormous influence despite the paradox that it collects taxes from only a fraction of Peruvian businesses. With informality estimated at an eye-watering 70 percent, the tax net simply does not reach the vast majority of enterprises operating in the shadows of the formal economy. 

Today, SUNAT is pushing hard because it faces a combination of mounting political pressure, chronic under-collection in an informal economy and the need to assert its authority through high-profile enforcement. These factors have converged to make Peru’s tax landscape more aggressive and contentious than ever before. 

Perhaps no case has exemplified SUNAT’s assertiveness more than the dramatic legal saga involving the Telefónica Group. After more than two decades of dispute, the Peruvian Constitutional Court finally ruled that Telefónica must pay PEN 1.361 billion (c. USD 384 million) in outstanding tax claims. Just months after this crushing verdict, Telefónica Peru entered a judicial reorganisation in May 2025, a sign of how fragile finances can become when a company collides head-on with the tax authority. This precedent sent a powerful message to all large taxpayers - SUNAT will not hesitate to pursue claims, no matter how long they take. 

If that were not enough to alarm corporate Peru, SUNAT recently announced it would be collecting over PEN 1.5 billion (c. USD 423 million) from Credicorp, one of the country’s most influential holding companies. According to SUNAT, the matter involved alleged tax avoidance related to stock market operations. Credicorp has maintained that its transactions were fully compliant with the law.  

It is noteworthy that SUNAT chose to target such a major conglomerate, something that has almost no precedent. This escalation highlights the institution’s determination to expand collections wherever possible. 

A former tax policy advisor to the Ministry of Economy and Finance explained, “Within SUNAT there is political influence from the government, which sometimes puts pressure on the SUNAT superintendent to collect more, especially from the Minister of Economy and Finance (“MEF”) and the Vice-Ministry of Finance.” The former advisor continued, “The current head of SUNAT is a tax expert, has no experience in the private sector and I believe he is politically influential.” 

“The current head of SUNAT is a tax expert, has no experience in the private sector and I believe he is politically influential.”

A former tax policy advisor to the Ministry of Economy and Finance, Peru

At the same time, SUNAT’s legitimacy is under pressure as more companies push back against what they see as unfair practices. During 2023–24, the Tax Court received 7,900 new cases, 15 percent above the historical average. “There have been plenty of challenges to SUNAT’s decisions.” A senior executive of a Peruvian enterprise elaborated, “The Tax Court receives over 8,000 cases per year. At a judicial level, in 2023 the courts ruled in 5,900 cases worth PEN 8.9 billion, with SUNAT winning in 5,021 (or 85 percent) cases.” 

Even when disputes make it all the way to court, taxpayers rarely prevail. As another tax expert pointed out, “Tax decisions in Peru cannot be settled, they are not negotiable. It is more common for the judiciary to agree with the tax administration than with taxpayers.” For businesses, this imbalance feels almost predetermined. “Taxpayers always end up losing out. The odds, in my experience, are 70 percent or more against the taxpayer and in favour of the tax administration,” an economic studies manager lamented. SUNAT defends its approach as impartial and internationally endorsed.  

“Taxpayers always end up losing out. The odds, in my experience, are 70 percent or more against the taxpayer and in favour of the tax administration.”

E****conomic studies manager, Peru

“One of the best practices that Peru adopts on the recommendation of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) is that of random tax audits. Therefore, SUNAT does not have and cannot have a bias against a specific sector,” a former partner at a renowned law firm in Peru argued. Yet many companies remain sceptical, perceiving an agency determined to interpret rules in the strictest possible way.  

The economic studies manager noted, “The fear of our sector is that they will create new taxes or raise our rates. SUNAT is very strict and literal. They stick to the norm and interpret it in the most tax-oriented way possible. They are not receptive to negotiation.” 

Without reforms to reduce informality and broaden the tax base, Peru’s government has few alternatives but to pressure the formal sector. Structural constraints and political expectations have combined to make aggressive enforcement the path of least resistance for SUNAT. In the years ahead, Credicorp may not be an exception but the first in a long line of companies forced to defend themselves against a tax authority determined to collect every sol it can.