Sunat requires informative declaration for services contracted from abroad

Peruvian companies are increasingly resorting to foreign suppliers to contract services ranging from consultancies and advice to technological solutions, licenses, or access to databases.

When these services qualify as used in the country, they may be subject to the General Sales Tax (IGV), a tax that companies were already obliged to determine and pay even though the supplier is a non-domiciled entity.

However, as of July 2026, the procedure changed. The National Superintendence of Customs and Tax Administration (Sunat) incorporated an informative sworn declaration that seeks to link the payment of the tax with the operation that originated it, adding a new obligation to the process.

What should companies report now? What happens if they correctly paid the IGV but omitted the declaration? Can non-compliance generate fines or affect the use of the tax credit?

The change was established through Superintendence Resolution N.° 000047-2026/SUNAT and began to apply in July.

With the new procedure, companies that must pay IGV for the use in Peru of services provided by non-domiciled entities will have to previously submit an informative sworn declaration through Sunat Operaciones en Línea, providing data that allows identifying the operation that originates the tax.

The obligation may reach companies that contract consultancies, advice, technological services, licenses, or other services abroad, provided that these qualify as used in the country for IGV purposes.

Thus, the change incorporates a new formal requirement that companies must consider along with the correct payment of the tax, especially due to the possible contingencies that could arise from omissions or errors in compliance.

The new obligation does not create a tax or modify the rules that determine when a company must pay IGV for using services from a foreign supplier in Peru. The change is in the procedure.

Pamela Ormeño Eguía, partner at Echecopar, explained that until before that date, companies only had to make the payment using the corresponding form, without previously submitting an informative declaration.

Carlos Chirinos Sota, Tax Director at CMS Grau, stressed that the moments in which the tax obligation arises have not been altered either.

The prior analysis, however, will continue to be fundamental. Luis Yanayaco, senior advisor at the Tax Area of CPB Abogados, pointed out that it is not enough for the supplier to be located abroad: there must be an economic benefit from the service in Peru.

This can include software, licenses, cloud services, consultancies, technical support, digital advertising, and other services, provided they meet that condition.

One of the aspects that may generate greater attention for companies is that the new procedure is not necessarily limited to services used since July. The three specialists agree that it can also cover operations corresponding to previous periods when the payment or compensation of the IGV occurs as of July 1, 2026.

Ormeño raises, for example, the case of a company that used a service in April and failed to pay the tax on time. If it regularizes the IGV in July, it will have to do so under the new procedure.

The same could happen with operations in which there were partial payments before the entry into force and outstanding amounts remain.

Therefore, companies should not only review their new contracts with foreign suppliers, but it will also be necessary to identify previous operations whose IGV is still pending payment or compensation.

The new scheme also separates two obligations: correctly paying the IGV and complying with the informative declaration. Having satisfied the first does not necessarily eliminate the consequences derived from the non-compliance of the second.

Regarding the specific sanction, there are some nuances among specialists. Ormeño considers that not submitting the declaration within the deadline would fall under numeral 2 of article 176 of the Tax Code, whose fine for companies included in Table I is equivalent to 30% of the UIT.

If a UIT is equivalent to S/ 5,500, the value for 2026, it would amount to S/ 1,650. The lawyer recalls that a voluntary regularization made before the Sunat notification takes effect can access a 100% reduction.

Chirinos maintains that the infraction will depend on how the non-compliance is configured and that numerals 2, 4, or 8 of article 176 could also be relevant.

Yanayaco agrees that the resolution did not create a specific sanction for this new declaration, so he considers it necessary to determine in each case which provision of the Tax Code is applicable.

Specialists also introduce nuances regarding the effects that an inconsistency could have on the tax credit. Ormeño argues that non-compliance with the new informative obligation should not affect it, as the rules for using the IGV as a tax credit have not been modified.

Chirinos and Yanayaco agree that a formal omission does not automatically mean losing it, although they warn of possible problems during an audit.

The new system allows relating the foreign supplier's voucher, the declaration, the payment, and the operation, so inconsistencies between these elements could generate observations from Sunat.

For Chirinos, precisely, this is one of the aspects that companies should monitor, as the authority could use operational reconciliation problems to question relevant amounts.

Yanayaco adds that companies must even verify that the information has been correctly uploaded: he states that in his practice they have noticed errors in the Sunat system and recommends leaving a record with the administration when these incidents occur.

Beyond incorporating a new formality, the three specialists agree that the mechanism strengthens Sunat's ability to track operations carried out with foreign suppliers. The administration will be able to electronically link the service information and its voucher with the declaration and the subsequent payment of the IGV.

This would facilitate cross-referencing with the Electronic Purchase Register and would make it easier to detect possible inconsistencies. Therefore, Chirinos recommends that companies incorporate controls that involve the purchasing, finance, accounting, legal or tax, and accounts payable areas.

The review should begin even before paying the supplier: determine if there is indeed economic use of the service in Peru, verify the applicable tax and the operation's documentation, and, when appropriate, comply with the declaration and payment.

For Yanayaco, greater traceability makes it especially important that contracts, vouchers, payments, and accounting records maintain consistency with each other.