The Tax Management Court of the First Judicial District of Mendoza, in the case “Municipalidad de Guaymallén c/ Molino Chacabuco S.A. p/Apremio” (CUIJ 13-07827010-6, judgment dated July 27, 2026), dismissed the tax enforcement proceedings brought by the Municipality of Guaymallén against the company for alleged Advertising and Propaganda Fees (the “DPP”) corresponding to fiscal year 2023, holding that the alleged debt was manifestly non-existent.
The Court examined the background of the proceedings, which had been initiated by the Municipality through tax enforcement proceedings based on an enforceable instrument that, prima facie, did not evidence a liquid and due debt. In particular, the instrument did not appear to derive from the balance of an unpaid tax return or from an ex officio tax assessment proceeding, given the lack of relevant information in the instrument itself. For instance, it did not refer to the date on which a tax return had been filed, nor did it mention a tax assessment decision or an administrative proceeding.
In light of the fact that the defendant had raised several defenses—including the invalidity of the enforceable instrument on the grounds of the manifest non-existence of the debt, pursuant to the doctrine established by the Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina in, among others, “Municipalidad de Daireaux c/ Pequeña Obra de la Divina Providencia s/ apremio”, Fallos: 318:1151, judgment dated June 6, 1995; lack of substantive standing to be sued; and the pendency of an administrative appeal—the Court considered it essential to determine whether the enforceable instrument was valid not only from a formal or intrinsic standpoint, but also as to the very existence of the debt purportedly evidenced therein.
One of the most significant aspects of the judgment was the Court’s thorough analysis of the evidence. In the course of the proceedings, the Court held that allowing the production of evidence did not exceed the limited scope of review applicable to enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, it admitted the evidence and ordered the Municipality to submit certified copies of the administrative proceedings giving rise to the debt being enforced, under penalty of deeming the facts alleged by the defendant to be established. The claimant complied with the order by submitting two administrative proceedings concerning fiscal years 2022 and 2024, in which respective ex officio tax assessment decisions were in fact recorded.
A comparison of that documentation revealed a decisive fact: neither of those two tax assessment decisions corresponded to the fiscal year being enforced in the proceedings, namely 2023. With respect to that specific fiscal year, the Municipality was only able to submit an internal assessment dated December 5, 2023, without any tax assessment decision supporting it and, moreover, without any evidence that such assessment had ever been notified to the taxpayer.
The Court therefore explained that the DPP constitute taxes and that their assessment follows a mixed system. Under this system, the taxpayer must annually file a tax return reporting the advertising elements displayed and must report any additions and removals on a monthly basis, while the Municipality calculates the amount payable for each month. Consequently, in the event that the taxpayer fails to file the relevant return or files an inaccurate one, the Municipality is required to initiate the ex officio assessment procedure established under the Municipal Tax Code, which includes prior notice to the taxpayer, an opportunity to submit evidence and a defense, and ultimately the issuance of a tax assessment decision that must be duly notified to the taxpayer. In the absence of such procedure, there is no legally valid basis upon which to establish an enforceable debt.
Having established the complete absence of any such procedure with respect to fiscal year 2023, the Court held that the non-existence of the debt was manifest—that is, patent and verifiable from the documentary evidence submitted by the Municipality itself—without the need for a broader evidentiary inquiry. On that basis, the Court upheld the defense challenging the validity of the enforceable instrument and ordered the Municipality to bear the costs of the proceedings.
The judgment became final because the Municipality did not appeal. It therefore constitutes a highly useful judicial precedent in the context of tax enforcement proceedings. Where an enforceable instrument purports to evidence a non-existent debt, raising the defense challenging the validity of such instrument is essential to safeguarding the defendant’s right of defense and ensuring due process. This defense may prevail where the enforceable instrument is not supported by a duly conducted and notified prior administrative proceeding that afforded the taxpayer an opportunity to become aware of the claim and exercise its right of defense at the administrative level before judicial collection proceedings are initiated.
As this case demonstrates, the absence of these requirements may be sufficient to warrant the dismissal of the claim in its entirety, even within the limited scope of tax enforcement proceedings.