On August 27, 2026, in a development that reopens a debate that had appeared to be settled, the Supreme Court of Justice of Argentina (the “SCJ”) assumed original jurisdiction over two cases concerning the Gross Income Tax (“IIBB”) against the Province of Misiones: “Establecimiento Las Marías S.A.C.I.F.A. c/ Agencia Tributaria de Misiones A.T.M. s/ acción mere declarativa de inconstitucionalidad” (FCT 2694/2025/CS1) and “Cannon Puntana Sociedad Anónima c/ Misiones, Provincia de s/ acción declarativa de certeza” (CSJ 2691/2025). In addition, in the Las Marías case, the SCJ upheld the preliminary injunction issued in June 2025 by the Federal Court of Paso de los Libres, whereby the federal judiciary had stayed the withholding, collection and advance payment regimes applicable to IIBB that Misiones imposes on transactions that the plaintiff company would conduct outside its territory, and granted a similar preliminary injunction in Cannon Puntana.
These rulings are of great significance in the area of local taxation, as they represent a departure from decades of case law under which the SCJ had consistently held that federal original jurisdiction did not extend to such matters.
The Facts
Las Marías, a yerba mate producer based in the Province of Corrientes, challenged four general resolutions issued by the Misiones Tax Agency that make up the IIBB collection scheme to which it is subject: the general withholding and collection regime (GR 3/1993), the collection regime applicable to bank account credits (GR 35/2002), the advance payment regime applicable to the entry of goods into the province (GR 56/2007), and the special collection regime applicable to agro-industrial suppliers (GR 1/2010).
The company alleged that these regimes result in advance payments equivalent to 307 years of tax payments in advance of its actual tax liability. It argued that this infringes its property rights, since the tax authorities withhold amounts substantially exceeding those actually due without providing an effective mechanism for their recovery. It further maintained that the regimes effectively constitute an internal customs barrier, as they ultimately tax activity and income generated outside Misiones, thereby encroaching upon the taxing powers of the provinces where the company actually operates and exports its products.
Cannon Puntana, a family-owned fragrance company based in the Province of San Luis, challenged General Resolution (DGR) No. 3/93 of Misiones (the general IIBB withholding and collection regime), under which nearly 71% of the amounts withheld correspond to transactions with customers having no connection whatsoever with Misiones. Its tax credit balance increases month after month and, according to its own calculations, would take nearly nine years to absorb.
Relying on arguments similar to those raised by Las Marías, the company argued that the regime constitutes a disguised internal customs barrier and infringes its property rights, its actual ability to pay, and its freedom to work and engage in lawful business activities, since it ultimately taxes wealth generated outside the provincial jurisdiction.
Both cases expose the same structural problem: IIBB collection regimes designed to secure payment of the tax that, in practice, end up financing the provincial treasury with funds belonging to companies based in other jurisdictions, without an efficient mechanism for recovering such amounts and without caps to prevent these exactions once they exceed the actual amount of the taxpayers’ liabilities.
The Basis for Jurisdiction: The SCJ’s Shift in Approach
In both rulings, the Court applied the traditional standard governing original jurisdiction based on the subject matter: such jurisdiction is available only where the claim is based directly and exclusively on national constitutional provisions, Acts of Congress or international treaties, such that the federal issue predominates in the case.
As a general rule, this standard excludes so-called “mixed questions,” i.e., cases in which, alongside the federal issue, there are local-law issues whose interpretation is unavoidable in order to resolve the dispute. Thus far, there was nothing new.
The key lies in how the SCJ characterizes the “predominant federal question” notwithstanding the presence of a provincial provision.
In Las Marías, the Court held that the dispute requires determining whether the tax claim constitutes an extraterritorial exercise of the provincial taxing power—by taxing income derived by the company from export activities physically carried out in another province—and whether it effectively affects the free circulation of goods, the regulation of interstate commerce, and the constitutional prohibition of internal customs barriers. In doing so, it relied on the precedent “Aceitera Martínez S.A. c/ Provincia de Misiones s/ acción declarativa de inconstitucionalidad” (CSJ 911/2011 (47-A)/CS1, judgment dated February 4, 2014).
In Cannon Puntana, the reasoning was virtually identical: although the plaintiff brought its action against a local provision (GR No. 3/93), the SCJ held that the substance of the dispute requires determining whether the regime imposes withholdings on income derived from activities carried out in other provinces, and whether this affects the free circulation of goods, interstate commerce, and the prohibition of internal customs barriers.
Since 2009, following “Papel Misionero c/ Provincia de Misiones” (Fallos 332:1007, judgment dated May 5, 2009), the SCJ had closed the door to original jurisdiction in IIBB claims based on the Federal Tax-Sharing Law, on the grounds that such matters involved local public law.
Under this restrictive approach, successive claims were dismissed, including “Rafaela Alimentos Sociedad Anónima c/ Provincia de Misiones” (CSJ 2280/2016, judgment dated February 19, 2019) and “Compañía de Alimentos Fargo S.A. c/ Provincia de Catamarca” (CSJ 2694/2018, judgment dated October 22, 2019), in which the existence of a provincial provision whose interpretation was necessary—a “mixed question” under the aforementioned standard—was decisive in denying jurisdiction, even where constitutional provisions had been invoked.
At the same time, and less visibly, the SCJ had been accepting jurisdiction in a handful of cases where the issue was framed not in terms of tax sharing but rather interstate commerce and internal customs barriers. This was the case, for example, in Aceitera Martínez (cited above) and “Loma Negra Compañía Industrial Argentina Sociedad Anónima c/ Provincia de Misiones” (Fallos 345:1070, judgment dated September 27, 2022).
Moreover, in 2023, in “Indupoles c/ Argentina S.A. c/ Provincia de Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur” (CSJ 898/2017, judgment dated November 14, 2023) and “Dalpra c/ Provincia de Tierra del Fuego, Antártida e Islas del Atlántico Sur” (CSJ 1330/2017, judgment dated November 14, 2023), two Justices—Lorenzetti and Rosenkrantz—had already dissented in favor of federal jurisdiction, while the majority—Rosatti, Maqueda and Associate Justice Montesi—rejected it.
What changed on August 27, 2026 is that this minority position became the majority view: following Justice Maqueda’s departure from the SCJ and with Justice Rosatti now joining Justices Lorenzetti and Rosenkrantz, the 2023 dissenting position became the prevailing doctrine.
Furthermore, in Cannon Puntana, the SCJ ruled contrary to the opinion of the Solicitor General, issued on November 19, 2025, who had recommended that jurisdiction be denied precisely because the case involved a “mixed question.” She maintained that the claim had to be assessed “first in light of provisions that are also local” (referring to Resolution No. 3/93 of Misiones), which, in her view, prevented the dispute from being characterized as strictly federal. She also distinguished the case from Aceitera Martínez, considering the latter a narrower situation involving export transactions through customs, as opposed to the broader extraterritoriality claim raised by Cannon Puntana.
The SCJ, however, gave less weight than it traditionally had to the mere presence of a local provision requiring interpretation.
Conclusion
It should be emphasized that neither Las Marías nor Cannon Puntana addresses the merits of the underlying dispute. They are jurisdictional decisions accompanied by preliminary injunctions, issued within the “narrow scope of review” afforded in preliminary injunction proceedings.
Nor does the SCJ hold that every claim involving a tax credit balance resulting from IIBB withholdings will trigger its original jurisdiction. The common thread in both cases is extraterritoriality as an issue of interstate commerce, rather than merely the existence of a tax credit balance that is difficult to recover—although, as the cases themselves demonstrate, the amount of such balance could well be a relevant factor in persuading the Court to admit the claim.
Likewise, the doctrine established in Papel Misionero, which excludes disputes concerning the alleged infringement of the Federal Tax-Sharing Law and the Multilateral Agreement as grounds for original jurisdiction, remains fully in force.
Subject to these qualifications, the fact remains that the SCJ, under its current composition, has sent a clear signal: it is prepared to hear these cases and, through preliminary injunctions, halt collection regimes that place a severe financial burden on companies based in other provinces.
For those currently litigating—or considering litigation—against the Misiones tax authorities or other similarly structured provincial regimes, this opens the door to a strategy that until recently had limited prospects of success: framing the claim in terms of interstate commerce and internal customs barriers, with a realistic possibility of bypassing the provincial courts and obtaining a preliminary injunction directly from the SCJ.
Ultimately, these are jurisdictional decisions and preliminary injunction rulings, not judgments on the merits, and they do not amount to a general reopening of original jurisdiction for every IIBB claim. They do, however, mark a shift in position within a line of case law that, for more than a decade, had left taxpayers litigating before the same tax authorities that were withholding their funds.
It will be important to monitor whether these two cases ultimately consolidate a stable rule that may also apply to other provinces with similar regimes. In the meantime, the window is open, and companies affected by extraterritorial collection regimes now have, for the first time in years, a strong argument to seek to cross it.