Seguimiento dado a las recomendaciones del Comité y del Consejo de Administración - Informe núm. 338, Noviembre 2005

Effect given to the recommendations of the Committee and the Governing Body

1. 295. The Committee last examined this case at its November 2004 meeting, when it made the following recommendation regarding the allegations that remained pending [see 335th Report, paras. 1173 to 1185]:
   • Recalling that the authorities should not discriminate against a trade union organization as concerns the imposition of taxes, the Committee requests the Government to confirm whether or not trade union organizations generally benefit from tax exemption and, if so, to take measures to ensure that the complainant organization is not discriminated against and so that the back taxes being demanded by the Municipality of Metropolitan Lima from the Federation of Peruvian Light and Power Workers (FTLFP) are not levied. The Committee requests the Government to keep it informed in this respect.
2. 296. In a communication dated 27 June 2005, the FTLFP reiterated the allegations made in its initial complaint.
3. 297. In a communication dated 19 April 2005, the Government indicated that the complaint concerned, in essence, the property tax and municipal tax levied by the Municipality of Metropolitan Lima (MML). Regarding the property tax, it says that national law provides that land owned by trade union organizations, duly recognized by the Ministry of Labour and Employment Promotion, is exempt as long as it is used for the specific purposes of the union. It should be noted, however, that the exemption from this tax for land belonging to trade unions was introduced recently by Act No. 27616 (which came into force on 1 January 2002), as it was not included in the original text of the Municipal Tax Law (Legislative Decree No. 776, which came into force on 1 January 1994). Therefore the claim made by the FTLFP regarding the alleged unjust imposition of the aforementioned tax by the MML in 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2001, is without foundation, as in that period there was no provision for trade union exemption. On the other hand, there may be grounds for the claim corresponding to the period from 2002 to the present day. In this regard, the complainant could appeal to the MML for a declaration of exemption from the tax in question for that period, as long as it can show that it meets the relevant requirements; if its request is not granted, it could go through the appropriate channels of appeal according to the current provisions in force. Regarding the municipal tax, the Government states that there is a paragraph in Standard IV of the introductory title of the Consolidated Text of the Tax Code, approved by Presidential Decree No. 135 99-EF, according to which local governments can use by-laws to create, modify or abolish contributions, municipal taxes, laws and licences or give exemption from them, within their jurisdiction and subject to the requirements of the law. According to the MML, between 1997 and 2004 there has been no by-law under the aforementioned standard exonerating trade union organizations from these taxes. This being the case, there are no grounds for the complaint against the collection of municipal taxes, as there is no specific provision supporting it.
4. 298. In a communication dated 24 August 2005, the Government confirmed that federations are exempt from property tax in accordance with the Municipal Tax Law. They must pay municipal tax as long as the by-laws regulating such a tax, for fiscal years 1997 to 2004, do not provide for any relief for the complainant and provided that the requirement to pay taxes cannot be identified as being an anti-union practice.
5. 299. The Committee takes note of this information.