Recent jurisprudence of the Chilean Supreme Court on violation of regulatory standard of proof in tax matters

Abstract

This paper examines the jurisprudence issued during the year 2016 of the Supreme Court of Chile produced by resolving appeals in cases in which one of the parties accuse violating norms of evidence, in particular, the rules of “sane criticism” (sana crítica). This, in order to highlight the way in which our High Court has conceptualized such rules of valuation, distinguishing this substantive infringement from the mere defects of justification and rejecting by that way to refer to a new assessment of the facts, a question that, We will prove, has not yet been assimilated by the litigants of the specialty, implying that the appeals presented in relation to the point in question have not prospered. Likewise, this jurisprudential tendency is confronted with the position of the doctrine on the subject , particularly regarding the insufficient reasoning of the judgments as grounds for cassation in the fund for violation of norms that regulate the evidence.