THE USE OF HOMINIS PRESUMPTION BY TAX ADMINISTRATIONS: ANALYSIS OF ITS ADMISSIBILITY AS EVIDENCE IN THE FACE OF STRUCTURED TAX FRAUD

Abstract

This article aims to analyze the validity and limits of the use of hominis presumption as evidence for characterizing tax violations arising from structured tax fraud, considering the complexity and sophistication of the mechanisms used to conceal taxable events. This practice involves more than one beneficiary and structures capable of hiding actual events through sham legal transactions and the use of shell or fictitious companies, thereby giving simulated operations an appearance of legality and hindering proof of the violations through direct evidence or legal presumptions. Methodologically, the study adopts a qualitative approach and the deductive method, based on bibliographic, documentary, and case-law research, with analysis of specialized scholarship, applicable legislation, and administrative and judicial precedents. The study demonstrates the relevance of hominis presumption as a legally valid evidentiary tool that does not violate constitutional principles and safeguards. It concludes that its use is admissible and necessary to confront structured tax fraud, provided that it is based on serious, precise, and concordant indicia and that taxpayers are afforded a full opportunity to present counterevidence.