With expectations for 2016, for debugging of IMAN and IMAS will not be an exempt income of 25%. With this admission of incident fiscal impact, is consolidated and solidified the position of non-application of income exempt for determining the minimum retention source.

One of the most outstanding news last year was related to Case C-492 of August 5, 2015, through which the Constitutional Court found that within the tax base of IMAN and IMAS should be included 25% exempt income in respect of labor payments, with the aim to guarantee income reporting individuals a subsistence minimum. That judgment modulated the temporary effects of its application, however it noted that the inclusion of 25% exemption for IMAN and IMAS apply from 2016.
Well, we know that the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit promoted an incident fiscal impact against that judgment, arguing that it affects the sustainability of public finances, which are already in a critical situation because of the slowing economy and falling oil prices, why requested the Court to defer the effects of the judgment for an additional taxable period, so it applies for the calculation of IMAN and IMAS obtained from fiscal year 2017. The Ministry argues that the fiscal cost of the judgment would be approximately $335,000 million, which “approaches 10% of the approved by Congress for the judicial branch budget.” In addition, the Ministry of Finance considers that recipients of the judgment belong to households with higher incomes, which therefore have savings capacity making it unnecessary to protect percentages of their labor income.

Well, under Article 9 of Law 1695 of 2013, by Order 184 of April 27th of this month, the Constitutional Court admitted the incident fiscal impact, implying that the effects of the judgment C-492 2015 are suspended, for which that the State shall notify the decision and set a date to celebrate the fiscal impact Audience that will emerge with the concurrence of the plaintiff in the action of unconstitutionality and the Ministry of Finance. After that, the Court must decide whether modulated, modified or different effects.

But what really stands out from the decision to admit the incident fiscal impact is that, as mandated by Article 9 of Law 1695 of 2013, the effects of the judgment that causes the incident are suspended until the Court decides if necessary to modulate, modify or vary its effects.