Dominican Republic: Tax updates include FATCA relief, mandatory e-invoicing, and court decisions (August 2026)

The KPMG member firm in the Dominican Republic has prepared its August 2026 tax updates report (English and Spanish), highlighting the following developments:

• FATCA relief for missing U.S. TINs extended: The General Directorate of Internal Taxes (DGII) announced that the IRS temporary relief for FATCA-reporting financial institutions that are unable to obtain a U.S. taxpayer identification number (U.S. TIN) for reportable U.S. accounts has been extended for the 2025, 2026, and 2027 reporting periods. Financial institutions must continue obtaining and reporting dates of birth when a U.S. TIN is unavailable, use applicable IRS explanation codes, annually request the missing U.S. TIN, conduct internal record searches, and report the appropriate explanation code for affected accounts.
• E-invoicing mandate reaffirmed: The DGII reiterated on August 26, 2026, that taxpayers classified as Large Local taxpayers and Medium-Sized taxpayers must, beginning November 1, 2026, issue invoices exclusively through electronic tax receipts (e-CFs) using type “E” sequences. Existing type “B” non-electronic tax receipt sequences will remain valid only through October 31, 2026. Noncompliance may result in penalties under Law No. 32-23 on electronic invoicing.
• Customs valuation assessments require individualized justification: The Third Chamber of the Superior Administrative Court held that the Dominican Customs Authority must provide individualized justification when rejecting customs valuation methods in sequence. The court concluded that merely identifying the valuation method applied is insufficient and that customs authorities must explain why each preceding valuation method was rejected before applying a subsequent method. Because the challenged reassessment lacked adequate reasoning, the court declared the customs assessment and related penalties null.
• Proof of receipt required to suspend the statute of limitations: The First Chamber of the Superior Administrative Court held that evidence showing transmission of a notification through the DGII Virtual Office does not, by itself, prove that a taxpayer actually received the notification. The court concluded that, absent proof of effective receipt, such communications do not suspend the statute of limitations. The court also clarified that a late-filed tax return interrupts the limitations period as an acknowledgment of liability, but does not trigger the additional two-year suspension period applicable in cases of failure to file. Applying these principles, the court declared certain tax liabilities time-barred.
• Tax penalties require proof of each procedural step: The Third Chamber of the Superior Administrative Court upheld a tax assessment but revoked the penalty for noncompliance with formal obligations because the DGII failed to prove each step of the administrative sanctioning procedure. The court emphasized that tax penalties require proof that all procedural requirements and due process safeguards were satisfied.
• Audits cannot be expanded to unaudited tax periods: The First Chamber of the Superior Administrative Court held that the DGII may not assess or collect tax liabilities for periods that were not included in the audit formally notified to the taxpayer, including periods arising from amended returns that were not part of the notified audit. Adjustments for such periods must be excluded, even if the remainder of the assessment is sustained.