May 21, 2026
By: Gabriela Páez
Tax Manager - EAS LATAM
When a company receives a communication from the Tax Administration, it is not always facing a complete tax audit. In Costa Rica, the legal framework allows different levels of tax control, ranging from punctual and formal reviews to broader intensive audits.
Understanding the difference between a formal check, an abbreviated assessment and an intensive audit is important to respond correctly, prepare documentation, control deadlines and assess the economic risks of the process. The difference is not only technical: each stage may have different consequences in terms of taxes, interest, penalties, administrative remedies and, in exceptional cases, potential referral to criminal authorities.
1. Types of tax control
The Tax Procedure Regulations distinguish between extensive formal or material control and intensive material control. Extensive control includes formal checks, abbreviated assessments and verification of formal duties. Intensive control seeks to verify the taxpayer’s tax situation in order to confirm the exact compliance with substantive tax obligations and duties.
Verification of formal duties: registration, updates, filing of returns, electronic invoices, records and supply of information. It may result in a prevention notice, request or formal sanction.
Formal check: arithmetic errors, factual errors or legal errors in a tax return. It is a limited review and may result in a preliminary assessment or other administrative action.
Abbreviated assessment: concrete differences detected with information already held by the Tax Administration or requested from the taxpayer. It may result in a preliminary assessment or regularization proposal.
Intensive audit: accounting books, ledgers, banks, contracts, inventories, income, expenses, returns and third-party transactions. It is a substantive tax audit and may result in a regularization proposal or official assessment.
2. Abbreviated assessment: specific, but not minor
The abbreviated assessment allows the Administration to issue preliminary assessments using data and evidence already in its possession or requested from the taxpayer, for a specific period or tax. Its scope should not extend to a complete examination of the accounting books of the business or professional activity reviewed, although it may review specific information from accounts or records related to the point under analysis.
The practical distinction is clear: an abbreviated assessment reviews a concrete issue, while an intensive audit reviews the taxpayer’s tax situation more broadly. The first may use existing or specifically requested information and may lead to a preliminary assessment. The second may review books, ledgers, complete documentation and third parties, and may lead to an official assessment.
3. Basic deadlines to control
Specific deadlines depend on the type of action and the act notified. Each communication must therefore be reviewed carefully. Nevertheless, some frequent milestones include the following:
Start of formal check or abbreviated assessment: notification of the opening act, which should indicate the nature of the review, periods, tax, specific issues, evidence used and proposal.
Omission of a tax return detected through a preliminary assessment: a period of 10 business days may be granted to file the return when applicable.
No request for additional information: 5 business days to express agreement or disagreement.
Disagreement in a formal check or abbreviated assessment: 10 business days to file arguments and evidence.
Final hearing in an intensive audit: notice with at least 3 business days in advance, where determinations, legal grounds and the regularization proposal are communicated.
Disagreement in an intensive audit: at the hearing or within the following 5 days, which may lead to continuation of the procedure and an official assessment.
Appeal before the Administrative Tax Court: 30 days from notification of the appealable act.
Judicial contentious-administrative process: as a general rule, one year from the day after notification of the challenged act.
4. Penalties and reductions depending on the stage
Penalties do not depend only on the type of audit, but also on the breach detected and on the moment in which the taxpayer corrects, accepts or disputes the facts. The earlier the taxpayer regularizes, the greater the potential reduction of the penalty.
Before any Tax Administration action: a 75% reduction may apply, and it may reach 80% if the taxpayer self-assesses and pays the penalty when correcting.
After an administrative action but before the determinative act or sanctioning resolution: a 50% reduction may apply, and it may reach 55% if the taxpayer self-assesses and pays.
After the determinative act or within the period to challenge it: a 25% reduction may apply, and it may reach 30% if the taxpayer self-assesses and pays.
If the dispute continues through administrative or judicial stages: the final cost depends on the outcome and on the qualification of the conduct.
5. When can a 150% penalty appear?
The 150% penalty is not automatically calculated on the amount of the adjustment. In an audit, if the Administration determines an adjustment for omitted income, unjustified increase in net worth or another material difference, it must first determine the tax left unpaid. The penalty is calculated on the penalty base, not necessarily on the gross amount adjusted.
For example, if the adjustment determined by the Tax Administration is CRC 100,000,000 and the omitted tax is assumed at 30%, the penalty base would normally be CRC 30,000,000. A 150% penalty, if applicable, would amount to CRC 45,000,000. The 150% penalty corresponds to cases classified as very serious and associated with fraudulent means. Therefore, it should not be stated that every audit adjustment automatically generates a 150% penalty.
6. Criminal alert: only for exceptional cases
Article 92 of the Tax Code establishes the offense of fraud against the Public Treasury when the defrauded tax, unpaid withholdings, undue refunds or improperly obtained tax benefits exceed 500 base salaries. For 2026, the Judiciary set the base salary at CRC 462,200, so 500 base salaries equal CRC 231,100,000.
The criminal threshold is not measured on the gross adjustment, but on the allegedly defrauded tax. It does not include interest, penalties or sanctioning surcharges.
7. Practical lesson from administrative case law
TFA Resolution No. 014-P-2026 confirms a relevant idea for companies: in a tax audit, accounting and financial statements are important, but they do not replace specific documentary evidence. In that case, the Court analyzed accounts receivable between related companies and concluded that the statement of cash flows and audited financial statements were not sufficient, by themselves, to demonstrate the origin of the funds when verifiable supporting documentation was missing.
The practical lesson is clear: a company must be able to connect its accounting records with source documents. Contracts, subsidiary ledgers, bank transfers, minutes, agreements, reconciliations and other supporting records should exist and be available before an audit begins, not prepared in an improvised manner once the procedure has already started.
The tax audit process should be understood as a sequence of actions with different levels of depth. A formal check does not have the same scope as an abbreviated assessment, and neither of them necessarily equals an intensive audit. For that reason, it is essential for companies to identify from the beginning the type of action they are facing and the associated level of risk.
From a practical perspective, the most important point is to act with technical order from the earliest stages of the procedure: control deadlines, prepare sufficient evidence, reconcile accounting information with tax returns and evaluate in a timely manner whether it is appropriate to regularize differences or maintain a defense position.
This criterion has particularly relevant implications for business groups that use internal financing structures or frequent related-party movements. In these cases, it is not enough to demonstrate the existence of the transaction; the company must also be able to clearly and verifiably evidence the real origin of the funds used.
References
Tax Code, Law No. 4755, articles 78, 79, 81, 83, 88, 92, 146 and 156. Official source: Costa Rican Legal Information System (SCIJ/PGR).
Tax Procedure Regulations, Executive Decree No. 38277-H, articles 119, 120, 124, 129, 155, 156 and 163. Official source: SCIJ/PGR.
Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, Law No. 8508, article 39. Official source: SCIJ/PGR.
Law No. 7337, Concept of Base Salary for Special Offenses of the Criminal Code, article 2.
Judiciary of Costa Rica, General Secretariat Circular No. 246-2025, base salary applicable for 2026 set at CRC 462,200.
Administrative Tax Court, First Chamber, Resolution TFA No. 014-P-2026, January 15, 2026.
Editorial note: this article was prepared for newsletter purposes and must be adjusted to the specific case before being used as individualized professional advice.
Technical reference document. It does not constitute individualized legal advice.