Statute of limitations for tax crimes in Colombia:
if DIAN reported you over something from years ago, before relying on the idea that it already expired it pays to count the term correctly and review what interrupts it and what other options exist.

Article 83 of the Penal Code provides that the criminal action lapses after a period equal to the maximum custodial penalty set by law, not less than 5 nor more than 20 years, taking into account the substantive circumstances that modify punishability. For withholding or collecting agents, the same article increases the term by one half, without exceeding the maximum limit (Law 1474 of 2011, art. 14; the increase used to be one third). The 30-year terms and the imprescriptibility in that article concern other crimes.

Art. 402: prison of 48 to 108 months and a fine of twice the amount not remitted, up to 1,020,000 UVT; a maximum of 9 years, which would be the base term, reaching 13.5 years with the one-half increase for withholding agents. Art. 434A (from 1,000 SMMLV): prison of 48 to 108 months; base term of 9 years. Art. 434B (between 100 and 2,500 SMMLV): prison of 36 to 60 months; base term of 5 years. Under 434A and 434B the penalty rises by one third between 2,500 and 5,000 SMMLV and by one half above 5,000 SMMLV, and article 83 requires taking into account the circumstances that modify punishability. How these increases combine with the term is for the criminal authority to define; do not take it for granted.

Article 84 distinguishes: for instantaneous offenses, from consummation; for continuing offenses or those that only reach attempt, from the last act; for omissions, when the duty to act ceases. For failure to remit withholdings, the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court (order AP3711-2018, case file 53405, of August 29, 2018) counted the term from the end of the two-month period after the payment due date, not from the filing. Under 434A and 434B the amount must be defined by an official assessment, and from which date the term runs must be reviewed in each file.

The limitation period of the criminal action is interrupted by the formal charging hearing, the imputación (Penal Code art. 86; to the same effect, art. 292 of Law 906 of 2004). Under the text of article 86, the complaint does not interrupt it. Once interrupted, the term runs again for a period equal to half of the one set in article 83, which cannot be less than five nor more than ten years. How both rules apply together in a specific case must be reviewed with the file.

It suspends it; it does not extinguish the action. For the crimes of articles 402, 434A and 434B, the limitation period of the criminal action is suspended by the signing of a payment agreement with the tax administration on the obligations under investigation, for as long as it is granted, without exceeding five years from signing and until the tax authority declares compliance or breach; once either event occurs, the term resumes (art. 83, paragraph added by art. 70 of Law 2277 of 2022). In other words, the agreement buys time but does not close the criminal case.

Finality (Tax Code art. 714) consolidates the return: under the general rule of three years from the filing deadline, with no special requirement notified, DIAN can no longer modify it. The limitation of the collection action (Tax Code art. 817) is five years and extinguishes the power to collect the debt. The limitation of the criminal action is something else: the Penal Code regulates it according to the penalty of the crime. Under 434A and 434B, moreover, the amount must be defined by an official assessment, so the deadlines of the tax dispute influence whether the criminal action can proceed; this is analyzed case by case.

Not necessarily. The limitation of the criminal action extinguishes the criminal action; the tax obligation and the administrative penalties have their own regime (finality of the return and limitation of the collection action). That is why, even if the crime has expired, you need to check whether DIAN can still assess or collect, and whether it makes sense to pay or dispute on that front.

Because payment can close the criminal front before the whole limitation term runs, which is long and can restart. Under article 402, whoever extinguishes the obligation by payment or offset of the amounts owed with interest benefits from an inhibitory resolution, preclusion of the investigation or cessation of proceedings, without prejudice to administrative penalties. Under articles 434A and 434B, paragraph 2 provides that the criminal action is extinguished up to two times when taxes, tax penalties and interest are paid; once exhausted, payment only allows a penalty reduction of up to one half. Tax limitation is not among the grounds in those paragraphs, which speak of payment or offset. Whether to pay is decided case by case, and no result is guaranteed.

The filing and payment deadlines and the filing date of each return; the end of the two months of article 402; the official assessment, its notification and the appeals; the date of the complaint, the summonses and, above all, of the charging hearing; whether there is a payment agreement; the amount in SMMLV and the penalty increases; and who in fact performed the tax compliance function. With that, the term is counted and the strategy is decided.

Ligal is a firm specialized in tax, customs and tax criminal law. Under the direction of Juan Santiago Rodríguez Prieto, tax lawyer and ex-DIAN, together with Jeysson Pulido, accountant, and LIGAL Auditores (certified public accountants), we combine legal argument with accounting evidence and handle the defense from start to finish: the dispute before DIAN, the Fiscalía and the courts. Our work is backed by 5.0 / 5 on Google with 36 reviews: https://share.google/VVzMvULrOj8Mj52Au. The team handles real cases of tax audits, enforced collection and tax litigation. No result is guaranteed.