The Buenosairean justice dictated that it is illegal and tried, without success, to block it. Even the Buenos Aires government developed its own application, BA Taxi, to avoid its use. But Uber managed to keep working.But now the horizon has turned black for the travel platform with driver, after the AFIP denounced it for a millionaire evasion. Not only of taxes, but also of employer obligations, since it considers its more than 60,000 drivers as employees in relation of dependence.In effect, the agency claims a debt of more than $ 358 million, consisting of:- $ 112 million interest on Social Security- $ 81 million VAT- $ 67 million of Income Tax- $ 43 million fines- $ 31 million of employer contributions- $ 25 million in contributionsIt was a bucket of cold water for the company, which in a desperate attempt came to respond to the collector. He assures that his drivers "are not employed" and that "he pays all the taxes" corresponding to his activity.In this sense, it indicates that "the Courts Nº 7 and Nº 14 in the Penal, Contravencional and of Faults of the City of Buenos Aires ratified with three firm judgments, in November of 2018, that the driving partners are not employees of the platform" ."At the moment, Uber has not received formal notification from AFIP of any process, in response to the information released, it clarifies that it pays all taxes and is available for any consultation by AFIP," they point out from the company, which does not stop have headaches in his short stay in the country.However, the Buenos Aires justice gave him another thrust in the last hours. The head of the court number 15 in the Contentious Administrative and Tax Matters of the City of Buenos Aires, Víctor Trionfetti, resolved the extension of the precautionary measure issued on April 13, 2016, within the framework of the process initiated by the Trade Union of Tax Pawns .Everything indicates that the bid between the collector and the US company will add several chapters in the courts.According to sources consulted by iProUP, if Uber finally loses the arm wrestling against the treasury, he must pay the millionaire fine and is forced to pay contributions and contributions for his drivers -as if all of them were in a dependent relationship-, he will leave Argentina.The tax frontIs there a dependency relationship between service providers (drivers in the case of Uber or cyclists if it is Rappi, Glovo or Orders already) and the platforms in which they work? On the legal level, the answer to this question divides the waters between the labor lawyers themselves.However, at the tax level there is consensus among specialists that a company operating in the country should be taxed by the tax authorities.For Iván Sasovsky, when calculating the debt, it must first be defined under what type of link the relationship between the app and the thousands of people who work for them is framed."It is much broader than it seems, it is not just a fiscal issue or Social Security, it has to do with the legitimacy of the operations they perform and the legal nature of this type of services in the country," he explains in a dialogue. with iProUP."Taxes must recognize the economic reality, there is a bias in the opinion of the Treasury, it has to do with forcing the business in a tax interpretation that has nothing to do with reality," completes the tax expert.In the event that an employment relationship is not confirmed, the taxpayer Marcelo Rodríguez assures: "The owner of the car would only pay VAT when it exceeds 100 km trips, as it happens with taxis and remises", while the American company "should pay Profits and VAT for the commission ".His colleague Sebastián Domínguez, agrees that Uber should be reached "by the commission, since it is not a benefit from abroad but it is a company that acts in Argentina."The conflict between the AFIP and Uber will go up in tone. According to Sasovsky, this ruling "will be appealed before the tax court for tax issues and before the chamber on Social Security issues.""In matters related to the determination of taxes, the Treasury could execute assets if this determination prospers in the future, that is to say, assets that it has in the country, it is very rare that embargoes are trapped abroad," he adds.At this point, the economy of the app presents another scenario not contemplated by the Argentine legislation. "At the time of executing the debt, we will not know against whom, because there are no assets," says Rodríguez, since the cars belong to the "driving partners" and not Uber.In addition, as the trips are paid in cash, since the Justice blocked the cards issued in Argentina for the operations of the application, there are also no accounts to block embargoes.The expert remarks on this point that "the treasury could request that the application be blocked throughout the country." It should be remembered that the Buenos Aires justice tried to do it but it was very difficult to apply the restriction only within the limits of the Federal Capital. On the other hand, preventing its use throughout the country would be easier.Domínguez is categorical when stating: "If Uber had to pay the taxes that the AFIP is claiming, they would not close the numbers, it does not reach the price it charges to absorb such expenses." The business model he has is based on not having employees ", assures the tributarista, who adds that in addition the firm would face high labor costs, judgments, et cetera.Sasovsky agrees that, if the dependency relationship is confirmed, the drivers will receive the corresponding contributions, but "Uber's business would no longer be viable"."The Treasury can suspend the CUIT, for example, but first there are preventive measures that their representatives will ask the judge, the fiscal is not related to the operation of the application," he adds.Ultimately, whether due to the blocking of the app or the obstacles to carry out its commercial activity, Uber will have no choice but to leave Argentina. For now, the company prefers to wait to see how events unfold.As iProUP reported, Uber has long been unable to receive the commissions its drivers must pay (25%) for cash trips. In other words, 100% of what customers have paid is left to the drivers. Meanwhile, payment by credit card is still restricted (except international plastics)."We do not consider it to be a waste, but as part of the different stages of development in the country," said Juan Labaqui, communications manager for Uber Cono Sur, to iProUP.The initial idea of the company was to recover those funds when they unlocked the cards, perhaps sometime this year. For this reason, the AFIP's claim resonated strongly within the company and put the suspension of the future of the app in Argentina.Currently, a person who handles eight hours, six days a week, receives around 36,000 pesos per month, according to company calculations. This means that this driver generated almost 9,000 pesos in commissions for the same period that the firm is not collecting. It is estimated that Uber has about 60,000 active drivers and more than 1 million users who regularly use the app in Argentina.The labor frontThe economy of the apps divides the waters between the main labor lawyers. Juan Carlos Cerutti maintains to iProUP that the "Uber case" is exactly the same as that of application workers like Rappi and Glovo.In this sense, he emphasizes: "It is a clear relation of dependence, in fact, the resolution of AFIP specifies fines for lack of contributions and contributions, that is to say, they are all employees that until now have remained 'black', from the perspective of the Argentine law ".According to the specialist, it is a finely calculated evasion system in which "these companies have 'non-workers' working for them autonomously."Another front of action to which Uber is exposed is the relationship with the unions. For Cerutti, "the union that corresponds to represent the workers of the company could demand social work or union contributions, among others."In addition, he adds that "there is a network of companies that takes the money abroad, divides it among several firms and brings it back to the country to pay the drivers." That's what the apps are worth to survive for years, evading taxes. "Pablo Mastromarino, partner of Tanoira Cassagne Abogados, has an opinion opposed to that of his colleague: "The case of Uber drivers is not the same as that of the delivery drivers, although in all these cases there is a common denominator: they are services provided through of digital platforms. "He adds that the problem is that the Labor Contract Law dates back to 1974. "There is no labor legislation that contemplates these new figures." Therefore, it is fundamental and urgent that a new law be approved that contemplates the special and particular situation of these workers. services"."Until this happens, companies are at the mercy of judicial attacks and there is a high risk that drivers will be framed in a dependency relationship," he adds.The lawyer considers that the technology "has created a new figure, a new type of service that breaks the dichotomy between dependent work and self-employment".Solana de Diego, from the Julián de Diego y Asociados studio, makes a comparison with the largest eCommerce platform in Latin America. "It's as if those who sell products in Mercado Libre ask to be recognized as a labor link to sell through the company," he says.Likewise, it considers that companies like Uber operate "within what is called 'collaborative work', in which the app is a mere intermediary between the drivers, who are autonomous personnel, and the passengers"."We are not talking about workers in a relationship of dependence, but self-employed who set their own hours, choose when to connect, what to take or refuse and do not receive any type of disciplinary sanction," he concludes.