In Colombia, the DIAN and the tax authorities of departments, municipalities, and districts have been initiating collection actions even when the underlying tax liability is not legally final. In practice, obligations that are still under discussion are being treated as if they were already definitive and enforceable: seizures and payment orders are being issued despite pending appeals or ongoing administrative or judicial challenges. For companies, this represents an immediate risk, as their cash flow may be affected by a collection procedure that has not yet been legally resolved.
Article 828 of the Tax Statute (ET) and Article 98 of the Code of Administrative Procedure and Administrative Litigation (CPACA) clearly establish that the tax administration may only initiate coercive collection proceedings once the final administrative act has become enforceable. In other words, the obligation must meet the minimum statutory criteria of certainty: it must be clear, express, and demandable.
- Clear and express means that the obligation is fully determined without any ambiguity—its amount, origin, and the person responsible for payment must be known with certainty.
- Enforceable means that the act supporting the debt (for example, an official tax assessment) is already final: no appeals are pending, it is not being challenged, and it is not subject to any administrative or judicial review that could modify or annul it.
Only when all these conditions are met does the act become enforceable and capable of being collected through coercive measures. This leads to a basic principle: the State may initiate coercive collection only when there is a valid enforceable title. Without such a title, coercive collection is not legally permissible.
In practice, however, several municipalities—and even the DIAN—have been disregarding this requirement, issuing payment orders and ordering account seizures without verifying whether the title is truly enforceable, and without confirming whether the obligation has already been paid, whether payment agreements exist, or even whether the collection action is already time-barred under Article 829 of the Tax Statute.
These types of actions have immediate consequences for taxpayers, particularly businesses: frozen bank accounts, difficulties paying payroll, delays with suppliers, strained relationships with financial institutions, and uncomfortable explanations before boards of directors or auditors.
Given this scenario, a key question arises: can companies protect themselves against coercive collection measures initiated without a final and enforceable obligation?
The good news is that there are mechanisms that allow companies to challenge coercive collection measures based on non-final obligations—provided they act promptly and receive appropriate legal counsel.
First, the case law of the Council of State has consistently reiterated that coercive collection in tax matters may only proceed when administrative acts are final. This means that the tax authority must refrain from initiating any coercive action while there are pending appeals, ongoing judicial proceedings, irregular notifications, or defects affecting the validity or enforceability of the act.
Secondly, the legal system provides taxpayers with specific defense mechanisms that must be activated as soon as they are notified of any persuasive or coercive action. These include:
- Filing objections within the collection proceeding, particularly for lack of an enforceable title or lack of enforceability.
- Filing actions before the administrative courts, accompanied, when necessary, by requests for precautionary measures aimed at suspending or neutralizing the collection while the legality of the underlying act is assessed.
- Seeking constitutional relief, in exceptional cases where there is an imminent risk to fundamental rights or arbitrary actions that seriously affect the company’s operations.
The art of anticipating risks
In this context, the best defense for companies is not only to react, but to anticipate.
For a manager or administrator, this translates into the need for a basic internal control system for tax matters, especially at the local level, since many collection actions originate from data errors, outdated cross-checks, or parallel processes that are not being monitored. Therefore, if the company operates in several municipalities, it is essential to have a clear map of what is owed, where it is owed, the procedural status of each case, which actions are under dispute, and which ones are already final.
This type of control prevents the company from discovering the problem only when a lien has already been imposed, and allows for the timely detection of irregularities, duplicate charges, or decisions that do not comply with the legal requirements of finality.
In addition, there must be an immediate response to any notice of collection, seizure, or persuasive request. Companies must systematically verify whether the act supporting the debt is being challenged or has pending appeals, has already been paid or is covered by a payment agreement, contains notification defects, or can no longer be collected due to the statute of limitations.
In an environment where administrative errors can lead to immediate seizures and blockages, a company’s true strength lies in anticipation: knowing its processes, monitoring its enforceable titles, and using the legal tools available in a timely manner to stop collections that should not proceed.