Tax settlement, legal clarity and scope

effects on agreements and revenue in mediation (Ecuador)

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62155/eirene.v9i16.341

Keywords:

Mediation, Taxation, Public finance, Fiscal policy, ADR

Abstract

This research report examines the performance of tax mediation within Ecuador’s revenue administration, testing a coordination hypothesis whereby legal clarity and the breadth of transactable issues condition operational and resolutive efficiency. We draw on two sources: (i) official administrative records from the Internal Revenue Service (Servicio de Rentas Internas, SRI; covering 1,130 filings from December 2021 to March 2025; and (ii) a survey of tax professionals (n = 46) with high scale reliability (overall α = 0.961; KMO = 0.816; Bartlett p < .001). Methods include descriptive and inferential statistics.

Administrative data indicate a completion rate of 82.9% (937/1,130) and 170 agreements associated with USD 108.58 million in revenue (2022–Mar. 2025). Usage and agreements decline after 2022. Normatively, approximately 68% of cases rely on Tax Code art. 56.7 (ordinary regime), while reliance on the Seventh Transitory Provision (2021 reform) is confined to 2021–2022. In the survey, legal clarity and scope is the only significant predictor of perceived mediation performance (R² = 0.301; standardized β = 0.548; p < 0.001). A mediation analysis shows accessibility functions as an intervening mechanism linking implementation to efficiency.

Findings suggest that practical performance hinges less on caseload volume than on normative design (clarity/scope) and operational conditions (accessibility). Policy implications include case-anchored guidance on transigibility, service standards (time targets), and public dashboards tracking agreements, impossibilities, time to disposition, and revenue. Inferences are analytical rather than strictly causal and are bounded by period and sources.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Fabián Alejandro Romero Jarrín, Universidad Católica de Cuenca

Fabián Romero Jarrín es doctorando (Ph.D. candidate) en MASC por la Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León (UANL, México). Obtuvo un Máster en Derecho con mención en Derecho Tributario por la Universidad Andina Simón Bolívar, Sede Ecuador. Actualmente es profesor titular de Derecho Tributario en la Unidad de Ciencias Sociales de la Universidad Católica de Cuenca. Es miembro activo de la Asociación Latinoamericana y del Caribe de Derecho y Economía (ALACDE), del grupo de investigación CONVERGENCIA y del Instituto Ecuatoriano de Derecho Tributario (IEDT).

Daniel Alberto Garza de la Vega, Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León

Specialist lawyer with more than 15 years of experience in Digital Law and Cybersecurity. He has carried out strategic litigation in matters of computer crimes, legal advisor in matters of Data Protection and Advanced Electronic Signature. He is a specialist in Tax Law and Emerging Technologies, providing business advice on the topics of Electronic Billing and Accounting; the use of Bigdata in tax matters; the use of Blockchain Technologies in tax matters; e-Mediation and Tax Arbitration; Supervision of Cryptocurrencies; Taxpayer Rights to Algorithmic Transparency among other select topics. He has a Doctor of Law with an emphasis on MASC; Master in Tax Law and Law Degree from FacDyC-UANL; as well as, Doctor in Human Rights from the University of Multinational Studies. He has the recognition of the National System of Researchers of CONAHCYT Level I. He is a Researcher of CITEJyC-UANL. He is a professor in the Master's Degree in Tax Law and Public Finance at the FacDyC-UANL in the subject of Tax Digitalization. He is recognized by the Illustrious and National Bar Association of Mexico and the Nuevo León Bar Association as President of the Digital Law and Cybersecurity Commission. He currently serves as President Rector of the College of Specialists in Digital Law, Cybersecurity and Cybercriminology.

References

Constitución. (2008, octubre 20). Constitución de la República del Ecuador [Registro Oficial 449].

Cooter, R. D., & Rubinfeld, D. L. (1989). Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes and Their Resolution. Journal of Economic Literature, 27(3), 1067–1097.

Cooter, R. D., & Ulen, T. (2016). Derecho y economía. Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Ecuador. (2005, junio 14). Código Tributario. Codificación n.o 9 [Registro Oficial 38, Suplemento].

Ecuador. (2021, noviembre 29). Ley Orgánica para el desarrollo económico y sostenibilidad fiscal tras la pandemia COVID-19 [Tercer Suplemento del Registro Oficial No. 587].

García, L. (2010). La mediación a través de sus principios. Revista General de Legislación y Jurisprudencia, 4, 717–756.

Garza, D. (2017). Los acuerdos conclusivos como forma alternativa de solución del conflicto hacendario en México. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León.

Gorjón Gómez, F. (2015). De la instrumentalización científica de la mediación y de los MASC. En F. Gorjón (Ed.), La ciencia de la mediación. Tirant lo Blanch.

Gorjón Gómez, F. (2023). El poder de la mediación. Porrúa. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29105/msc2.2-27

Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a Conceptual Framework for Mixed-Method Evaluation Designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255–274. https://doi.org/10.2307/1163620 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737011003255

Hernández Sampieri, R. (2014). Metodología de la investigación. McGraw-Hill.

Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: Triangulation in Action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392366 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2392366

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An Index of Factorial Simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291575

Knekta, E., Runyon, C., & Eddy, S. (2019). One Size Doesn’t Fit All: Using Factor Analysis to Gather Validity Evidence When Using Surveys in Your Research. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(1), rm1. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-04-0064 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-04-0064

Lozano Sánchez, J. R., & Vives Varela, T. (2011). Diez puntos básicos de un mediador en el manejo de conflictos. Investigación en Educación Médica, 1(1), 40–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/fm.20075057e.2012.01.00009

Servicio de Rentas Internas (SRI). (2025). Oficio No. 917012025OCEF0001953 (respuesta a solicitud de información oficial).

Suberbiola, I. (2023). La mediación como instrumento para reducir la conflictividad tributaria en sede administrativa: el ejemplo del Appeals Office del IRS. En I. Suberbiola (Ed.), El arbitraje en materia tributaria. Tirant lo Blanch.

Tarud, C. (2013). El principio de voluntariedad en la legislación de mediación familiar en Chile. Opinión Jurídica, 12(23), 115–132.

Downloads

Published

2026-01-26

How to Cite

Romero Jarrín, F. A., & Garza de la Vega, D. A. (2026). Tax settlement, legal clarity and scope: effects on agreements and revenue in mediation (Ecuador). Eirene Studies of Peace and Conflicts, 9(16), 253–277. https://doi.org/10.62155/eirene.v9i16.341

Issue

Vol. 9 No. 16 (2026): January-June 2026

Section

Informes de Investigación

ARK

https://n2t.net/ark:/48568/Eirene.v9.n16.341

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Fabián Alejandro Romero Jarrín, Daniel Alberto Garza de la Vega

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Copyright Notices Proposed by Creative Commons

1. Proposed Policy for Journals Offering Open Access

Those authors who have publications with this journal, accept the following terms:

a.  Authors will retain their copyright and guarantee the journal the right of first publication of their work, which will be simultaneously subject to the Creative Commons Recognition License for which the user is free to: share, copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format; and to remix, transform and build from the material. This under the following terms:

- Credit must be given appropriately (journal, author, url / doi).

- A link to the license is provided.

- It is indicated if the changes were made.

- They are not used for commercial purposes.

b. Authors may adopt other non-exclusive license agreements for the distribution of the published version of the work (eg: deposit it in an institutional telematic archive or publish it in a monographic volume) provided that the initial publication in this journal is indicated.

c. Authors are allowed and recommended to disseminate their work through the Internet (eg: in institutional telematic files or on their website) before and during the submission process, which can lead to interesting exchanges and increase citations of the published work. (See The effect of open access).