Notable foundation: Sixteenth: With respect to the aforementioned considerations, it should be noted that in terms of regulating the duration of the financial lease contract, on the date the aforementioned contract was entered into, there was no limit in Legislative Decree No. 299, providing in article 7 of this rule that the term of the contract will be set by the parties. In this sense, as has even been determined by the appealed judgment in its thirteenth ground, the invocation and use by the tax administration in the inspection carried out of Circular No. B-1763-87, dated April twenty-two, nineteen eighty-seven, which established the minimum term of financial leasing contracts at five years, violates the principle of normative hierarchy in relation to what is regulated by article 7 of Legislative Decree No. 299, which does not contain a minimum term.
Seventeenth: This conclusion is otherwise recognized by the Superintendency of Banking and Insurance in Multiple Official Letter No. 7434-2003-SBS dated April 3, two thousand and three, in which the aforementioned entity has indicated that the provisions contained in Circular B-1763-87 “(…) were of a strictly prudential nature, with the purpose of safeguarding the economic and financial stability of the institutions that were authorized to carry out financial leasing operations” adding that their application, “(…) does not determines the validity and even the effectiveness of the financial leasing contracts that are entered into, since for this purpose the provisions contained in the Civil Code on the matter are exclusively governed, in accordance with the norms of Legislative Decree No. 299 and its amending and complementary norms” .
Eighteenth: In this sense, since there is no rule that establishes an express limit around the duration of the term of the lease, this element cannot be used to pretend to ignore the effectiveness of the lease entered into by the appellant.
Nineteenth: On the other hand, regarding the other considerations that have been invoked to dismiss the existence of a financial lease contract, it should be noted that there is no legal impediment for the installments of said contract to be paid with resources obtained from through financing from a financial institution, nor in the way, form and opportunity in the manner in which the purchase option has been exercised in the present case, the state of liquidity of the contracting company being indifferent, therefore these objections Nor can they validly support ignorance of the existence and effectiveness of the financial lease contract entered into.