{"id":577,"date":"2025-10-01T12:06:05","date_gmt":"2025-10-01T17:06:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/revistaderecho.ucsm.edu.pe\/revistaderecho\/?post_type=articulos&p=577"},"modified":"2025-10-01T12:16:10","modified_gmt":"2025-10-01T17:16:10","slug":"la-ambiguedad-del-articulo-3-de-la-ley-del-impuesto-a-la-renta-y-la-falta-de-precision-respecto-a-la-restitucion-de-activos-de-distinta-naturaleza-su-interpretacion-ratio-legis-implicita-como-f","status":"publish","type":"articulos","link":"https:\/\/revistaderecho.ucsm.edu.pe\/revistaderecho\/articulo\/la-ambiguedad-del-articulo-3-de-la-ley-del-impuesto-a-la-renta-y-la-falta-de-precision-respecto-a-la-restitucion-de-activos-de-distinta-naturaleza-su-interpretacion-ratio-legis-implicita-como-f\/","title":{"rendered":"La ambig\u00fcedad del art\u00edculo 3\u00b0 de la Ley del Impuesto a la Renta y la falta de precisi\u00f3n respecto a la restituci\u00f3n de activos de distinta naturaleza: su interpretaci\u00f3n ratio legis impl\u00edcita como fundamento fiscal de fondo"},"template":"","palabras-clave":[],"seccion":[],"class_list":["post-577","articulos","type-articulos","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistaderecho.ucsm.edu.pe\/revistaderecho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/articulos\/577","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistaderecho.ucsm.edu.pe\/revistaderecho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/articulos"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistaderecho.ucsm.edu.pe\/revistaderecho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/articulos"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/revistaderecho.ucsm.edu.pe\/revistaderecho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=577"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"palabras-clave","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistaderecho.ucsm.edu.pe\/revistaderecho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/palabras-clave?post=577"},{"taxonomy":"seccion","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/revistaderecho.ucsm.edu.pe\/revistaderecho\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/seccion?post=577"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}