Distributor's profit excluded from tax base of selective consumption tax on carbonated beveragesUtilidad del distribuidor excluida de la base imponible del impuesto selectivo de consumo sobre bebidas carbonatadas

III.- Principle of tax legality. Before analyzing the specific case, it is worth noting that in precedents dealing with the same debate, this Chamber has analyzed this principle. On this point, in resolution no. 657 of 15 hours 15 minutes of September 19, 2007, it stated: “Given its relevance in the matter, it is essential to analyze the scope of the so-called principle of tax legality, in order to establish the possibility of considering the non-inclusion of several items within the taxable base of the tax under examination. Taxes and their exceptions are covered by the principle of reserve of law (principio de reserva de ley), according to which, the legislator is responsible for their creation, modification, and extinction. At the constitutional level, it finds its basis in the text of numeral 121 subsection 13 of the Magna Carta, which assigns to the Legislative Assembly the exclusive authority to “establish national taxes and contributions, and authorize municipal ones.” This norm has been the subject of legal development to establish with clarity and precision the scope and coverage of the cited postulate. Thus, Article 5 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios clearly provides: “In tax matters, only the law may: a) Create, modify, or suppress taxes; define the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax relationship; establish the tax rates and their calculation bases; and indicate the passive subject; b) Grant exemptions, reductions, or benefits; (...)” A precept that is in full harmony with canon 124 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, insofar as it provides: “Regulations, circulars, instructions, and other administrative provisions of a general nature may not establish penalties nor impose levies, fees, fines, nor other similar charges.” For its part, ordinal 4 ibidem defines the tax as the monetary payments, be they imposts, fees, or special contributions, which the State, in the exercise of its power of imperium, demands for the purpose of obtaining resources for the fulfillment of its aims. This Chamber, moreover, in various pronouncements, supported by provisions 5 and 6 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, has been emphatic in respecting the principle of tax legality. For this reason, the impossibility of creating taxes or exemptions by means other than express law has been highlighted (among others, no. 5 of 15 hours 30 minutes of January 5, 2000). This postulate therefore implies not only the unity of the tax system in general, but also legal security and certainty in tax matters, insofar as the taxpayer can notice and know, with due advance notice and sufficient precision, the scope and content of the tax obligations, which is relevant for knowing the regime of subjection, the taxable event (hecho imponible), the calculation base, the rate, among other elements of the levy. It is necessary to specify that it also infers a material scope, within which the components of the tax that must necessarily be created by express law are established. Among these elements are, indispensably, the taxable event (hecho generador), the passive subject, the taxable base (base imponible), the tax rate, as well as the collection period, depending on whether it is progressive or instantaneous. The intervention of the law, therefore, is imperative in all those points that affect the rights and guarantees of the individual before the Tax Administration. However, regarding the rate, the Constitutional Court has established the possibility of a legislative delegation, provided, of course, through a law that establishes in advance the limits within which this exercise may be carried out. This is the case of the selective consumption tax. Hence, the referred reserve of law (reserva de ley) can be qualified as “relative,” as ratified in several of its pronouncements by said Chamber, among others in resolutions nos. 8271-2001, 8580-2001, and 5504-2002. Within this conception, exemptions and, in general, tax benefits are equally subject to this postulate of legality, by virtue of which, it is the law that must establish the factual assumption or the taxable event (hecho generador) of the fiscal benefit.” IV.- On the possibility of interpreting norms of a tax nature. Recently, this Chamber, when resolving a case of an identical nature, (Consult in this regard decision (voto) no. 262 of 10 hours 20 minutes of April 13, 2007), pointed out that although it is true that the law has been created for the purpose of being applied to the cases expressly provided for therein, sometimes doubts may arise regarding its interpretation, and in such cases, the need arises to extract the proper meaning from the text. Hence, the hermeneutical task regarding the norms that regulate tax relations must be carried out within the channels of the rules of legal interpretation, common to all branches of law, resorting to its diverse methods, in order to specify the scope and particularities of a given mandate, so that the hypothetical formulation, applied to daily praxis, fulfills its intrinsic purpose and the end that the legislator has provided for its issuance. In this sense, numeral 6 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios establishes: “Tax norms must be interpreted in accordance with all the methods admitted by Common Law. Analogy is an admissible procedure to fill legal gaps, but by virtue of it, neither taxes nor exemptions may be created.” In this task, in accordance with the constitutional principle of equality, it is clear that the interpreter must weigh the diverse variables that converge in each situation, among them, the nature of the provision, ensuring that its use, in the form and scope it establishes, is equal for all similar cases and avoid a material application that circumvents the very purpose of its content. The means that the legal operator uses to carry out this process are substantially: philological or grammatical, logical, historical, sociological, and finalist. Article 10 of the Civil Code, to which canon 6 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios refers regarding the interpretation of tax rules, contemplates these elements: “Norms shall be interpreted according to the proper meaning of their words, in relation to the context, the historical and legislative background, and the social reality of the time in which they are to be applied, fundamentally attending to their spirit and purpose.” The exegesis of tax norms must analyze, in each case, the content of the norm, to establish the proper channels for its application, in tune with the parameters already indicated, so that the mandate fulfills its purpose, the purpose immersed in the legislative manifestation is satisfied, be it imposing tax burdens, establishing frameworks of benefits, and other matters inherent to the tax legal relationship that arises therefrom.

V.- On the Costa Rican normative development of the 5% Tax in favor of IDA on carbonated beverages. In reality, in the Costa Rican Legal System, the issue of imposing specific taxes on the consumption of gaseous and carbonated beverages is not of recent date. Hence, through Law no. 1250 of December 20, 1950, in its numeral 3, it was decided to consolidate the levies on gaseous refreshments and carbonated beverages into a single tax. That precept established: “Consolidate into a single tax of four and a half cents (¢ 0.045), on each container of gaseous refreshments and carbonated waters, whose capacity is up to twelve ounces, the levies established by laws No. 121 of July 29, 1942; No. 17 of October 22, 1943; No. 685 of August 17, 1946; and No. 798 of September 9, 1946.” According to ordinal 4 of that legislation, the manner in which these were collected since then was at the manufacturer level through the use of stamps or labels (timbres o marbetes). On the subject, this Chamber indicated in decision (fallo) no. 262 of 10 hours 20 minutes of April 13, 2007, that: “… the legislator delegated to the Executive Branch the setting of the procedure in order to collect the tax, for which it referred to Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) no. 2881-H of March 5, 1973, amended by no. 3804-H of May 23, 1974. These have as their antecedent Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) no. 2 of January 15, 1965, by means of which Law no. 1250 of 1950 was regulated, which in its Article 3° consolidated into a single tax the levies established in laws of the years 1942, 1943, and 1946, which affected the production of gaseous refreshments and carbonated beverages, and which were to be collected at the manufacturer level through the use of labels (marbetes) or through the container counter system. Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) no. 2, which regulated the manner of collecting the tax referred to in canon 3 of Law no. 1250, was repealed and replaced by no. 2881-H, which was issued, fundamentally, for the purpose of varying the discount percentage established in Article 6, lowering it from 5% to 1%. The cited Decree was amended only in its numeral 6, by no. 3804-H. It is important to mention that Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) no. 2881-H -amended by no. 3804-H-, besides repealing and replacing Decree no. 2, regulated the collection at the factory level of the tax created by Law no. 3021, which is an antecedent of Law no. 5792. A procedure that was preserved by virtue of the reference made in precept 7 of Law no. 5792 to Decree no. 2881-H and its amendment, to regulate what concerns the mechanism for collecting the tax. These last two decrees, in the considerative part, always refer to the correct manner of collecting the consumption tax. And they allude to the counting guidelines on the production records in the factories themselves or bottling companies, which is coincident with that established in the final paragraph of Article 6, cited so many times, when referring to the factories of refreshments or carbonated beverages.” In the historical recount of what happened, it should be noted that subsequently, with Law no. 5792 of September 1, 1975, the tax on gaseous and carbonated beverages was regulated for the purpose of providing resources to the then Instituto de Tierras y Colonización, an Institution that transformed into what is currently known as the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario. This regulation was amended by Law no. 6735 of March 29, 1982, which is currently in force. Numeral 6 of this legal body thus provides: “A tax on the consumption of gaseous refreshments and carbonated beverages is created, in accordance with the following rates, which shall be applied to the price of the article before the sales tax: a) 5.0% on gaseous refreshments of national brands. b) 10.0% on gaseous refreshments produced in the country by concessionaires of international brands. c) 14.0% on carbonated beverages, national and foreign, preferentially used in the mixing of liquors. Without affecting the indicated collection system, the factories of gaseous refreshments and carbonated beverages shall be authorized to delay the payment of the tax for up to thirty-two days, for the purpose of effecting the cancellation of the levy once the factories have recovered the value of the credits granted to the retailers” (highlighting does not correspond to the original). In reality, the tax provided for in that norm was being calculated on the ex-factory price of the product, in accordance with Agreement (Acuerdo) no. XVI of the session of the Board of Directors (Junta Directiva) of IDA, held on April 26, 1982. However, that decision was repealed with Agreement (Acuerdo) no. XXVIII of session no. 086-01 of November 19, 2001, thereby generating some uncertainty regarding the taxable base (base imponible) for calculating the referred tax. In November 2002, the heads of the ministries of the Presidency and of Finance made an inquiry to the Procuraduría General de la República regarding the legal nature of this tax and the possibility of regulating its taxable base (base imponible), which was addressed in official communication C-346-2002. The Tax Procurator (Procurador Tributario) indicated that since IDA does not hold the power to regulate Law no. 5792, amended by numeral 35 of Law 6735, such normative development corresponded to the Executive Branch in exercise of the powers conferred by the Political Constitution in numerals 140 subsections 3) and 18). Based on what was recommended, Decree (Decreto) no. 31156-MP-H was issued, which indicates in its Considering (Considerando) Tenth that, prior to its issuance, the project was consulted to IDA, which according to Article XXXIX of session no. 019-03 held on April 7, 2003, decided not to express any substantive objection. In its numeral 6, it provided that “In accordance with the provisions of the Law in national production, the taxable base (base imponible) is the sale price of the taxpayer, which shall be determined by the sum of three factors, namely: a) the manufacturing cost of the products; b) the amount representing the reasonable profit percentage applicable to the manufacturing of the products; and c) the specific tax established in Article 9 of Law 8114…”. In accordance with numeral 2 subsection f) of the referred Decree, it must be understood that the term “Law” refers to no. 5792 of September 1, 1975, amended by no. 6735 of March 19, 1982. It is worth mentioning that, by means of decision (voto) no. 15,491-06 of 17 hours 12 minutes of October 25, 2006, the Constitutional Chamber declared the unconstitutionality action filed against that Decree to be without merit.

VI.- On the nature of the tax on carbonated beverages. This tax retains, through the different reforms undergone, as a particular characteristic its classification as an indirect tax, specifically within those denominated in the Costa Rican Legal System as selective consumption taxes. This type of tax burden is characterized because the goods are taxed in a single stage, at the importer level when dealing with foreign products, or at the final producer level in the case of those produced internally, that is, they are single-phase. Furthermore, they are calculated apart from the price of the merchandise, their taxable event (hecho generador) being, for imports, the moment of acceptance of the customs form (póliza) or the customs declaration form, and at the internal level, for sales, the date of issuance of the invoice or the delivery of the merchandise; whichever act occurs first. This is its primary characteristic, as it represents an addition to the cost of the merchandise, which affects the final price of the product. They also have a cumulative incidence with the sales tax, for which they constitute a complement and not a substitute. Regarding the nature of consumption taxes, this Body has indicated that they “tax only certain specific consumptions and that by the principle of tax legality (principio de legalidad tributaria), they must be enumerated exhaustively by law... The tax concept of consumption differs from its traditional legal meaning (that which with use is extinguished, destroyed, and cannot be used more than once), therefore it is convenient to specify it: it refers to the act of releasing the product for its consumption in the internal market, regardless of whether consumption has been verified or not and regardless of who the real consumer is. The tax concept of consumption has a high degree of abstraction, as it admits it prior to the disappearance or material extinction of the taxed object, since if one wanted to tax the concrete consumption of each of the objects on which the tax falls, its oversight would be impossible, which is why what is taken into account is the moment of the first transfer of the taxed good (…) Among the particularities of this tax, it can be noted that it taxes the first stage of incorporation of the good into the commercialization process, that is, the moment at which it is released to be consumed in the internal market, at the industrial level for national products, or upon entry into the country for imported ones.” Resolution no. 71 of 14 hours 40 minutes of May 29, 1991, and in that same sense, no. 24 of 10 hours 15 minutes of February 23, 1996. Under this generic denomination of taxes on specific consumption, those that ultimately tax the consumer of a determined good are included. However, the final consumer is not the passive subject, but rather the person who has a certain link with the good. Therefore, it is not consumption itself that is taxed, but the transfer from one subject to another. In this line of thought, the tax created through Article 6 of Law no. 5792 and its amendment by numeral 35 of Law no. 6735 is a charge that falls on the consumption of gaseous refreshments, carbonated beverages, and beers, whether national or foreign. For this reason, the taxable event (hecho generador) arises with manufacturing, or importation, if it is a foreign product, provided it is incorporated into commercial traffic.

VII.- The core point in this case lies in establishing what the parameters are for setting the taxable base (base imponible) of the consumption tax in favor of IDA on the refreshment with the trade name “Maxi Malta,” which according to the Nomenclatura Arancelaria Uniforme Centroamericana (NAUCA), is classified as a carbonated beverage. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the provisions of numeral 6 subsection a) of Law 5792 will be applicable. For the appellant, this parameter is determined by the price before the sales tax, and therefore, the only thing that can be excluded from that quantitative base is the sales levy. In his view, no legal norm exists that authorizes the exclusion of the distributor's profit from the taxable base (base imponible) of the tax in favor of IDA. For its part, the trial court (Ad quem), adopting the thesis of the Court of first instance (Juzgado) and, in passing, that of the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, held the view that within the nature of the tax (specific consumption), the analysis of the norms that regulate the subject, and on the basis of an analogical interpretation of the norms governing the sale of carbonated beverages, the distributor's profit does not form part of the taxable base (base imponible). Based on the previous referential framework, it is appropriate to determine whether within the calculation base of the taxes established in the repeatedly cited Article 6, amended by numeral 35 of Law no. 6735, for the benefit of IDA, all the items existing up to the point before the sales tax must be included, among them the distributor's profit, or if its exclusion is appropriate. As indicated in the preceding lines, this is a specific consumption tax that must be charged once the product enters commercial traffic, so the manufacturer's or importer's price must be used for calculating the taxable base (base imponible), which, being subject to only one of the economic production phases, requires the distributor's profit to be excluded. In any case, it is a profit located in another stage, which is excluded from the commented levy. In precedents regarding the same claim, this Chamber has concluded, under an adequate interpretation of the regulations and in safeguard of the principle of reserve of law (principio de reserva de ley), that the taxable base (base imponible) must fall on the ex-factory price, and not on the retail sale price. (Consult in this regard the decision (voto) of this Chamber no. 262 of 10 hours 20 minutes of April 13, 2007). In accordance with the foregoing, no violation of the cited legal precepts is observed, since the Tribunal did nothing other than apply the Legal System, in attention to the faithful interpretation of tax norms. Therefore, by not incurring the errors pointed out, the charge raised must be dismissed. Indeed, the reference that the mandate makes to the “price before sale” merits an analysis of what quantitative parameter constitutes the taxable base (base imponible). Faced with this apparent gap, one must consider the very nature of the tax and the systematic integration of the tax system to be able to infer this aspect of the tax relationship. In this regard, it bears repeating that under the protection of numeral 6 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, analogy is a valid mechanism for filling legal gaps but does not allow the creation of norms or exemptions. This is not that case. The tax under examination already existed; what is discussed is the calculation base, whereby we are not facing one of the limits of analogical integration. This being so, attending to this mechanism, the indicated norm that establishes that this reference point is the sale price to the producer is valid for purposes of filling the gap that Law no. 5792 contains on this particular point, without that application constituting a breach of the principle of tax reserve of law (principio de reserva de ley tributaria) or of legality. When it is not established with sufficient clarity, one must attend to the taxable event (hecho imponible) and the very nature of the tax, to overcome the levels of uncertainty that may be generated around its definition. As has been indicated, the tax in question taxes the first stage of commercialization of the product, hence the relationship between the elements of the tax and its nature (specific consumption) justify and lead to the conclusion that the proper parameter for purposes of establishing the taxable base (base imponible) is the authorized sale price to the producer, which is congruent with the provisions of Law no. 5792 and that indicated in the preceding considering (considerando). Ergo, attending to these reasons, such element is none other than the price authorized to the producer, or the ex-factory price, constituted by the cost of the good, plus the profit corresponding to the manufacturing stage, to which must be added the specific consumption tax provided for in Law no. 8114. It is on the basis of the foregoing that this Chamber considers that based on these particularities, the distributor's profit cannot be included within the calculation base of the levy, since it neither corresponds nor makes sense within the nature of the tax, nor does it make sense within the economic measure of the taxable event (hecho imponible). Consequently, the appellant is not correct in seeking the acceptance of the incorporation within the calculation reference point of the levy of the distributor's profit, as according to the foregoing, it is improper. Consequently, the interpretation of numeral 6 of Law no. 5792 carried out by the Tribunal is neither improper nor contrary to the principle of reserve of law (principio de reserva de ley). Therefore, the charge must be rejected.

VIII.- For greater abundance of reasons, it is worth noting that in the historical development that the applicable regulations have had, the idea of taxing prices based on production and not on distribution has been maintained. Note that it is always at the factory level that the quantitative determination of that tax is carried out. Although it is true that, for this particular case, Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo) no. 31156-MP of May 5, 2003, cannot be applied, because the fiscal periods 2000, 2001, and 2002 are being analyzed, the provisions in this normative source are consistent with the interpretation that this Chamber has been carrying out and that was always provided as the applicable rule, that is, that the taxable base (base imponible) is determined by adding the producer's price, the producer's profit, and the selective tax established by Law 8114 in its numeral 9.

262 of 10:20 a.m. on April 13, 2007), indicated that while it is true the law was created to be applied to cases expressly provided for in it, sometimes doubts may arise regarding its interpretation and that in such cases the need arises to extract its proper meaning from the text. Hence, the hermeneutic work of the rules that regulate tax relations must be carried out within the channels of the rules of legal interpretation, common to all branches of law, resorting to its various methods, in order to specify the scope and particularities of a given mandate, so that the hypothetical formulation, applied to daily praxis, fulfills its intrinsic purpose and the aim the legislator set for its issuance. In this sense, numeral 6 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios establishes: </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">"Tax rules must be interpreted according to all methods admitted by Common Law. Analogy is an admissible procedure to fill legal gaps but by virtue of it, taxes or exemptions cannot be created."</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> In this task, according to the constitutional principle of equality, it is clear that the interpreter must weigh</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> the diverse variables that converge in each situation, among them, the nature of the provision, ensuring that its use, in the form and scope it establishes, is equal for all similar cases and avoiding a material application that defeats the very purpose of its content. The means that the legal operator uses to carry out this process are substantially: philological or grammatical, logical, historical, sociological, and finalist. Article 10 of the Civil Code, to which canon 6 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios refers regarding the interpretation of tax rules, contemplates these elements: </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">"Rules shall be interpreted according to the proper meaning of their words, in relation to the context, the historical and legislative background, and the social reality of the time in which they are to be applied, fundamentally attending to their spirit and purpose."</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> The exegesis of tax rules must analyze, in each case, the content of the rule, to establish the proper channels of its application, in tune with the parameters already indicated, so that the mandate fulfills its purpose, satisfying the finality immersed in the legislative manifestation, be it imposing tax burdens, establishing frameworks of benefits, and other matters inherent to the legal-tax relationship that derives from it.</span><span> </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">V.- On the Costa Rican regulatory development of the 5% Tax in favor of the IDA on carbonated beverages.</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">In reality, in the Costa Rican legal system, the issue of imposing specific taxes on the consumption of</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> soft drinks and carbonated beverages is not recent. Hence,</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> through Ley no. 1250 of December 20, 1950, in its numeral 3, it was decided to consolidate into a single tax the levies on soft drinks and carbonated beverages. That precept established </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">"Consolidate into a single tax of four and a half cents (¢ 0.045), on each container of soft drinks and carbonated waters, whose capacity is up to twelve ounces, the levies established by Leyes Nº 121 of July 29, 1942; Nº 17 of October 22, 1943; Nº 685 of August 17, 1946; and Nº 798 of September 9, 1946."</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> According to ordinal 4 of that legislation, the way in which these were collected since then was at the manufacturer level through the use of stamps or labels (marbetes). On the subject, this Chamber indicated in ruling no. 262 of 10:20 a.m. on April 13, 2007 that: "…</span><span> </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">the legislator delegated to the Executive Branch to set the procedure in order to collect the tax, for which it referred to Decreto Ejecutivo no. 2881-H of March 5, 1973, amended by no. 3804-H of May 23, 1974. These have as their antecedent Decreto Ejecutivo no. 2 of January 15, 1965, through which Ley no. 1250 of 1950 was regulated, which in its article 3° consolidated into a single tax the levies established in laws of the years 1942, 1943, and 1946, that affected the production of soft drinks and carbonated beverages, and that had to be collected at the manufacturer level through the use of labels or through the system of container counters. Decreto Ejecutivo no. 2 which regulated the method of collecting the tax referred to in canon 3 of Ley no. 1250, was repealed and replaced by no. 2881-H, which was issued fundamentally with the purpose of varying the discount percentage established in article 6, reducing it from 5% to 1%. The cited Decreto was amended only in its numeral 6, by no. 3804-H. It is important to mention that Decreto Ejecutivo no. 2881-H -amended by no. 3804-H-, besides repealing and replacing Decreto no. 2, regulated the collection at the factory level of the tax created by Ley no. 3021, which is an antecedent of Ley no. 5792. A procedure that was preserved by virtue of the referral made in precept 7 of Ley no. 5792, to Decreto no. 2881-H and its amendment, to regulate the mechanism for collecting the tax. These last two decrees, in their recital section, always refer to the correct way of collecting the consumption tax. And they allude to the counting guidelines on the production records in the factories or bottling companies themselves, which coincides with what is stated in the final paragraph of article 6 so many times cited, when referring to the soft drink or carbonated beverage factories'." </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">In the historical recount of what happened, it should be noted that later, with Ley no. 5792 of September 1, 1975, the tax on soft drinks and carbonated beverages was regulated with the aim of providing resources to the then Instituto de Tierras y Colonización, an Institution that was transformed into what is currently known as Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario. This regulation was amended by Ley no. 6735 of March 29, 1982, which is in force. Numeral 6 of this legal body provides as follows:</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">"</span><span> </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">Create a tax on the consumption of soft drinks and carbonated beverages, according to the following rates, which shall be applied on the price of the article before the sales tax: a) 5.0% on soft drinks of national brands. b) 10.0% on soft drinks produced in the country by concessionaires of international brands. c) 14.0% on carbonated beverages, national and foreign, preferably used in the mixing of liquors. Without affecting the indicated collection system, </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic\">the soft drink and carbonated beverage factories shall be authorized to delay the payment of the tax</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">, for up to thirty-two days, so that the payment of the levy is made once the factories have recovered the value of the credits granted to the retailers</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">" (the highlighting does not correspond to the original)</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">. </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">In reality, the tax provided for in that rule was being calculated on the ex-factory price of the product, in accordance with Acuerdo no. XVI of the session of the Junta Directiva of the IDA, held on April 26, 1982. However, that decision was repealed with Acuerdo no. XXVIII of session no. 086-01 of November 19, 2001, thereby generating some uncertainty regarding the tax base (base imponible) for calculating the referred tax. In November 2002, the heads of the ministries of the Presidency and Finance, made a query to the Procuraduría General de la República, regarding the legal nature of this tax and the possibility of regulating its tax base, which was answered in official communication C-346-2002. The Tax Attorney (Procurador Tributario) pointed out that since the IDA does not hold the power to regulate Ley no. 5792, amended by numeral 35 of Ley 6735, said regulatory development corresponds to the Executive Branch in the exercise of the powers conferred by the Political Constitution in numerals 140 subsection 3) and 18). Based on what was recommended, Decreto no. 31156-MP-H was issued, which indicates in its Tenth Considerando that, prior to its issuance, the draft was consulted with the IDA, which according to Article XXXIX of session no. 019-03 held on April 7, 2003, decided not to express any substantive objection. In this, numeral 6, it was provided that </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">"In accordance with the provisions of the Law in national production, the tax base is the sale price of the taxpayer, which shall be determined by the sum of three factors, namely: a) the manufacturing cost of the products; b) the amount representing the reasonable profit percentage applicable to the manufacturing of the products; and c) the specific tax established in article 9 of Ley 8114…". </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">Pursuant to numeral 2 subsection f) of the referred Decreto, it must be understood that the term</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\"> "Law" </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">refers to no. 5792 of September 1, 1975, amended by no. 6735 of March 19, 1982. It is worth mentioning that, through ruling no. 15.491-06 of 5:12 p.m. on October 25, 2006, the Constitutional Chamber declared without merit the unconstitutionality action filed against that Decreto. </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">VI.- On the nature of the tax on carbonated beverages</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">. This tax retains, through the various amendments suffered, as a particular characteristic its classification as an indirect tax, specifically within those called in the Costa Rican legal system, selective consumption taxes. This type of tax burden is characterized because the goods are taxed at a single stage, at the importer level when it comes to foreign products, or at the final producer level in the case of those produced internally, that is, they are single-phase. They are also calculated apart from the price of the merchandise, its taxable event (hecho generador) being in imports, the moment of acceptance of the customs declaration or form, and internally, in sales on the date of issuance of the invoice or delivery of the goods; whichever act is performed first. This is its primary characteristic, as it represents an addition to the cost of the merchandise, which affects the final price of the product. They also have a cumulative incidence with the sales tax, of which they constitute a complement and not a substitute. Regarding the nature of consumption taxes, this Body has indicated that "</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">they tax only certain specific consumptions and that, by the principle of tax legality, they must be exhaustively listed by law... The tax concept of consumption differs from its traditional legal meaning (that which with use is extinguished, destroyed, and cannot be used more than once), so it is necessary to specify it: it refers to the act of releasing the product for consumption in the internal market, regardless of whether the consumption has been verified or not and of who the real consumer is. The tax concept of consumption has a high degree of abstraction, as it admits it before the material disappearance or extinction of the taxed object, since if one wanted to tax the concrete consumption of each one of the objects on which the tax falls, the control thereof would be impossible, which is why what is taken into account is the moment of the first transmission of the taxed good (…) Within the particularities of this tax, it can be pointed out that it taxes the first stage of incorporating the good into the commercialization process, that is, the moment in which it is released to be consumed in the internal market, at the industrial level for national products, or upon entry into the country for imported ones". </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">Resolution no. 71 of 2:40 p.m. on May 29, 1991, and in the same sense, no. 24 of 10:15 a.m. on February 23, 1996. Under this generic denomination of specific consumption taxes, those that ultimately tax the consumer of a certain good are understood. However, it is not the final consumer who is the taxpayer, but rather whoever has a certain link with the good. Therefore, it is not consumption itself that is taxed, but the transfer (traslación) or transfer from one subject to another. </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> In this line of thought, the tax created through article 6 of Ley no. 5792 and its amendment by numeral 35 of Ley no. 6735, is a burden that falls on the consumption of soft drinks, carbonated beverages, and beers, whether national or foreign. For this reason, the taxable event arises with manufacturing, or importation, if it is a foreign product, provided it is incorporated into commercial traffic. </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">VII</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">.- The core point in this case lies in establishing what the parameters are for fixing the tax base of the consumption tax in favor of the IDA, on the soft drink with the trade name "</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic\">Maxi Malta</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">", which, according to the Uniform Central American Tariff Nomenclature (NAUCA), is classified as a carbonated beverage. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the provisions of numeral 6 subsection a) of Ley 5792 will be applicable to it. For the appellant (casacionista), this parameter is determined by the price before the sales tax, meaning that the only thing that can be excluded from this quantitative base is the sales levy. In his view, no legal rule exists that empowers the exclusion of the distributor's profit from the tax base of the tax in favor of the IDA.</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> For its part, the Ad quem, endorsing the thesis of the Trial Court, and incidentally, that of the Administrative Tax Court, was of the view that within the nature of the tax (specific consumption), the analysis of the rules regulating the subject, and on the basis of an analogical interpretation of the rules governing the sale of carbonated beverages, the distributor's profit does not form part of the tax base. Based on the preceding reference framework, it is appropriate to determine if within the calculation base of the taxes established in article 6 repeatedly cited, amended by numeral 35 of Ley no. 6735, for the benefit of the IDA, all existing items up to before the sales tax must be included, among them the distributor's profit, or if its exclusion is proper. As stated in preceding lines, this is a specific consumption tax that must be charged once the product is incorporated into commercial traffic, which means the manufacturer's or importer's price must be taken for the calculation of the tax base, which, by being subject to only one of the economic phases of production, the distributor's profit must be excluded. In any case, it is a gain located at another stage, which is excluded from the discussed levy. In precedents on the same claim, this Chamber has concluded, under an adequate interpretation of the regulations and in protection of the principle of legal reservation, that the tax base must fall on the ex-factory price, and not on the retail sale price. (See on this matter the vote of this Chamber no. 262 of 10:20 a.m. on April 13, 2007).</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> In accordance</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> with the foregoing, no violation is observed of the cited legal precepts, since the Court did nothing other than apply the Legal System, in attention to the faithful interpretation of tax rules. Therefore, by not incurring the indicated infractions, the charge raised must be dismissed. Indeed, the reference that the mandate makes to the "price before sale" deserves an analysis of what the quantitative parameter is that forms the tax base. Faced with this apparent gap, one must attend to the very nature of the tax and the systematic integration of the tax system, in order to infer this aspect of the tax relationship. In this section, it is worth reiterating that under numeral 6 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, analogy is a valid mechanism to fill legal gaps, but it does not permit creating rules or exemptions. This is not the case. The tax under examination already existed; what is discussed is the calculation base, meaning this is not one of the limits of analogical integration. Thus, attending to this mechanism, the indicated rule establishing that this benchmark is the sale price to the producer is valid for the purpose of filling the gap that Ley no. 5792 contains on this matter, without that application constituting a breach of the principle of reservation of tax law, nor of legality. When it is not established with sufficient clarity, one must attend to the taxable event and the very nature of the tax, to overcome the levels of uncertainty that may arise around its definition. As has been indicated, the tax in question (tributo de marras) taxes the first stage of commercialization of the product, hence the relationship between the elements of the tax and its nature (specific consumption), justify and lead to the conclusion that the proper parameter for the purpose of establishing the tax base is the authorized sale price to the producer, which is consistent with the provisions of Ley no. 5792 and what is indicated in the previous considerando. Ergo, in attention to these reasons, such an element is none other than the price authorized to the producer, or the ex-factory price, constituted by the cost of the good, plus the profit corresponding to the manufacturing stage, to which must be added, the specific consumption tax provided for in Ley no. 8114.</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> It is on the basis of the foregoing that this Chamber considers that given these particularities, the distributor's profit cannot be included within the calculation base of the levy, since it bears no correspondence or meaning within the nature of the tax, nor does it make sense within the economic measure of the taxable event. Consequently, the appellant is not correct in seeking to have the incorporation of the distributor's profit within the calculation benchmark of the levy accepted, as based on the foregoing, it is improper. Consequently, the interpretation of numeral 6 of Ley no. 5792 carried out by the Court is not undue nor contrary to the principle of reservation of law. Therefore, the charge must be rejected. </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold\">VIII.-</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma\"> For more abundant reasoning, it is worth noting that in the historical development that the applicable regulations have had, the idea of taxing prices based on production and not distribution has been maintained. Note that it is always at the factory level that the quantitative determination of that tax is made. Although it is true, for this particular case, Decreto Ejecutivo no.

31156-MP of May 5, 2003, since fiscal periods 2000, 2001, and 2002 are analyzed, the provisions of this regulatory source are consistent with the interpretation that this Chamber has been making and that was always provided as the applicable rule, that is, that the tax base (base imponible) is determined by adding the producer's price, the producer's profit, and the selective tax (impuesto selectivo) set by Law 8114 in its numeral 9.” </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify\"><span>&#xa0;</span></p></div></body></html> **VII.** The crucial point in this case lies in establishing the parameters for determining the taxable base of the consumption tax in favor of the IDA, on the soft drink with the trade name “*Maxi Malta*,” which, according to the Uniform Central American Tariff Nomenclature (NAUCA), is classified as a carbonated beverage. Based on the foregoing, it is evident that the provisions of Article 6, subsection a) of Law 5792 will apply to it. For the appellant, this parameter is determined by the price before the sales tax, and therefore, the only item that can be excluded from that quantitative base is the sales levy. In his view, no legal norm exists that authorizes the exclusion of the distributor's profit from the taxable base of the tax in favor of the IDA. For its part, the Ad quem, endorsing the thesis of the Trial Court, and in passing, that of the Administrative Tax Tribunal, was of the view that within the nature of the tax (specific consumption tax), the analysis of the norms regulating the matter and based on an analogical interpretation of the norms governing the sale of carbonated beverages, the distributor's profit does not form part of the taxable base. Based on the foregoing reference framework, it is appropriate to determine whether, within the calculation base of the taxes established in Article 6 of the repeatedly cited law, amended by Article 35 of Law No. 6735, for the benefit of the IDA, all existing items up to before the sales tax must be included, among them the distributor's profit, or if its exclusion is appropriate. As noted in preceding lines, it is a specific consumption tax that must be collected once the product enters commercial traffic, and therefore, the price of the manufacturer or importer must be taken for calculating the taxable base, which, being subject to only one of the economic phases of production, requires the exclusion of the distributor's profit. In any case, it is a gain located at another stage, which is excluded from the commented levy. In precedents on the same claim, this Chamber has concluded, under an adequate interpretation of the regulations and in safeguard of the principle of legal reserve, that the taxable base must fall on the ex-factory price, and not on the retail sale price. (Consult in this regard vote of this Chamber No. 262 of 10:20 a.m. on April 13, 2007). In accordance with the foregoing, no violation of the cited legal precepts is observed, since the Tribunal did nothing other than apply the Legal System, in attention to the faithful interpretation of the tax norms. Therefore, as it did not incur the indicated infractions, the charge raised must be dismissed. Indeed, the reference made by the mandate to the “price before sale” merits an analysis of what the quantitative parameter is that forms the taxable base. Faced with this apparent void, one must attend to the very nature of the tax and the systematic integration of the tax system in order to infer this aspect of the tax relationship. In this regard, it bears reiterating that under Article 6 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures, analogy is a valid mechanism to fill legal gaps, but it does not allow for the creation of norms or exemptions. This is not the case. The tax under examination already existed; what is being discussed is the calculation base, and thus, we are not before one of the limits of analogical integration. This being the case, using this mechanism, the indicated norm establishing that this reference point is the sale price to the producer is valid for the purpose of filling the void on this particular contained in Law No. 5792, without that application constituting a breach of the principle of legal reserve of tax law, nor of legality. When it is not established with sufficient clarity, one must attend to the taxable event and the very nature of the tax to overcome the levels of uncertainty that may arise regarding its definition. As has been indicated, the tax in question levies the first stage of the product's commercialization, hence the relationship between the elements of the tax and its nature (specific consumption tax) justifies and leads to the conclusion that the proper parameter for the purpose of establishing the taxable base is the sale price authorized to the producer, which is consistent with the provisions of Law No. 5792 and what was indicated in the previous recital (considerando). Ergo, in attention to those reasons, such element is none other than the price authorized to the producer, or the ex-factory price, constituted by the cost of the good, plus the profit corresponding to the manufacturing stage, to which must be added the specific consumption tax provided for in Law No. 8114. It is based on the foregoing that this Chamber considers that, given these particularities, the distributor's profit cannot be included within the calculation base of the levy, since it bears no correspondence or sense within the nature of the tax, nor does it make sense within the economic measure of the taxable event. Consequently, the appellant is not correct in claiming that the incorporation of the distributor's profit within the calculation reference of the levy be accepted, since, as stated, it is inadmissible. Consequently, the interpretation of Article 6 of Law No. 5792 carried out by the Tribunal is neither improper nor contrary to the principle of legal reserve. Therefore, the charge must be rejected. **VIII.-** For further abundance of reasons, it is appropriate to note that in the historical development of the applicable regulations, the idea of taxing prices from production and not from distribution has been maintained. Note that it is always at the factory level that the quantitative determination of that tax is made. Although it is true, for the particular case, Executive Decree No. 31156-MP of May 5, 2003, cannot be applied, since the fiscal periods 2000, 2001, and 2002 are being analyzed, what is provided in this normative source is consistent with the interpretation that this Chamber has been carrying out and that was always provided as the applicable rule, that is, that the taxable base is determined by adding the producer's price, the producer's profit, and the selective tax established by Law 8114 in its Article 9.”

“III.- Principio de legalidad tributaria. De previo a analizar el caso concreto, conviene señalar que en precedentes que versan sobre el mismo debate, esta Sala ha analizado este principio. Sobre el punto, en la resolución no. 657 de las 15 horas 15 minutos del 19 de setiembre del 2007, expresó: “Por ser de interés en la especie, es de rigor analizar los alcances del denominado principio de legalidad tributaria, de cara a establecer la posibilidad de considerar la no incorporación de varios rubros dentro de la base imponible del impuesto bajo examen. Los tributos y sus excepciones están cubiertos por el principio de reserva de ley, según el cual, corresponde al legislador, su creación, modificación y extinción. A nivel constitucional, encuentra su fundamento en la letra del numeral 121 inciso 13 de la Carta Magna que asigna a la Asamblea Legislativa la atribución exclusiva de “establecer los impuestos y contribuciones nacionales, y autorizar las municipales.” Dicha norma ha sido objeto de desarrollo legal, para establecer con claridad y precisión los alcances y cobertura del citado postulado. Así, en el artículo 5 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios se dispone con claridad: “En cuestiones tributarias solo la ley puede: a) Crear, modificar o suprimir tributos; definir el hecho generador de la relación tributaria; establecer las tarifas de los tributos y sus bases de cálculo; e indicar el sujeto pasivo; b) Otorgar exenciones, reducciones o beneficios; (...)” Precepto que encuentra plena armonía con el canon 124 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, en tanto dispone: “Los reglamentos, circulares, instrucciones y demás disposiciones administrativas de carácter general no podrán establecer penas ni imponer exacciones, tasas, multas ni otras cargas similares.” Por su parte, el ordinal 4 ibídem define el tributo como las prestaciones en dinero, sean impuestos, tasas o contribuciones especiales, que el Estado, en ejercicio de su poder de imperio, exige con el objeto de obtener recursos para el cumplimiento de sus fines. Esta Sala, por lo demás, en diversos pronunciamientos, con apoyo en las disposiciones 5 y 6 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, ha sido enfática en respetar el principio de legalidad tributaria. Por tal motivo se ha destacado la imposibilidad de crear tributos o exenciones por vía distinta a la de la ley expresa (entre otras, no. 5 de las 15 horas 30 minutos del 5 de enero del 2000). Este postulado implica por ende no solo la unidad del sistema tributario en general, sino a la vez, la seguridad y certeza jurídica en materia impositiva, en tanto el contribuyente puede advertir y conocer con la debida antelación y con la precisión suficiente, el alcance y contenido de las obligaciones fiscales, lo que resulta relevante para conocer el régimen de sujeción, hecho imponible, base de cálculo, tarifa, entre otros elementos del gravamen. Cabe precisar que además infiere un ámbito material, dentro del cual, se establecen los componentes del tributo que necesariamente, deben ser creados por ley expresa. Entre estos elementos, se encuentran, de manera imprescindible, el hecho generador, el sujeto pasivo, la base imponible, la tarifa del tributo, así como período de cobro, según sea progresivo o instantáneo. La intervención de la ley por ende, es imperiosa en todos aquellos puntos que afectan los derechos y garantías del particular frente a la Administración Tributaria. No obstante, en cuanto a la tarifa, el Tribunal Constitucional ha establecido la posibilidad de una delegación legislativa, claro está, mediante una ley que establezca de antemano los límites en que este ejercicio puede realizarse. Es el caso del impuesto selectivo de consumo. De allí que la reserva de ley referida pueda calificarse como “relativa”, según lo ha ratificado en varios de sus pronunciamientos dicha Sala, entre otros en las resoluciones nos. 8271-2001, 8580-2001 y 5504-2002. Dentro de esta concepción, las exenciones y en general los beneficios tributarios, están igualmente sujetos a este postulado de legalidad, en virtud del cual, es la ley la que debe establecer el supuesto de hecho o el hecho generador del beneficio fiscal.” IV.- De la posibilidad de interpretar normas de carácter tributario. Recientemente esta Sala, al resolver un caso de idéntica naturaleza, (Consúltese al respecto el voto no. 262 de las 10 horas 20 minutos del 13 de abril del 2007), señaló que si bien es cierto la ley se ha creado con el fin de que se aplique a los casos expresamente previstos en ella, algunas veces pueden surgir dudas respecto a su interpretación y que en tales supuestos nace la necesidad de extraer del texto su sentido propio. De allí que la labor hermenéutica de las normas que regulan las relaciones tributarias, debe realizarse dentro de los cauces de las reglas de la interpretación jurídica, comunes a todas las ramas del derecho acudiendo a sus diversos métodos, a fin de precisar los alcances y particularidades de un determinado mandato, de modo que la formulación hipotética, aplicada a la praxis diaria, cumpla su cometido intrínseco y el fin que ha dispuesto el legislador para su emisión. En este sentido, el numeral 6 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios establece: “Las normas tributarias se deben interpretar con arreglo a todos los métodos admitidos por el Derecho Común. La analogía es procedimiento admisible para llenar los vacíos legales pero en virtud de ella no pueden crearse tributos ni exenciones.” En esta labor, de acuerdo al principio de igualdad constitucional, es claro que el intérprete debe ponderar las diversas variables que convergen en cada situación, dentro de ellas, la naturaleza de la disposición, procurando que su uso, en la forma y alcances que establezca, sea igual para todos los casos similares y evitar una aplicación material que burle la finalidad misma de su contenido. Los medios de que el operador jurídico se sirve para llevar a cabo este proceso, son substancialmente: filológico o gramatical, lógico, histórico, sociológico y finalista. El artículo 10 del Código Civil, al cual remite el canon 6 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, en relación a la interpretación de las reglas tributarias, contempla estos elementos: “Las normas se interpretarán según el sentido propio de sus palabras, en relación con el contexto, los antecedentes históricos y legislativos y la realidad social del tiempo en que han de ser aplicadas, atendiendo fundamentalmente al espíritu y finalidad de ellas”. La exégesis de las normas tributarias, debe analizar en cada caso, el contenido de la norma, para establecer los cauces debidos de su aplicación, a tono con los parámetros ya señalados, a fin de que el mandato cumpla su cometido, se satisfaga la finalidad inmersa en la manifestación legislativa, sea imponer cargas tributarias, establecer marcos de beneficios y demás asuntos inherentes a la relación jurídico tributaria que de aquella se desprenda. V.- Del desarrollo normativo costarricense del Impuesto del 5% a favor del IDA, sobre las bebidas carbonatadas. En realidad, en el Ordenamiento Jurídico costarricense, el tema de la imposición de tributos específicos por el consumo de bebidas gaseosas y carbonatadas, no es de reciente data. De allí que por medio de la Ley no. 1250 del 20 de diciembre de 1950, en su numeral 3 se decidiera refundir en un solo impuesto los gravámenes por refrescos gaseosos y bebidas carbonatadas. Aquel precepto establecía “Refúndase en un solo impuesto de cuatro céntimos y medio (¢ 0.045), sobre cada envase de refrescos gaseosos y aguas carbonatadas, cuya capacidad sea hasta de doce onzas, los gravámenes establecidos por las leyes Nº 121 de 29 de julio de 1942; Nº 17 de 22 de octubre de 1943; Nº 685 de 17 de agosto de 1946; y Nº 798 de 9 de setiembre de 1946.” Según el ordinal 4 de aquella legislación, la forma en que estos se recaudaban desde entonces, era a nivel de fabricante mediante el uso de timbres o marbetes. Sobre el tema, esta Sala indicó en el fallo no. 262 de las 10 horas 20 minutos del 13 de abril del 2007 que: “… el legislador delegó al Poder Ejecutivo fijar el procedimiento con el fin de recaudar el tributo, para lo que remitió al Decreto Ejecutivo no. 2881-H de 5 de marzo de 1973, reformado por el no. 3804-H de 23 de mayo de 1974. Estos, tienen como antecedente el Decreto Ejecutivo no. 2 de 15 de enero de 1965, mediante el cual se reglamentaba la Ley no. 1250 de 1950, que en su artículo 3° refundía en un solo impuesto los gravámenes establecidos en leyes de los años 1942, 1943 y 1946, que afectaban la producción de refrescos gaseosos y bebidas carbonatadas, y que debían ser recaudados a nivel de fabricante mediante el uso de marbetes o mediante el sistema de contadores de envases. El Decreto Ejecutivo no. 2 que reguló la forma de recaudar el impuesto a que refería el canon 3 de la Ley no. 1250, fue derogado y sustituido por el no. 2881-H, el cual se dictó, fundamentalmente, con el objeto de variar el porcentaje del descuento establecido en el artículo 6, rebajándolo del 5% al 1%. El citado Decreto fue reformado solo en su numeral 6, por el no. 3804-H. Importante mencionar que el Decreto Ejecutivo no. 2881-H -reformado por el no. 3804-H-, además de derogar y sustituir al Decreto no. 2, reglamentó la recaudación a nivel de fábrica del impuesto creado por la Ley no. 3021, que es un antecedente de la Ley no. 5792. Procedimiento que se conservó en virtud de la remisión que se hace en el precepto 7 de la Ley no. 5792, al Decreto no. 2881-H y su reforma, para regular lo concerniente al mecanismo para recaudar el tributo. Estos dos últimos decretos, en la parte considerativa siempre hacen referencia a la forma correcta de recaudar el impuesto de consumo. Y aluden a las pautas de conteo sobre los registros de producción en las propias fábricas o empresas embotelladoras, lo cual es coincidente con lo estatuido en el párrafo final del artículo 6 tantas veces citado, al referirse a las fábricas de refrescos o bebidas carbonatadas”. En el recuento histórico de lo acontecido, debe señalarse que posteriormente, con la Ley no. 5792 del 1 de setiembre de 1975 se normó el impuesto sobre las bebidas gaseosas y carbonatadas con el fin de proveer de recursos al entonces Instituto de Tierras y Colonización, Institución que se transformó en lo que actualmente se conoce como Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario. Esta normativa fue reformada por la Ley no. 6735 del 29 de marzo de 1982, la cual se encuentra vigente. Dispone así el numeral 6 de este cuerpo legal:“ Créase un impuesto sobre el consumo de refrescos gaseosos y bebidas carbonatadas, de acuerdo con las siguientes tasas, las cuales se aplicarán sobre el precio del artículo antes que el impuesto de ventas: a) 5,0% sobre los refrescos gaseosos de marcas nacionales. b) 10,0% sobre los refrescos gaseosos producidos en el país por concesionarios de marcas internacionales. c) 14,0% sobre las bebidas carbonatadas, nacionales y extranjeras, de uso preferente en la mezcla de licores. Sin que se afecte el sistema de recaudación señalado, las fábricas de refrescos gaseosos y bebidas carbonatadas estarán autorizadas para retardar el pago del impuesto, hasta por treinta y dos días, con el objeto de que se realice la cancelación del gravamen, una vez que las fábricas hayan recuperado el valor de los créditos otorgados a los expendedores” (el destacado no corresponde al original). En realidad el impuesto previsto en esa norma se estuvo calculando sobre el precio ex fábrica del producto, de conformidad con el Acuerdo no. XVI de la sesión de la Junta Directiva del IDA, celebrada el 26 de abril de 1982. Sin embargo, esa decisión fue derogada con el Acuerdo no. XXVIII de la sesión no. 086-01 del 19 de noviembre del 2001, generándose con ello alguna incertidumbre respecto a la base imponible para calcular el tributo referido. En noviembre del 2002, los titulares de los ministerios de la Presidencia y de Hacienda, realizaron una consulta a la Procuraduría General de la República, en relación a la naturaleza jurídica de este impuesto y la posibilidad de reglamentar su base imponible, la que fue evacuada en oficio C-346-2002. El Procurador Tributario señaló que al no ostentar el IDA la potestad para reglamentar la Ley no. 5792, reformada por el numeral 35 de la Ley 6735, dicho desarrollo normativo correspondía al Poder Ejecutivo en ejercicio de las facultades conferidas por la Constitución Política en los numerales 140 inciso 3) y 18). A partir de lo recomendado, se emitió el Decreto no. 31156-MP-H, el que indica en su Considerando Décimo que, de previo a su emisión el proyecto fue consultado al IDA, quien según el Artículo XXXIX de la sesión no. 019-03 celebrada el 7 de abril del 2003, decidió no manifestar ninguna objeción de fondo. En este se dispuso en el numeral 6, que “A tenor de lo dispuesto en la Ley en la producción nacional la base imponible es el precio de venta del contribuyente, el cual se determinará mediante la suma de tres factores, a saber: a) el costo de fabricación de los productos; b) el monto que represente el porcentaje de utilidad razonable aplicable a la fabricación de los productos; y c) el impuesto específico establecido en el artículo 9 de la Ley 8114…”. Conforme al numeral 2 inciso f) del Decreto referido, debe entenderse que el término “Ley” se refiere a la no. 5792 del 1 de setiembre de 1975, reformada por la no. 6735 del 19 de marzo de 1982. Conviene mencionar que, mediante voto no. 15.491-06 de las 17 horas 12 minutos del 25 de octubre del 2006 la Sala Constitucional declaró sin lugar la acción de inconstitucionalidad presentada contra ese Decreto. VI.- De la naturaleza del impuesto a las bebidas carbonatadas. Este tributo conserva a través de las distintas reformas sufridas, como característica particular su clasificación como un impuesto indirecto, específicamente dentro de los denominados en el Ordenamiento Jurídico costarricense, como impuestos selectivos de consumo. Este tipo de carga impositiva se caracteriza porque los bienes son gravados en una sola etapa, a nivel del importador cuando se trata de productos del exterior, o bien a nivel del productor final en el caso de aquellos producidos internamente, es decir, son monofásicos. Además se calculan aparte del precio de la mercancía, siendo su hecho generador en las importaciones, el momento de la aceptación de la póliza o del formulario aduanero y a nivel interno, en las ventas en la fecha de emisión de la factura o de la entrega de las mercancías; el acto que se realice primero. Esta es su característica primordial, ya que representa una adición al costo de la mercancía, lo que incide en el precio final del producto. Además tienen una incidencia acumulativa con el impuesto de ventas, del que constituyen un complemento y no un sustituto. Tocante a la naturaleza de los impuestos de consumo, este Órgano ha indicado que “gravan únicamente ciertos consumos específicos y que por el principio de legalidad tributaria, deben ser enumerados de manera taxativa por la ley... El concepto tributario de consumo difiere de su acepción jurídico tradicional (lo que con el uso se extingue, se destruye, y no puede ser usado más que una vez), por lo que conviene precisarlo: se refiere al acto de liberación del producto para su consumo en el mercado interno, independientemente de si el consumo se hubiere o no verificado y de quien sea el consumidor real. El concepto tributario de consumo tiene un alto grado de abstracción, pues lo admite antes de la desaparición o extinción material del objeto gravado, ya que si se quisiera gravar el consumo concreto de cada uno de los objetos sobre los que recae el tributo sería imposible la fiscalización del mismo, por lo cual lo que se toma en cuenta es el momento de la primera transmisión del bien gravado (…) Dentro de las particularidades de este impuesto se puede señalar que éste grava la primera etapa de incorporación del bien al proceso de comercialización, es decir, el momento en que se libera para ser consumido en el mercado interno, a nivel industrial para los productos nacionales, o al ingreso al país para los importados”. Resolución no. 71 de las 14 horas 40 minutos del 29 de mayo de 1991, y en ese mismo sentido, la no. 24 de las 10 horas 15 minutos del 23 de febrero de 1996. Bajo esta denominación genérica de los impuestos al consumo específico, se comprenden aquellos que gravan en definitiva al consumidor de un determinado bien. Sin embargo, no es el consumidor final el sujeto pasivo, sino quien tiene cierta vinculación con el bien. Entonces, no se grava al consumo en sí, sino a la traslación o transferencia de un sujeto a otro. En este orden de ideas, el impuesto creado mediante el artículo 6 la Ley no. 5792 y su reforma por el numeral 35 de la Ley no. 6735, es una carga que recae sobre el consumo de refrescos gaseosos, bebidas carbonatadas, y las cervezas, sean nacionales o extranjeras. Por tal motivo, el hecho generador surge con la fabricación, o la importación, si es un producto extranjero, siempre y cuando se incorpore al tráfico mercantil. VII.- El punto medular en este caso, radica en establecer cuales son los parámetros para fijar la base imponible del tributo al consumo a favor del IDA, en el refresco de nombre comercial “Maxi Malta”, el que según la Nomenclatura Arancelaria Uniforme Centroamericana (NAUCA), se clasifica como una bebida carbonatada. Con base en lo anterior, resulta evidente que le será aplicable lo dispuesto en el numeral 6 inciso a) de la Ley 5792. Para el casacionista, este parámetro está determinado por el precio antes del impuesto de ventas, por lo cual, lo único que puede excluirse de esa base cuantitativa es el gravamen a las ventas. En su criterio, no existe norma jurídica que faculte la exclusión de la utilidad del distribuidor de la base imponible del impuesto a favor del IDA. Por su parte, el Ad quem, prohijando la tesis del Juzgado, y de paso, la del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, fue del criterio que dentro de la naturaleza del impuesto (de consumo específico), el análisis de las normas que regulan el tema y sobre la base de una interpretación analógica de las normas que rigen la venta de las bebidas carbonatadas, la utilidad del distribuidor no forma parte de la base imponible. A partir del marco referencial anterior, procede determinar si dentro de la base de cálculo de los tributos establecidos en el artículo 6 de repetida cita, reformado por el numeral 35 de la Ley no. 6735, en beneficio del IDA, deben incluirse todos los rubros existentes hasta antes del impuesto de ventas, entre ellos la utilidad del distribuidor, o si procede su exclusión. Como se señalara en líneas precedentes, se trata de un tributo de consumo específico que obliga a cobrarse una vez que el producto se incorpore al tráfico mercantil, por lo que corresponde tomar para el cálculo de la base imponible el precio del fabricante o importador, que al sujetarse a una sola de las fases económicas de producción, debe excluirse la utilidad del distribuidor. En todo caso es una ganancia que se ubica en otra etapa, la cual se encuentra excluida del gravamen comentado. En precedentes sobre el mismo reclamo, esta Sala ha concluido, bajo una interpretación adecuada de la normativa y en resguardo del principio de reserva de ley, que la base imponible debe recaer sobre el precio ex fábrica, y no sobre el de venta al detalle. (Consúltese al respecto el voto de esta Sala no. 262 de las 10 horas 20 minutos del 13 de abril del 2007). Acorde a lo expuesto, no se observa vulneración alguna a los preceptos legales citados, ya que el Tribunal no hizo otra cosa que aplicar el Ordenamiento Jurídico, en atención a la fiel interpretación de las normas tributarias. Por lo tanto, al no incurrir en las infracciones apuntadas, debe desestimarse el cargo planteado. En efecto, la referencia que hace el mandato al “precio antes de venta” merece un análisis de cual es el parámetro cuantitativo que conforma la base imponible. Ante este aparente vacío, debe atenderse a la naturaleza misma del impuesto y la integración sistemática del ordenamiento tributario, para poder inferir este extremo de la relación tributaria. En este aparte cabe reiterar que al amparo del numeral 6 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, la analogía es un mecanismo válido para llenar vacíos legales, pero no permite crear normas o exenciones. No es este el caso. El tributo en examen ya existía, lo que se discute es la base de cálculo, con lo cual, no se está ante uno de los límites de la integración analógica. Así las cosas, atendiendo a este mecanismo, la norma señalada que establece que ese referente es el precio de venta al productor es válido para efectos de llenar el vacío que sobre este particular contiene la Ley no. 5792, sin que esa aplicación constituya un quebranto al principio de reserva de ley tributaria, ni al de legalidad. Cuando no se establece con suficiente claridad, debe atenderse al hecho imponible y la naturaleza misma del impuesto, para superar los niveles de incertidumbre que puedan generarse en torno a su definición. Como se ha indicado, el tributo de marras grava la primera etapa de comercialización del producto, de ahí que la relación entre los elementos del tributo y su naturaleza (específico de consumo), justifican y hacen concluir que el parámetro debido para efectos de establecer la base imponible es el precio de venta autorizado al productor, lo que resulta congruente con lo dispuesto por la Ley no. 5792 y lo señalado en el considerando previo. Ergo, en atención a esos motivos, tal elemento no es otro que el precio autorizado al productor, o bien al precio ex fabrica, constituido por el costo del bien, más la utilidad que corresponde a la etapa de fabricación, a lo que debe adicionarse, en impuesto específico de consumo previsto en la Ley no. 8114. Es con fundamento en lo anterior que esta Sala considera que a partir de estas particularidades, no puede incluirse la utilidad del distribuidor dentro de la base de cálculo del gravamen, toda vez que no guarda correspondencia ni sentido dentro de la naturaleza del tributo, ni tiene sentido dentro de la mesura económica del hecho imponible. En consecuencia, no lleva razón el recurrente en cuanto pretende que se acepte la incorporación dentro del referente de cálculo del gravamen, la utilidad del distribuidor, pues conforme a lo expuesto, resulta improcedente. En consecuencia, la interpretación del numeral 6 de la Ley no. 5792 que realizó el Tribunal no resulta indebida ni contraria al principio de reserva de ley. Por ende, el cargo deberá rechazarse. VIII.- A mayor abundamiento de razones, conviene señalar que en el desarrollo histórico que ha tenido la normativa aplicable, se ha mantenido la idea de gravar los precios a partir de la producción y no de la distribución. Nótese que siempre es a nivel de las fábricas que se realiza la determinación cuantitativa de ese tributo. Si bien es cierto, para el caso particular no puede aplicarse el Decreto Ejecutivo no. 31156-MP del 5 de mayo del 2003, pues se analizan los períodos fiscales 2000, 2001 y 2002, lo dispuesto en esta fuente normativa es consecuente con la interpretación que ha venido realizando esta Sala y que siempre se dispuso como regla aplicable, es decir, que la base imponible se determina adicionando el precio del productor, la utilidad del productor y el impuesto selectivo que fija la Ley 8114 en su numeral 9.”