Formal defects in extension of tax audit do not void proceedingDefectos formales en ampliación de fiscalización no anulan procedimiento

**III.- Taxing power of the State.** Before resolving the appeal, this Chamber deems it pertinent to make some general considerations. The taxing power has been defined as that faculty of the State to demand contributions or grant exemptions to persons or property located within its jurisdiction. It is the power to sanction legal norms from which derives the obligation to pay a tax or to respect a tax limit. Among its constitutional principles are those of Legality or Legal Reserve, Equality, Generality, and Non-Confiscation. Taxes must stem from a Law of the Republic, must not create discrimination to the detriment of taxpayers (sujetos pasivos), must comprehensively include all persons or property provided for in the norm and not only a part thereof, and care must be taken that they are not of such intensity as to violate private property (articles 33, 40, 45, and 121 subsection 13, of the Political Constitution). Thus, it constitutes an obligation for all to pay the established public charges, with the idea of contributing according to economic capacity to public expenses, a duty that has constitutional rank under the terms of articles 18 and 19. A mandate that binds not only citizens but also public powers, for if the former are obliged to contribute according to their capacity, the latter are obliged to demand it under conditions of equality from those whose situation reveals an economic capacity susceptible to being subjected to a determined charge. It is through the State that the members of a community participate in the support of public charges. It pursues the procurement of the necessary money for the purpose of administering and distributing it in the fulfillment of its functions, through a varied range of means it uses to achieve its objectives.

**IV.- Tax auditing (fiscalización tributaria).** From this power of the State derives one of equal importance that complements it, the work of auditing (fiscalización), an activity aimed at controlling and monitoring compliance with the regulations on the matter through acts of prevention, inquiry, and sanction, in an effort to check and verify the diverse information provided by the obligors. Thus, it investigates taxable events (hechos generadores) that have not been declared or have been partially declared. Its purpose is to combat tax evasion (evasión) and repress tax fraud (fraude fiscal). Therefore, it is oriented toward effectively applying substantive tax law (derecho tributario material). Its aim is to ascertain and clarify the relevant facts for the purpose of applying the tax, to investigate situations with tax impact, and in this way, to arrive at an exact knowledge of reality. To this end, the CNPT grants it diverse possibilities for action, placing it in different legal situations of power-duty (as the holder of diverse faculties and powers), in the cases and forms provided for therein. It exercises them against the governed (administrados), who find themselves in a legal situation of duty or subjection that is realized in not impeding the Administration's exercise of the faculties of which it is the holder; which materializes in doing, not doing, or giving that to which they are obliged in accordance with the Legal System. There is a principal obligation determined by the payment of the tax, and others of a secondary nature, whose fulfillment facilitates the achievement and realization of the former. By way of example, one may cite, among others, the duty to provide relevant data, reports, and background information, to keep accounting books and other documents and supporting evidence, to consent to the practice of inspections and verifications related to the taxable event (hecho imponible), whether by the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) or by others outside the material tax obligation (numerals 99 to 117 of the CNPT). Thus, compliance with tax norms in general and formal commitments in particular constitute the central axis for the correct functioning of the entire tax system. The auditing (fiscalizadora) work can be viewed from a triple perspective: organic: as the set of Administration bodies; functional: insofar as it is directed at controlling the application of tax norms; and procedural: comprising the processes through which the bodies carry out that work. From this plane, it is a stage of actions, aimed at investigating and documenting the result of the inquiries or investigations as a means of proof that generally culminates with a tax assessment (liquidación del impuesto) but which could also lead to a sanctioning procedure, and even a criminal one. These types of actions are carried out, among others, through the examination of documents, books, accounting records, invoices, justifications, relevant correspondence, computerized databases, programs, computer records, and files related to economic activities, as well as through the inspection of premises, summons of taxpayers (sujetos pasivos) or third parties, and any other background or information that must be provided or that is necessary to determine the event and its correlative tax obligation. Based on the foregoing, numeral 103 of the Code on the matter must be interpreted, such that the phrase, "by all legal means and procedures," is not, as already stated, an open clause insofar as it cannot be exercised without regard to the objective purpose it must serve.

Despite this wide range of possibilities for carrying out an audit (fiscalización), it is unavoidable that the administrative bodies act within the limits of their competence, which in any case is inalienable. On the other hand, and although it is not the only way to initiate an auditing process (proceso de fiscalización), it is normal for it to be on its own initiative, selecting the taxpayers (sujetos pasivos) through objective criteria (article 106 ibidem). In development of that power and because the Tax Justice Law (Ley de Justicia Tributaria) No. 7535 of August 1995 so provides, Executive Decree No. 25925-H of March 13, 1997, was issued, Regulation on Objective Criteria for the Selection of Taxpayers for Auditing (Reglamento sobre Criterios Objetivos de Selección de Contribuyentes para Fiscalización). Likewise, in order to have agile and effective instruments for its fulfillment, Executive Decree No. 29264-H of January 24, 2001, was issued, General Regulation on Tax Management, Auditing, and Collection (Reglamento General de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria). In this sense, it is clear that the entry into force of these legal reforms was conditioned upon the issuance of a regulation, as an implementing norm, directed at enabling its full application and, therefore, at satisfactorily permitting the fulfillment of the goals that the legislator enshrined when reforming the Code. Another important circumstance regarding the nature granted to that Executive Regulation is that the original, Regulation on Tax Management, Auditing, and Collection (Reglamento de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria), issued through Executive Decree No. 25,049-H of March 26, 1996, was repealed in Law No. 7900 of August 3, 1999, which amended the Code on the matter. In any case, it is necessary to indicate that any taxpayer can be subject to an auditing process (proceso de fiscalización). The importance surrounding this function carried out by the Tax Administrations is based on the provisions of the same articles of the Political Constitution that support the State's taxing power; such that it is a competence given by constitutional mandate, making it a task that the legislator cannot ignore, reduce, diminish, suppress, or attribute to other public bodies, and rather is obliged to recognize so as not to violate the constitutional norms and principles governing this matter. In the same vein, the Executive Branch is also not empowered to create provisions of a general nature that could empty it of content. It is thus that these competences, even though they have their origin in constitutional norms, are developed in laws and regulations, such as the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), the Tax Justice Law (Ley de Justicia Tributaria), the aforementioned regulations, among others. Therefore, the work of auditing in tax matters (fiscalización en materia tributaria) empowers the competent Administrations to exercise control in all areas that concern them, that is, to combat tax evasion (evasión) and repress tax fraud (fraude fiscal), with a clear orientation that tax law is applied effectively. Hence, auditing plans (planes de fiscalización) constitute the essential axis on which the exercise of these functions revolves. They are tools that collaborate in planning, which not only supposes the establishment of general criteria for actions but also a concrete regulation of the heads of the bodies who must decide in each case, and in a staggered manner, the taxpayers who are to be investigated. In this way, it serves not only the purposes of correct internal organization but also the principle of legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) for the governed regarding the criteria followed to decide who is to be audited. Including a taxpayer in a plan of this nature is a procedural step (acto de trámite), which per se does not affect their subjective rights, and is therefore unchallengeable in administrative and jurisdictional venues, not only due to its legal nature but also because only those procedural steps (actos de trámite) that decide directly or indirectly the merits of the matter or bring the proceedings to an end or make their continuation impossible or suspend them are appealable (ordinals 18 of the Regulatory Law of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa) and 163 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública)). Unless, due to its characteristics, it constitutes an act with its own effect. These Annual Auditing Plans (Planes Anuales de Fiscalización) do not presuppose the attribution of competences for the Tax Administrations, nor do they generate subjective rights in favor of the taxpayer, but rather are internal rules for distributing functions among the bodies and officials that comprise them. This doctrine leads to removing from judicial control the knowledge or appreciation of any cause or motive that could have vitiated the corresponding decision to include in the Plan, or to initiate a process directly against a taxpayer. The foregoing, inasmuch as no one has, in principle, a subjective right to be audited or not to be audited, but they do have the right that the reason for one situation or another is justified and reasoned in a reasoned and reasonable manner (numeral 67 of the current Regulation on Tax Management, Auditing, and Collection (Reglamento de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria)). That is, the tax obligor cannot substitute the administrative assessment for their own, but they can formulate the demand that the Administration prove it is based on grounds consistent with the Law and pursues purposes of general interest. In summary, the principle of equality and legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) require that the objective criteria for selecting a taxpayer who will be subject to audit (fiscalización), in accordance with article 106 of the CNPT, be duly published and included in the Annual Audit Plan.

**V.-** In the first of the grievances, the appellant alleges that precepts 103 and 106 of the CNPT establish that the Administration's actions are subject to "legal means and procedures," including in the preparatory stage. Also, it deduces the duty to support decisions on "objective selection criteria" and on the "existence of solid evidence," so that the power of auditing (fiscalización) must be exercised through regulated grounds. According to the contested ruling, it indicates, the non-compliance with a series of requirements to execute that power was proven; however, an incorrect legal consequence is reached by establishing that the right of defense and due process has not been violated, and therefore, no defenselessness (indefensión) was caused. In this sense, as indicated in the previous sections, the Administration is empowered (power-duty) to verify the correct fulfillment of tax obligations by all legal means and procedures, in the terms already set forth, that provide information and lead to conviction regarding the relevant facts for applying the tax (article 103 ibidem). On the other hand, it is provided that information can only be requested regarding taxpayers (sujetos pasivos) previously selected through objective selection criteria, published and included in the Annual Audit Plan in force on the date of the request (numeral 106 ibidem). In the specific case, official communication of November 8, 2001, was issued, "Extension Auditing Communication No. Identificacion31," conduct that gave rise to the study of the 1998 fiscal period, without indicating the norm on which it was based and the information contained in the file, defects that clearly contravene the Regulation on Objective Criteria for the Selection of Taxpayers for Auditing (Reglamento sobre Criterios Objetivos de Selección de Contribuyentes para Fiscalización) and the current General Regulation on Tax Management, Auditing, and Collection (Reglamento General de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria). However, it is important to mention that this auditing procedure (procedimiento de fiscalización) originated through the "Communication of Initiation of Auditing Action" No. Identificacion32 of July 13, 2001, a document duly notified to the plaintiff company and contributed to the record as evidence with the complaint brief (see folios 36 to 39). This action fully complied with the requirements demanded by numeral 67 of that latter Regulation, and in what is of interest, it clearly and precisely indicated the criterion by which it was selected, in application of the regulations for those purposes. Such that, even if the fact of initiating the auditing actions (actuaciones de fiscalización) in accordance with the Legal System does not cure the defect found in its extension, it is important to specify that the plaintiff had full knowledge that it was going to be investigated and of the selection criterion. Added to this, the vitiated act was an extension of the audit initiated, not a new and isolated auditing action (actuación de fiscalización). It being evident that the only aspect extended was one of the periods (folios 86 and 87 of the administrative file). In any case, as indicated in the preceding recital (considerando), that power has constitutional roots, and therefore cannot be limited or reduced by norms of lower hierarchy, so it must be interpreted in accordance with that superior value. Hence, more than a limiting or compressed procedure regarding the faculties of the Tax Administrations to audit taxpayers (sujetos pasivos), the application of the Regulation on Objective Criteria for the Selection of Taxpayers attempts to protect the equality and legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) of taxpayers, but maintains a strong dose of guidance that nourishes the method of work and internal organization of those bodies. For these reasons, this Chamber shares the criterion of the Tribunal regarding the legal consequence of what was noted. According to canon 223 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), applicable by remission of numeral 163 of the CNPT, only the lack of substantial formalities of the procedure causes nullity of what has been acted, such as those whose fulfillment would have prevented or changed the final decision in important aspects, or whose absence violates the right of defense. In view of the fact that such actions—defective due to non-compliance with tax regulations—were issued in a preparatory stage, which neither generate nor violate subjective rights, there is no reason whatsoever, nor has the appellant proven any, to infer that the right of defense or due process was violated, given that there is no evidence of having caused the alleged defenselessness (indefensión). The fact of omitting the norm on which it was based and the information contained in the file did not prevent refuting what was established in the statement of objections (traslado de cargos), much less challenging it through the corresponding means, as the plaintiff did. These defects do not have the virtue of producing the absolute nullity of the actions, invalidating the procedure, or disproving the facts proven in that stage. Therefore, in so holding, the Tribunal has not infringed the alluded regulations.

[...]

**VII.-** In the third grievance, it argues that numerals 1, 7, 18, 22, 23, 59, 61, 62, and 82 of the Regulatory Law of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa) were not applied. It considers that the Tribunal ought to have exercised legality control over the challenged acts, and its power to annul those inconsistent with the Legal System. This is not a constitutional process, it asserts, so the analysis did not consist of whether the conduct is consistent with Constitutional Law. This Chamber deems that the Tribunal’s criterion corresponds to the scope of the competences granted to exercise legality control, in this case, of the acts issued by the Tax Administration, in a special tax proceeding (article 82 of the Regulatory Law of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa)). And not, as an exclusive examination of constitutional norms. In any event, the legality controller, in addition to its natural functions, not only can review whether the conduct conforms to the Political Constitution but has the duty to do so (article 8 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch (Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial)). Together with the foregoing, it is important to highlight that what was acted upon in the administrative venue was assessed according to the scope of the Regulation on Objective Criteria for the Selection of Taxpayers for Auditing (Reglamento sobre Criterios Objetivos de Selección de Contribuyentes para Fiscalización) and the General Regulation on Tax Management, Auditing, and Collection (Reglamento General de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria). Therefore, the fact that the legal consequence ordered in the judgment does not correspond to what the appellant sought does not mean, as has been stated regarding this grievance, a violation of the Regulatory Law on the matter.

**VIII.-** As a fourth ground, it imputes the violation of numerals 130, 132, 133, 136, 158, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 169, 176, 214, 215, and 223 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública). The Tribunal acknowledges that the action was not taken in strict adherence to the regulations applicable to the case, it notes, so it should have declared the complaint well-founded and annulled the administrative act. Furthermore, it asserts, the initial action, which it has questioned, can be appealed, as it has no independent effect (efecto propio), together with the final act, and be based on the exercise of a power of authority with regulated elements. The decision, it insists, is devoid of reasoning, so its extension was also neither lawful nor possible. It adds, the consequence is its absolute nullity, because what was indicated at the end would have changed. If that objective process had disappeared, the auditing (fiscalización) would not have been carried out, and therefore, the income tax would not have been modified. In that same grievance, it objects to the information obtained from the Banco Nacional de Costa Rica since, to request it from third parties, it affirms, the taxpayer must have been selected by objective criteria and supported by the existence of solid evidence. The diligence was premature, it alleges, and therefore it did not exercise control over its initiative and development. In the first order, the issue of what was done by the Tax Audit and its legal consequences has already been addressed, so it is unnecessary to enter into its analysis again, and therefore, reference must be made to what was set forth in recital (considerando) V of this judgment. Regarding the evidence obtained from the Bank, its disagreement rests on the alleged violation of article 106 of the CNPT, that is, due to the way in which it was selected, an aspect that, as stated, has already been analyzed. It was verified that, notwithstanding the irregularities of the extension, these defects do not produce the absolute nullity of the act itself and the subsequent ones. Thus, as this argument is accessory and depends on that declaration, it must be rejected. In any case, the power to request information from third parties finds constitutional basis in article 24, which, in what is of interest, establishes: "(…) The law shall determine the cases in which the competent officials of the Ministry of Finance and of the Comptroller General of the Republic may review the accounting books and their annexes for tax purposes and to audit the correct use of public funds. (…)" This tool, linked to the constitutional powers conferred on the tax authorities, is constituted as an instrument to protect tax matters and the correct use of public funds. In turn, it authorizes the creation of legal powers in order to better exercise auditing functions (funciones de fiscalización). Therefore, in numeral 105 ibidem, it was established that: "Every person, physical or legal, public or private, shall be obliged to provide the Tax Administration with information of tax significance (trascendencia tributaria), deduced from their economic, financial, and professional relationships with other persons. They shall provide it as the Administration indicates by means of a regulation or individualized requirement. This requirement for information must be justified, duly and expressly, as to its tax relevance. (…)" In this vein, the Legal System has conferred broad powers on the Tax Administrations to request information from third parties, in order to fulfill their auditing (fiscalizadora) work in conditions of efficiency and efficacy. In addition to the foregoing, it is incorrect to point out that it had no procedural opportunity to refer to that evidence, since it precisely had it when it was notified of the statement of objections (traslado de cargos), the moment when the administrative procedure begins. For this reason, the prior stage is preparatory, where the investigative actions, in principle, do not have the character of violating subjective rights. The extension act falls within this category, which also has no independent effects (efectos propios), and therefore, becomes unchallengeable. Consequently, the fact that in that action no mention or specification had been made regarding the existence of the evidence of interest, given the legal nature of the procedural phase, as well as the characteristics of the auditing actions (actuaciones de fiscalización), the control exercised by the Tribunal does not constitute a violation of the norms of the Regulatory Law of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa)." Despite that wide range of possibilities, in order to carry out an audit (fiscalización), it is unavoidable that administrative bodies act within the limits of their competence, which is in any case inalienable. Furthermore, and although it is not the only way to initiate an audit process, it is normal for it to be on its own initiative, selecting the taxable persons through objective criteria (Article 106 ibidem). In development of that power and because so provided by the Tax Justice Law No. 7535 of August 1995, Executive Decree No. 25925-H of March 13, 1997, was issued, Regulation on Objective Criteria for Selecting Taxpayers for Audit (Reglamento sobre Criterios Objetivos de Selección de Contribuyentes para Fiscalización). Likewise, in the interest of having agile and effective instruments for its compliance, Executive Decree No. 29264-H of January 24, 2001, was issued, General Regulation on Tax Management, Audit, and Collection (Reglamento General de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria).

In this sense, it is clear that the entry into force of those legal reforms was conditioned on the issuance of a regulation, as an implementing norm, directed at enabling its full application and, therefore, allowing satisfactory compliance with the purposes the legislator enshrined when reforming the Code. Another important circumstance regarding the nature given to that Executive Regulation is that the original one, Regulation on Tax Management, Audit, and Collection (Reglamento de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria), issued through Executive Decree No. 25.049-H of March 26, 1996, was repealed in Law No. 7900 of August 3, 1999, which modified the Code on the matter. In any case, it is necessary to indicate that any taxpayer can be subject to an audit process. The importance concerning this function carried out by the Tax Administrations is based on the provisions of the same articles of the Political Constitution that support the State's taxation power; thus, it is a competence given by constitutional mandate, therefore it is a task that the legislator cannot ignore, reduce, diminish, suppress, or attribute to other public bodies, and rather is obliged to recognize so as not to violate the constitutional norms and principles governing this matter. In the same vein, the Executive Branch is also not authorized to create provisions of a general nature that could empty it of content. Thus, these competences, even though they originate in constitutional norms, are developed in laws and regulations, such as the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, CNPT), the Tax Justice Law (Ley de Justicia Tributaria), the aforementioned regulations, among others. Therefore, the audit work in tax matters empowers the competent Administrations to exercise control in all the areas that concern them, that is, to combat evasion and repress tax fraud, with a clear orientation that tax law be effectively applied. Hence, audit plans constitute the essential axis around which the exercise of those functions revolves. They are tools that assist in planning, which not only involves establishing some general criteria for actions, but also a specific regulation of the heads of the bodies who must decide in each case, and in a staggered manner, the taxpayers to be investigated. In this way, it serves not only the purposes of correct internal organization, but also the principle of legal certainty for the administered regarding the criteria followed to decide who should be audited. Including a taxpayer in a plan of this nature is an interlocutory act (acto de trámite), which *per se* does not affect their individual rights, and is therefore unchallengeable in administrative and judicial venues, not only because of its legal nature, but also because only interlocutory acts that directly or indirectly decide the merits of the matter, or put an end to the administrative remedy, or make its continuation impossible or suspend it, are subject to appeal (ordinals 18 of the Law Regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa) and 163 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública)). Unless, due to its characteristics, it consists of an act with its own effect. These Annual Audit Plans do not presuppose the attribution of competences to the Tax Administrations, nor do they generate individual rights in favor of the taxpayer, but rather are internal rules for distributing functions among the bodies and officials that compose them. This doctrine leads to excluding from judicial control the knowledge or assessment of any cause or reason that may have vitiated the corresponding decision to include a taxpayer in the Plan, or to initiate a process directly against them. The foregoing, because, in principle, no one has an individual right to be audited or not to be audited, but they do have the right that one or another situation be justified and motivated in a reasoned and reasonable manner (numeral 67 of the current Regulation on Tax Management, Audit, and Collection). That is, the taxpayer cannot substitute their own assessment for the administrative one, but they can formulate the demand that the Administration prove that it is based on foundations consistent with the Law and pursues purposes of general interest. In summary, the principle of equality and legal certainty require that the objective criteria for selecting a taxpayer to be subject to an audit, according to Article 106 of the CNPT, be duly published and included in the Annual Audit Plan.

**V.-** In the first of the charges, the appellant alleges that precepts 103 and 106 of the CNPT establish that the Administration's actions are subject to "legal means and procedures" (medios y procedimientos legales), including in the preparatory stage. It also deduces the duty to support decisions on "objective selection criteria" (criterios objetivos de selección) and on the "existence of solid evidence" (existencia de evidencias sólidas), and therefore, the power to audit must be exercised through regulated grounds. According to the contested judgment, it indicates, the non-compliance with a series of requirements to execute that power was proven; however, an incorrect legal consequence was reached, by establishing that the right of defense and due process were not violated, and therefore, no defenselessness (indefensión) was caused. In this sense, as indicated in the preceding sections, the Administration is empowered (power-duty) to verify the correct fulfillment of tax obligations by all legal means and procedures, in the terms already set forth, that provide information and lead to conviction about the relevant facts for applying the tax (Article 103 ibidem). Furthermore, it is provided that information may only be requested about taxpayers or taxable persons previously chosen through the objective selection criteria, published and included in the Annual Audit Plan in force on the date of the request (numeral 106 ibidem). In the specific case, official communication no. Identificacion31 of November 8, 2001, was issued, "Extension of Audit Communication no. Identificacion31" (Ampliación Comunicación Fiscalizadora no. Identificacion31), an action that gave rise to the study of the 1998 fiscal period, without indicating the norm on which it was based and the information existing in the case file (expediente), defects that clearly contravene the Regulation on Objective Criteria for Selecting Taxpayers for Audit and the current General Regulation on Tax Management, Audit, and Collection. However, it is important to mention that this audit procedure originated through "Communication of Initiation of Audit Action" no. Identificacion32 of July 13, 2001, a document duly notified to the plaintiff company and provided to the proceedings as evidence with the lawsuit filing (see folios 36 to 39). This action fully complied with the requirements demanded by numeral 67 of that latter Regulation and, in what is relevant, clearly and precisely indicated the criterion by which the plaintiff was selected, in application of the regulations for those purposes. Thus, while the fact of initiating the audit actions in accordance with the Legal Order does not remedy the defect found in its extension, it is important to specify that the plaintiff was fully aware that it was going to be investigated and of the selection criterion. Added to this, the flawed act was an extension of the initiated audit, not a new and isolated audit action. It being evident that the only aspect extended was one of the periods (folios 86 and 87 of the administrative case file). In any case, as indicated in the preceding recital (considerando), that power has constitutional roots, and therefore cannot be limited or reduced by norms of lower hierarchy, and must therefore be interpreted in accordance with that higher value. Hence, more than a limiting or constricted procedure of the Tax Administrations' powers to audit taxable persons, the application of the Regulation on Objective Criteria for Selecting Taxpayers attempts to protect the equality and legal certainty of taxpayers but maintains a strong dose of guidance that feeds the work method and internal organization of those bodies. For these reasons, this Chamber shares the Tribunal's criterion regarding the legal consequence of what was noted. According to canon 223 of the General Law of Public Administration, applicable by remission of numeral 163 of the CNPT, only the failure to fulfill substantial formalities of the procedure causes nullity of the actions, such as those whose fulfillment would have prevented or changed the final decision in important aspects, or whose absence violates the right of defense. Given that such actions – defective due to non-compliance with tax regulations – were issued in a preparatory stage, which neither generate nor violate individual rights, there is no reason whatsoever, nor has the appellant proven one, to infer that the right of defense or due process was violated, since there is no evidence that the alleged defenselessness (indefensión) was provoked. The fact of omitting the norm on which it was based and the information existing in the case file did not prevent refuting what was established in the transfer of charges (traslado de cargos), much less challenging it through the corresponding remedy, as the plaintiff did. These defects do not have the capacity to produce the absolute nullity of the actions, invalidate the procedure, or detract from the facts proven in that stage. For the reasons stated, by so providing, the Tribunal has not infringed the aforementioned regulations. [...]

**VII.-** In the third grievance, it argues that numerals 1, 7, 18, 22, 23, 59, 61, 62, and 82 of the Law Regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction were not applied. It considers that the Tribunal should have exercised legality control over the contested acts, and its power to annul those non-conforming with the Legal Order. It assures that it is not a constitutional process, and therefore the analysis did not consist of whether the conduct conforms with the Law of the Constitution. This Chamber considers that the Tribunal's criterion corresponds to the scope of the powers granted to exercise legality control, in this case, over the acts issued by the Tax Administration in a special tax procedure (Article 82 of the Law Regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction). And not as an exclusive examination of constitutional norms. In any case, the legality controller, besides its natural functions, can not only review whether the conduct conforms to the Political Constitution, but also has the duty to do so (Article 8 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch). Coupled with the foregoing, it is important to highlight that the actions in the administrative venue were assessed according to the scope of the Regulation on Objective Criteria for Selecting Taxpayers for Audit and the General Regulation on Tax Management, Audit, and Collection. Therefore, the fact that the legal consequence stated in the judgment does not correspond to the one the appellant sought does not mean, as stated, with regard to this charge, a violation of the Law Regulating the matter.

**VIII.-** As a fourth ground, it imputes the violation of numerals 130, 132, 133, 136, 158, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 169, 176, 214, 215, and 223 of the General Law of Public Administration. It points out that the Tribunal acknowledges that it did not act in strict adherence to the regulations applicable to the case, and therefore should have granted the lawsuit and annulled the administrative act. Additionally, it asserts that the initial action, which it has questioned, can be challenged, since it has no effect of its own, along with the final act, and is based on the exercise of a power of sovereign authority (potestad de imperio) with regulated elements. The decision, it insists, lacks justification (motivo), so its extension was also neither licit nor possible. It adds that the consequence is its absolute nullity, because what was indicated in the end would have changed. If that objective process had disappeared, the audit would not have been carried out, and therefore, the income tax would not have been modified. In that same grievance, it objects to the information obtained from Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, since to request it from third parties, it affirms, the taxpayer must have been chosen by objective criteria and supported by the existence of solid evidence. The proceeding was premature, it claims, and therefore it did not exercise control over its initiative and development. In the first place, the issue of the actions taken by the Tax Audit Office and their legal consequences has already been addressed, making it unnecessary to re-enter its analysis, and for this reason, reference must be made to what was stated in recital (considerando) V of this ruling. Regarding the evidence obtained from the Bank, its disagreement rests on the alleged violation of Article 106 of the CNPT, that is, due to the manner in which it was selected, an aspect that, as stated, has already been analyzed. It was verified that, despite the irregularities of the extension, those defects do not produce the absolute nullity of that act itself and the subsequent ones. Thus, as that argument is accessory and depends on that declaration, it must be rejected. In any case, the power to request information from third parties finds constitutional basis in Article 24, which, in what is relevant, establishes: “*…The law shall establish the cases in which the competent officials of the Ministry of Finance and the Office of the Comptroller General of the Republic may review accounting books and their annexes for tax purposes and to audit the correct use of public funds. …*” This tool, linked to the constitutional powers conferred on tax authorities, constitutes an instrument for protecting tax matters and the correct use of public funds. In turn, it authorizes the creation of legal powers, in order to better exercise audit functions. Therefore, in numeral 105 ibidem, it was established that: “*Every natural or legal person, public or private, shall be obliged to provide the Tax Administration with information of tax relevance, deduced from its economic, financial, and professional relationships with other persons. It shall provide it as the Administration indicates through regulation or individualized requirement. This request for information must be justified, duly and expressly, regarding its tax relevance. …*” In this order of ideas, the Legal Order has conferred broad powers on the Tax Administrations to request information from third parties, in order to fulfill their audit work under conditions of efficiency and effectiveness. In addition to the above, it is incorrect to indicate that it did not have a procedural opportunity to refer to that evidence, since it precisely had it when it was notified of the transfer of charges (traslado de cargos), the moment when the administrative procedure begins. For this reason, the prior stage is preparatory, where the investigative actions, in principle, do not have the character of violating individual rights. The extension act falls into this category, which also does not have its own effects, and therefore, becomes unchallengeable.

**III.-** **Tax Authority of the State.** Before resolving the appeal, this Chamber deems it pertinent to make some general considerations. The tax authority (potestad tributaria) has been defined as that power of the State to demand contributions or grant exemptions to persons or goods located within its jurisdiction. It is the power to enact legal norms from which the obligation to pay a tax or to respect a tax limit is derived. Among its constitutional principles are Legality or Legal Reserve, Equality, Generality, and Non-Confiscation. Taxes must originate from a Law of the Republic, not create discrimination against taxpayers (sujetos pasivos), must comprehensively cover all persons or goods provided for in the norm and not just a part of them, and must ensure they are not of such intensity as to violate private property (articles 33, 40, 45, and 121 subsection 13, of the Political Constitution). Thus, it constitutes an obligation for all to pay the established public charges, with the idea of contributing according to their economic capacity to public expenses, a duty that has constitutional rank under the terms of articles 18 and 19. This mandate binds not only the citizens but also the public powers, since if the former are obliged to contribute according to their capacity, the latter are obliged to demand it under conditions of equality from those whose situation reveals an economic capacity susceptible to being subjected to a determined charge. It is through the State that the members of a community participate in sustaining public charges. It pursues the procurement of the necessary money in order to administer and distribute it in the fulfillment of its functions, through a varied range of means it uses to achieve its objectives.

**IV.- Tax auditing (fiscalización tributaria).** From this power of the State derives another of equal importance that complements it: the task of auditing (fiscalización), an activity aimed at controlling and monitoring compliance with the regulations on the matter through acts of prevention, investigation, and sanction, in an effort to verify the diverse information provided by the obligated parties. Thus, it investigates taxable events (hechos generadores) that have not been declared or have been declared partially. Its purpose is to combat evasion and suppress tax fraud. Therefore, it is oriented toward effectively applying substantive tax law. Its aim is to ascertain and clarify the facts relevant to applying the tax, to investigate the situations with tax impact, and thereby to arrive at an exact knowledge of reality. To this effect, the CNPT grants it various possibilities for action, placing it in different legal situations of power-duty (as the holder of diverse faculties and powers), in the cases and forms provided for therein. It exercises them against the administered parties, who find themselves in a legal situation of duty or subjection, which consists of not preventing the Administration from exercising the faculties of which it is the holder; this materializes in doing, not doing, or giving that to which they are obligated in accordance with the Legal System. There is a main obligation determined by the payment of the tax, and others of a secondary nature, whose fulfillment facilitates the achievement and realization of the former. By way of example, among others, one may cite the duty to provide relevant data, reports, and records; to keep accounting books and other documents and supporting vouchers; and to consent to the practice of inspections and verifications related to the taxable event, whether by the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) or by others not subject to the material tax obligation (numerals 99 to 117 of the CNPT). Thus, compliance with tax norms in general, and formal commitments in particular, constitute the central axis for the correct functioning of the entire tax system. The auditing task can be contemplated from a triple perspective: organic: as the set of Administration bodies; functional: insofar as it is directed at controlling the application of tax norms; and procedural: which comprises the processes through which the bodies carry out this work. From this latter standpoint, it is a stage of actions aimed at investigating and documenting the result of the inquiries or investigations as a means of proof that generally culminates with a tax assessment (liquidación del impuesto), but that could also lead to a sanctioning procedure, or even a criminal one. These types of actions are carried out, among other means, through the examination of documents, books, accounting records, invoices, justifications, relevant correspondence, computerized databases, programs, records, and computer files related to economic activities, as well as through the inspection of business premises, summoning of taxpayers or third parties, and any other record or information that must be provided or that is necessary to determine the taxable event and its correlative tax obligation. Based on the foregoing, numeral 103 of the Code on the matter must be interpreted, such that the phrase, "*by all legal means and procedures*", is not, as already stated, an open clause to the extent that it cannot be exercised without attention to the objective purpose it must serve. Despite this wide range of possibilities for carrying out an audit, it is unavoidable that the administrative bodies act within the limits of their competence, which in any case is inalienable. On the other hand, and although it is not the only way to initiate an audit process, it is normal for it to be undertaken on its own initiative, selecting taxpayers through objective criteria (article 106 ibidem). In development of that power and because the Tax Justice Law (Ley de Justicia Tributaria) No. 7535 of August 1995 so provides, Executive Decree No. 25925-H of March 13, 1997, Regulation on Objective Criteria for the Selection of Taxpayers for Auditing (Reglamento sobre Criterios Objetivos de Selección de Contribuyentes para Fiscalización), was issued. Likewise, in order to have agile and effective instruments for its fulfillment, Executive Decree No. 29264-H of January 24, 2001, General Regulation of Tax Management, Auditing, and Collection (Reglamento General de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria), was dictated. In this sense, it is clear that the entry into force of those legal reforms was conditioned upon the issuance of a regulation, as an executive norm, directed at enabling its full application and, therefore, allowing the satisfactory fulfillment of the aims that the legislator enshrined when reforming the Code. Another important circumstance regarding the nature granted to that Executive Regulation is that the original one, the Regulation of Tax Management, Auditing, and Collection (Reglamento de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria), issued by Executive Decree No. 25.049-H of March 26, 1996, was repealed in Law No. 7900 of August 3, 1999, which modified the Code on the matter. In any case, it is necessary to indicate that any taxpayer can be subject to an audit process. The importance surrounding this function carried out by the Tax Administrations is based on the provisions of the same articles of the Political Constitution that give support to the State's tax authority; thus, it is a competence granted by constitutional mandate, meaning it is a task that the legislator cannot disregard, reduce, diminish, suppress, or attribute to other public bodies, and rather is obliged to recognize it so as not to violate the constitutional norms and principles governing this matter. In the same sense, the Executive Branch is also not empowered to create provisions of a general nature that could empty it of content. Thus, these competences, even though their origin lies in constitutional norms, are developed in laws and regulations, such as the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures, the Tax Justice Law, the aforementioned regulations, among others. Therefore, the task of auditing in tax matters empowers the competent Administrations to exercise control in all areas that concern it, that is, to combat evasion and suppress tax fraud, with a clear orientation that tax law be applied effectively. Consequently, the fact that in that proceeding the existence of the evidence of interest was not mentioned and specified, due to the legal nature of the procedural phase, as well as due to the characteristics of the audit actions, the control exercised by the Court, does not constitute a violation of the norms of the Regulatory Law of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa)." Thus, audit plans constitute the essential axis on which the exercise of those functions revolves. They are tools that assist in planning, which not only entails the establishment of general criteria for actions, but also a specific regulation of the heads of the bodies who must decide in each case, and in a staggered manner, the taxpayers who are to be investigated. In this way, it serves not only the purposes of correct internal organization, but also the principle of legal certainty for the administered parties regarding the criteria followed to decide who must be audited. Including a taxpayer in a plan of this nature is a procedural act (acto de trámite), which <span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">per se</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> does not affect their subjective rights, and is therefore unchallengeable in administrative and judicial venues, not only because of its legal nature, but because only procedural acts that directly or indirectly decide the merits of the matter or bring the proceedings to an end or make their continuation impossible or suspend them are appealable (ordinals 18 of the Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa and 163 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública). Unless, due to its characteristics, it constitutes an act with its own effect. These Annual Audit Plans do not presuppose the attribution of powers to the Tax Administrations, nor do they generate subjective rights in favor of the taxpayer, but rather they are internal rules for distributing functions among the bodies and officials that comprise them. This doctrine leads to removing from judicial control the awareness or assessment of any cause or reason that might have vitiated the corresponding decision, to include in the Plan, or to initiate a proceeding directly against a taxpayer. The foregoing, inasmuch as, in principle, no one has a subjective right to be audited or not to be audited, but they do have the right that one or the other situation be justified and reasoned in a well-founded and reasonable manner (numeral 67 of the Reglamento de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria, in force). That is, the taxpayer cannot substitute their own assessment for the administrative one, but they can formulate the demand that it demonstrate that it is based on grounds consistent with the Law and pursues aims of general interest. In summary, the principle of equality and legal certainty require that the objective criteria for selecting a taxpayer who will be subject to audit, in accordance with article 106 of the CNPT, be duly published and included in the Annual Audit Plan. </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">V.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> In the first charge, the appellant alleges that precepts 103 and 106 of the CNPT establish that the Administration's actions are subject to "</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">legal means and procedures</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">," even in the preparatory stage. It also infers the duty to base decisions on "</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">objective selection criteria</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">" and on the "</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">existence of solid evidence</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">," so the power of audit must be exercised through regulated grounds. According to the appealed judgment, it indicates, the breach of a series of requirements to exercise that power was proven; however, an incorrect legal consequence is reached, by establishing that the right of defense and due process have not been violated, and therefore, no defenselessness was caused. In this regard, as indicated in the preceding sections, the Administration is empowered (duty-power) to verify the correct fulfillment of tax obligations by all legal means and procedures, in the terms already set forth, that provide information and lead to conviction on the relevant facts for applying the tax (article 103 ibidem). On the other hand, it is provided that information may only be requested on taxpayers or taxable persons previously chosen by means of the objective selection criteria, published and included in the Annual Audit Plan in force on the date of the request (numeral 106 ibidem). In the specific case, official letter no. Identificacion31 of November 8, 2001, "Ampliación Comunicación Fiscalizadora," was issued, conduct that gave rise to the study of the 1998 fiscal period, without indicating the rule on which it was based and the information contained in the case file, defects that clearly contravene the Reglamento sobre Criterios Objetivos de Selección de Contribuyentes para Fiscalización and the current Reglamento General de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria. However, it is important to mention that this audit procedure originated from "Comunicación de Inicio de Actuación Fiscalizadora" no. Identificacion32 of July 13, 2001, a document duly notified to the plaintiff company and submitted to the case file as evidence with the complaint (see folios 36 to 39). This action fully complied with the requirements demanded by numeral 67 of that latter Regulation, and as relevant, it indicated clearly and precisely the criterion by which it was selected, in application of the rules for those purposes. Thus, although the fact that initiating audit actions in accordance with the Legal System does not cure the defect found in its expansion, it is important to specify that the plaintiff was fully aware that it was to be investigated and of the selection criterion. Added to this, the vitiated act was an extension of the audit initiated, not a new and isolated audit action. It being evident that the only expanded aspect was one of the periods (folios 86 and 87 of the administrative file). In any case, as indicated in the preceding considerando, that power has constitutional roots and therefore cannot be limited or reduced by lower-ranking rules, so it must be interpreted in accordance with that superior value. Hence, more than a limiting or constricted procedure of the Tax Administrations' powers to audit taxable persons, the application of the Reglamento sobre Criterios Objetivos de Selección de Contribuyentes attempts to protect the equality and legal certainty of taxpayers, but maintains a strong dose of guidance that nourishes the working method and internal organization of those bodies. For these reasons, this Chamber shares the criterion of the Court, regarding the legal consequence of what was noted. According to canon 223 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública, applicable by remission of numeral 163 of the CNPT, only the lack of substantial formalities of the procedure causes nullity of the proceedings, such as those whose fulfillment would have prevented or changed the final decision in important aspects, or whose absence violates the right of defense. Given that such actions—defective for failing to comply with tax regulations—were issued in a preparatory stage, which neither generate nor violate subjective rights, there is no reason whatsoever, nor has the appellant proven any, to infer that the right of defense or due process was violated, since there is no evidence of having caused the alleged defenselessness. The fact of omitting the rule on which it was based and the information contained in the file did not prevent refuting what was established in the transfer of charges, much less challenging it through the appropriate channels, as the plaintiff did.</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> These defects do not have the virtue</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">&#xa0;</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> of producing the absolute nullity of the proceedings, invalidating the procedure, or distorting the facts proven at that stage. For the foregoing reasons, by so providing, the Court has not infringed the aforementioned rules. […] </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">VII.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> In the third grievance, it argues that numerals 1, 7, 18, 22, 23, 59, 61, 62, and 82 of the Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa were not applied. It considers that the Court should have exercised legality control over the challenged acts and its power to annul those not in conformity with the Legal System. It is not a constitutional process, it asserts, so the analysis did not consist of whether the conduct conforms to Constitutional Law. This Chamber considers that the Court's criterion corresponds to the scope of the powers granted to exercise legality control, in this case, of the acts issued by the Tax Administration, in a special tax proceeding (article 82 of the Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa). And not as an exclusive examination of constitutional norms. In any event, the legality controller, in addition to its natural functions, can not only review whether the conduct conforms to the Political Constitution, but has the duty to do so (article 8 of the Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial). Coupled with the foregoing, it is important to highlight that what was done in the administrative venue was assessed according to the scope of the Reglamento sobre Criterios Objetivos de Selección de Contribuyentes para Fiscalización and the Reglamento General de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria. Therefore, the fact that the legal consequence provided in the judgment does not correspond to what the appellant sought does not mean, as has been stated, regarding this charge, a violation of the Regulating Law of the matter.</span><span> </span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-weight:bold">VIII.-</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma"> As a fourth ground, it imputes violation of numerals 130, 132, 133, 136, 158, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 169, 176, 214, 215, and 223 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública. The Court acknowledges that it did not act in strict adherence to the rules applicable to the case, it notes, so it should have granted the claim and annulled the administrative act. Moreover, it asserts, the initial action, which it has questioned, can be appealed, since it lacks its own effect, together with the final act, and is based on the exercise of an imperium power with regulated elements. What was decided, it insists, lacks grounds, so its expansion was neither lawful nor possible. It adds that the consequence is its absolute nullity, because what was indicated at the end would have changed. Had that objective process disappeared, the audit would not have been carried out, and therefore, the income tax would not have been modified. In that same grievance, it objects to the information obtained from Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, since to request it from third parties, it affirms, the taxpayer must have been chosen by objective criteria and based on the existence of solid evidence. The diligence was premature, it alleges, so it exercised no control over its initiative and development. First of all, the issue of what was done by the Fiscal Audit and its legal consequences has already been addressed, so it is unnecessary to delve into its analysis again, and for that reason, it must refer to what was set forth in considerando V of this judgment. Regarding the evidence obtained at the Bank, its disagreement rests on the alleged violation of article 106 of the CNPT, that is, the manner in which it was selected, an aspect which, as stated, has already been analyzed. It was verified that, notwithstanding the irregularities of the expansion, those defects do not produce the absolute nullity of the act itself or the subsequent ones. Thus, as this argument is accessory and depends on that declaration, it must be rejected. In any case, the power to request information from third parties finds constitutional foundation in article 24, which, as relevant, establishes: "</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">(…) The law shall set forth the cases in which the competent officials of the Ministry of Finance and the Contraloría General de la República may review the accounting books and their annexes for tax purposes and to audit the correct utilization of public funds. (…)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">" This tool, tied to the constitutional powers conferred on the tax authorities, is an instrument for protecting tax matters and the correct utilization of public funds. In turn, it authorizes the creation of legal powers, in the interest of better exercising audit functions. For this reason, in numeral 105 ibidem, it was established that: "</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma; font-style:italic">Every person, natural or legal, public or private, shall be obligated to provide the Tax Administration with information of tax significance, deduced from their economic, financial, and professional relationships with other persons. They shall provide it as the Administration indicates by means of regulation or individualized requirement. This information requirement must be justified, duly and expressly, regarding its tax relevance. (…)</span><span style="font-family:Tahoma">" In this line of reasoning, the Legal System has granted broad powers to the Tax Administrations to request information from third parties, in order to fulfill their auditing work under conditions of efficiency and effectiveness. In addition to the foregoing, it is incorrect to state that it had no procedural opportunity to refer to that evidence, since it precisely had it when it was notified of the transfer of charges, the moment the administrative procedure begins. For that reason, the prior stage is preparatory, where investigative actions, in principle, do not have the character of violating subjective rights. The expansion act falls into this category, which also has no effects of its own, and is therefore unchallengeable. Consequently, the fact that in that action no mention was made or specification given of the existence of the relevant evidence, due to the legal nature of the procedural phase, as well as the characteristics of the audit actions, the control exercised by the Court does not constitute a violation of the rules of the Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa."</span><span> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:200%"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify"><span>&#xa0;</span></p></div></body></html>"

“III.- Potestad tributaria del Estado. Previo a resolver el recurso, estima esta Sala pertinente realizar algunas consideraciones generales. La potestad tributaria, se ha definido como aquella facultad del Estado, de exigir contribuciones o conceder excepciones a personas o bienes que se ubican en su jurisdicción. Es el poder de sancionar normas jurídicas de las que se derive, la obligación de pagar un tributo o de respetar un límite tributario. Entre sus principios constitucionales, están el de Legalidad o Reserva de Ley, el de Igualdad, de Generalidad y de No Confiscación. Los tributos deben provenir de una Ley de la República, no crear discriminaciones en perjuicio de sujetos pasivos, deben comprender de forma integral a todas las personas o bienes previstos en la norma y no sólo a una parte de ellos, y debe velarse de no ser de tal intensidad, que viole la propiedad privada (artículos 33, 40, 45, y 121 inciso 13, de la Constitución Política). De tal forma que, constituye una obligación de todos de pagar las cargas públicas establecidas, con la idea de contribuir según la capacidad económica con los gastos públicos, deber que tiene rango constitucional en los términos de los artículos 18 y 19. Mandato que vincula no sólo a los ciudadanos, sino también a los poderes públicos, ya que si los primeros están obligados a contribuir de acuerdo a su capacidad los otros están obligados, a exigirla en condiciones de igualdad a quienes, cuya situación ponga de manifiesto una capacidad económica susceptible de ser sometida a una carga determinada. Es a través del Estado que los miembros de una colectividad participan en el sostenimiento de las cargas públicas. Persigue la obtención del dinero necesario con el objeto de administrarlo y distribuirlo en el cumplimiento de sus funciones, a través de una variada gama de medios de los que se sirve para el logro de sus objetivos. IV.- La fiscalización tributaria. De esta potestad del Estado, deriva una de igual importancia que la complementa, la labor de fiscalización, actividad tendiente al control y vigilancia del cumplimiento de la normativa de la materia mediante actos de prevención, indagación, y sanción, en procura de comprobar y verificar las diversas informaciones suministradas por los obligados. Así, investiga los hechos generadores que no han sido declarados o lo han sido en forma parcial. Tiene por objeto combatir la evasión y reprimir el fraude fiscal. Por tanto, se orienta a aplicar de manera efectiva el derecho tributario material. Su norte, es averiguar y dejar claro los hechos relevantes a los efectos de aplicar el tributo, investigar los supuestos con impacto tributario y de esta forma, llegar a un conocimiento exacto de la realidad. A tal efecto, el CNPT le otorga diversas posibilidades de actuación, colocándola en distintas situaciones jurídicas de poder - deber (como titular de diversas facultades y potestades), en los casos y formas por él previstos. Las ejerce frente a los administrados, quienes se encuentran en una situación jurídica de deber o sujeción que se concreta en no impedir a la Administración el ejercicio de las facultades de las cuales es titular; que se materializa en un hacer, no hacer o dar aquello a que están obligados de conformidad con el Ordenamiento Jurídico. Existe una obligación principal determinada por el pago del tributo, y otras de carácter secundario, cuyo cumplimiento facilitan el logro y realización de aquella. Por vía de ejemplo, pueden citarse, entre otras, el deber de proporcionar datos, informes y antecedentes relevantes, llevar libros de contabilidad y demás documentos y justificantes, consentir la práctica de inspecciones y comprobaciones relacionadas con el hecho imponible, bien sea por el sujeto pasivo, o por otros ajenos a la obligación tributaria material (numerales 99 a 117 del CNPT). Así el cumplimiento de las normas tributarias en general y compromisos formales en particular, constituyen el eje central para el correcto funcionamiento de la totalidad del sistema tributario. La labor fiscalizadora, puede contemplarse desde una triple perspectiva: orgánica: como el conjunto de órganos de la Administración; funcional: en tanto está dirigida al control de la aplicación de las normas tributarias; y procedimental: que comprende los procesos a través de los cuales los órganos desempeñan esa labor. Desde este plano, es una etapa de actuaciones, tendiente a investigar y documentar el resultado de las pesquisas o averiguaciones como medio de prueba que por lo general, culmina con una liquidación del impuesto pero que podría también desembocar en un procedimiento sancionador, e incluso penal. Este tipo de acciones se realizan entre otros, a través del examen de documentos, libros, registros contables, facturas, justificaciones, correspondencia trascendente, bases de datos informatizadas, programas, registros y archivos informáticos relativos a actividades económicas, así como por medio de la inspección de locales, citación de sujetos pasivos o terceros, y cualquier otro antecedente o información que deba facilitarse o que sea necesario para determinar el hecho y su correlativa obligación tributaria. Con fundamento en lo anterior, es que debe interpretarse el numeral 103 del Código de la materia, por lo que la frase, “por todos los medios y procedimientos legales”, no es, como ya se dijo, una cláusula abierta en la medida en que no puede ser ejercida sin atención a la finalidad objetiva a que debe servir. A pesar de esa amplia gama de posibilidades, para realizar una fiscalización, es insoslayable que los órganos administrativos actúen dentro de los límites de su competencia, la cual en todo caso es irrenunciable. Por otra parte, y aunque no es la única forma de iniciar un proceso de fiscalización, es normal que sea por iniciativa propia, seleccionando a los sujetos pasivos, mediante criterios objetivos (artículo 106 ibídem). En desarrollo de esa potestad y por disponerlo así la Ley de Justicia Tributaria no. 7535 de agosto de 1995, se emitió el Decreto Ejecutivo no. 25925-H del 13 de marzo de 1997, Reglamento sobre Criterios Objetivos de Selección de Contribuyentes para Fiscalización. Igualmente, en aras de contar con instrumentos ágiles y efectivos para su cumplimiento, se dictó el Decreto Ejecutivo no. 29264-H del 24 de enero del 2001, Reglamento General de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria. En este sentido, es claro que la entrada en vigencia de esas reformas legales fueron condicionadas a la emisión de un reglamento, como norma de ejecución, dirigida a posibilitar su plena aplicación y, por ende, a permitir en forma satisfactoria el cumplimiento de los fines que el legislador consagró al reformar el Código. Otra circunstancia importante sobre la naturaleza que se otorga a ese Reglamento Ejecutivo, es que el original, Reglamento de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria, emitido mediante el Decreto Ejecutivo no. 25.049-H del 26 de marzo de 1996, fue derogado en la Ley no. 7900 del 3 de agosto de 1999, que modificó el Código de la materia. En todo caso, es menester indicar que, cualquier contribuyente puede ser objeto de un proceso de fiscalización. La importancia en torno a esta función que realizan las Administraciones Tributarias, es con fundamento en lo dispuesto en los mismos artículos de la Constitución Política que le dan sustento a la potestad tributaria del Estado; de manera que se trata de una competencia dada por mandato constitucional, por lo que se trata de una tarea que el legislador no puede desconocer, rebajar, disminuir, suprimir o atribuírsela a otros órganos públicos, y más bien está en la obligación de reconocer a fin de no quebrantar las normas y principios constitucionales que rigen esta materia. En igual sentido, tampoco el Poder Ejecutivo se encuentra facultado para crear disposiciones de carácter general que puedan vaciarla de contenido. Es así como estas competencias, aún cuando tienen su origen en las normas constitucionales, están desarrolladas en las leyes y reglamentos, tales como el Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, Ley de Justicia Tributaria, los reglamentos antes mencionados, entre otros. Por ello, la labor de fiscalización en materia tributaria faculta a las Administraciones competentes a ejercer control en todos los ámbitos que le conciernen, esto es, combatir la evasión y reprimir el fraude fiscal, con una clara orientación de que se aplique de forma efectiva el derecho tributario. De allí que, los planes de fiscalización constituyen el eje esencial sobre el que gira el ejercicio de esas funciones. Son herramientas que colaboran en la planificación, que no sólo supone el establecimiento de unos criterios generales para las actuaciones, sino una regulación concreta de los titulares de los órganos que han de decidir en cada caso, y de forma escalonada los contribuyentes que van a ser investigados. De este modo, sirve no sólo a los fines de una correcta organización interna, sino también al principio de seguridad de los administrados en orden a los criterios seguidos para decidir quiénes han de ser auditados. Incluir a un contribuyente en un plan de esta índole es un acto de trámite, que per se no afecta sus derechos subjetivos, por lo que es inimpugnable en sede administrativa y jurisdiccional, no sólo por su naturaleza jurídica, sino porque únicamente son recurribles los actos de trámite que deciden directa o indirectamente el fondo del asunto o pongan término a la vía o hagan imposible o suspendan su continuación (ordinales 18 de la Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa y 163 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública). A menos de que por sus características, consista en un acto con efecto propio. Estos Planes Anuales de Fiscalización no presuponen la atribución de competencias para las Administraciones Tributarias, ni generan derechos subjetivos a favor del contribuyente, sino que son reglas internas para distribuir las funciones entre los órganos y funcionarios que las integran. Esta doctrina conduce a sustraer del control judicial el conocimiento o la apreciación de cualquier causa o motivo que haya podido viciar la correspondiente decisión, de incluir en el Plan, o de iniciar un proceso directamente contra un contribuyente. Lo anterior, por cuanto, nadie tiene, en principio, un derecho subjetivo a ser fiscalizado o a no serlo, pero sí a que se justifique y motive de manera razonada y razonable del porqué de una u otra situación (numeral 67 del Reglamento de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria, vigente). Es decir, no puede el obligado tributario sustituir la apreciación administrativa por la suya, pero sí puede formular la exigencia de que acredite que se basa en fundamentos acordes al Derecho y persigue fines de interés general. En síntesis, el principio de igualdad y de seguridad jurídica exigen que, los criterios objetivos para seleccionar a un contribuyente que será sujeto de fiscalización, de acuerdo al artículo 106 del CNPT, se encuentren debidamente publicados e incluidos en el Plan Anual de Auditoría. V.- En el primero de los cargos, alega la recurrente, que los preceptos 103 y 106 del CNPT, establecen que las actuaciones de la Administración se encuentran sometidas a los “medios y procedimientos legales”, incluso en la etapa preparatoria. También, deduce, el deber de sustentar las decisiones en “criterios objetivos de selección” y en la “existencia de evidencias sólidas”, por lo que para ejercer la facultad de fiscalización debe ser mediante motivos reglados. De acuerdo con el fallo impugnado, indica, quedó acreditado el incumplimiento de una serie de requisitos para ejecutar esa potestad, sin embargo, se arriba a una consecuencia jurídica incorrecta, al establecer que no se ha violado el derecho de defensa y el debido proceso, y por ende, ninguna indefensión se causó. En este sentido, tal y como se indicó en los apartados anteriores, la Administración está facultada (poder deber) para verificar el correcto cumplimiento de las obligaciones tributarias por todos los medios y procedimientos legales, en los términos ya expuestos, que aporte información y lleve a la convicción sobre los hechos relevantes para aplicar el tributo (artículo 103 ibídem). Por otra parte, se dispone que, solo puede solicitarse información sobre contribuyentes o sujetos pasivos previamente escogidos, mediante los criterios objetivos de selección, publicados e incluidos en el Plan Anual de Auditoría vigente a la fecha de la solicitud (numeral 106 ibídem). En el caso concreto, se dictó el oficio de 8 de noviembre del 2001, “Ampliación Comunicación Fiscalizadora no. Identificacion31”, conducta que dio origen al estudio sobre el período fiscal 1998, sin indicar la norma en que se fundamentó y la información que constaba en el expediente, defectos que a todas luces contravienen el Reglamento sobre Criterios Objetivos de Selección de Contribuyentes para Fiscalización y el Reglamento General de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria, actual. Sin embargo, es importante mencionar que, ese procedimiento de fiscalización se originó mediante la “Comunicación de Inicio de Actuación Fiscalizadora” no. Identificacion32 del 13 de julio del 2001, documento debidamente notificado a la empresa actora, y aportado a los autos como prueba con el escrito de demanda (ver folios 36 a 39). Esta actuación cumplió cabalmente con los requisitos exigidos por el numeral 67 de ese último Reglamento, y en lo que interesa, indicó de forma clara y precisa, el criterio por el cual fue seleccionado, en aplicación de la normativa para esos efectos. De tal forma que, si bien el hecho de iniciar las actuaciones de fiscalización acordes con el Ordenamiento Jurídico no subsana el defecto encontrado en su ampliación, sí es importante precisar que la actora tenía pleno conocimiento de que iba ser investigada y del criterio de selección. Sumado a esto, el acto viciado era una extensión de la auditoría iniciada, no una nueva y aislada actuación de fiscalización. Siendo evidente que el único aspecto ampliado fue uno de los periodos (folios 86 y 87 del expediente administrativo). En todo caso, tal y como se indicó en el considerando anterior, esa potestad tiene raigambre constitucional, por lo que no puede ser limitada o reducida por normas de menor jerarquía, por lo que se debe interpretar acorde con ese valor superior. De allí que, más que un procedimiento limitante o comprimido de las facultades de las Administraciones Tributarias para fiscalizar a los sujetos pasivos, la aplicación del Reglamento sobre Criterios Objetivos de Selección de Contribuyentes, intenta proteger la igualdad y seguridad jurídica de los contribuyentes, pero mantiene una fuerte dosis de guía que alimenta la forma de trabajo y de organización interna de esos órganos. Por estas razones, esta Sala comparte el criterio del Tribunal, en cuanto a la consecuencia jurídica de lo apuntado. Según el canon 223 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, aplicable por remisión del numeral 163 del CNPT, sólo causa nulidad de lo actuado, la falta de formalidades sustanciales del procedimiento, tales como, aquellas cuyo cumplimiento hubiera impedido o cambiado la decisión final en aspectos importantes, o cuya ausencia quebrante el derecho de defensa. En vista de que tales actuaciones -defectuosas por incumplir reglamentos de orden tributario-, se dictaron en una etapa preparatoria, que no generan ni vulneran derechos subjetivos, no hay razón alguna, ni la ha acreditado el recurrente, para inferir que se vulneró el derecho de defensa o el debido proceso, dado que no hay evidencia de haberse provocado la indefensión alegada. El hecho de omitir la norma en que se fundamentó y la información que constaba en el expediente, no impedía refutar lo establecido en el traslado de cargos, ni mucho menos, impugnarlo por la vía correspondiente, tal y como lo hizo la actora. Estos vicios no tienen la virtud de producir la nulidad absoluta de las actuaciones, invalidar el procedimiento o desvirtuar los hechos acreditados en esa etapa. Por lo expuesto, al disponerlo así, el Tribunal, no ha infringido la normativa aludida. […] VII.- En el tercer agravio, aduce que no se aplicaron los numerales 1, 7, 18, 22, 23, 59, 61, 62 y 82 de la Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa. Considera, el Tribunal debió ejercer el control de legalidad sobre los actos impugnados, y su facultad de anular los disconformes con el Ordenamiento Jurídico. No se trata de un proceso constitucional, asegura, por lo que el análisis no consistía en si la conducta es conforme con el Derecho de la Constitución. Estima esta Sala que, el criterio del Tribunal, corresponde al ámbito de las competencias otorgadas para ejercer el control de legalidad, en este caso, de los actos dictados por la Administración Tributaria, en un proceso especial tributario (artículo 82 de la Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa). Y no, como un examen exclusivo de las normas constitucionales. De todas formas, el contralor de legalidad, además de sus funciones naturales, no sólo puede revisar si la conducta se ajusta a la Constitución Política, sino que tiene el deber de hacerlo (artículo 8 de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial). Unido a lo anterior, es importante destacar que se valoró lo actuado en sede administrativa según los alcances del Reglamento sobre Criterios Objetivos de Selección de Contribuyentes para Fiscalización y del Reglamento General de Gestión, Fiscalización y Recaudación Tributaria. Por lo tanto, el hecho de que la consecuencia jurídica dispuesta en sentencia, no corresponda a la que el recurrente pretendía, no significa como se ha expuesto, en lo que a este cargo concierne, quebranto de la Ley Reguladora de la materia. VIII.- Como cuarto motivo, imputa vulnerados de los numerales 130, 132, 133, 136, 158, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 169, 176, 214, 215 y 223 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública. El Tribunal reconoce que no se actuó en estricto apego a la normativa aplicable al caso, apunta, por lo que debió declarar con lugar la demanda y anular el acto administrativo. Además, asevera, la actuación inicial, que ha cuestionado, es posible recurrirla, al no tener efecto propio, con el acto final, y sustentarse en el ejercicio de una potestad de imperio con elementos reglados. Lo decidido, insiste, está ayuno de motivo, así que su ampliación tampoco era lícita ni posible. Añade, la consecuencia es su nulidad absoluta, porque lo indicado al final hubiese cambiado. Al desaparecer ese proceso objetivo, la fiscalización no se hubiera realizado, y por ende, el impuesto sobre la renta no se hubiera modificado. En ese mismo agravio, objeta la información obtenida del Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, ya que para solicitarla a terceros, afirma, el contribuyente debe haber sido escogido por criterios objetivos y sustentado en la existencia de evidencias sólidas. La diligencia fue prematura, alega, por lo que no ejerció control sobre su iniciativa y desarrollo. En primer orden, el tema de lo actuado por la Auditoría Fiscal y sus consecuencias jurídicas, ya fue abordado, por lo que es innecesario ingresar de nuevo a su análisis, y por ello, debe remitirse a lo expuesto en el considerando V de este fallo. En lo referente a la prueba obtenida en el Banco su inconformidad descansa en la supuesta violación del artículo 106 del CNPT, sea por la forma en que se le seleccionó, aspecto que, como se dijo, ya fue analizado. Se constató que, no obstante las irregularidades de la ampliación, esos defectos no producen la nulidad absoluta del propio acto y los posteriores. Así, al ser ese argumento accesorio y depender de esa declaratoria, se debe rechazar. En todo caso, la facultad de solicitar información a terceros, encuentra fundamento constitucional en el artículo 24, que en lo que interesa, establece: “(…) La ley fijará los casos en que los funcionarios competentes del Ministerio de Hacienda y de la Contraloría General de la República podrán revisar los libros de contabilidad y sus anexos para fines tributarios y para fiscalizar la correcta utilización de los fondos públicos. (…)” Esta herramienta, ligada a las potestades constitucionales conferidas a las autoridades tributarias, se constituye como un instrumento para proteger la materia tributaria y la correcta utilización de los fondos públicos. A su vez, autoriza crear potestades legales, en aras de ejercer mejor las funciones de fiscalización. Por ello, en el numeral 105 ibídem, se estableció que: “Toda persona, física o jurídica, pública o privada, estará obligada a proporcionar, a la Administración Tributaria, la información de trascendencia tributaria, deducida de sus relaciones económicas, financieras y profesionales con otras personas. La proporcionará como la Administración lo indique por medio de reglamento o requerimiento individualizado. Este requerimiento de información deberá ser justificado, debida y expresamente, en cuanto a la relevancia tributaria. (…)” En este orden de ideas, el Ordenamiento Jurídico le ha conferido amplias potestades a las Administraciones Tributarias para solicitar información a terceros, a fin de cumplir su labor fiscalizadora en condiciones de eficiencia y eficacia. Aunado a lo anterior, es incorrecto señalar que no tuvo oportunidad procesal para referirse a esa prueba, ya que precisamente cuando fue notificado del traslado de cargos la tuvo, momento en que inicia el procedimiento administrativo. Por tal razón, la etapa previa es preparatoria, en donde las actuaciones investigativas, en principio, no tienen el carácter de vulnerar los derechos subjetivos. En esta categoría se ubica el acto de ampliación, el cual tampoco tiene efectos propios, y por lo tanto, se torna inimpugnable. En consecuencia, el hecho de que en esa actuación no se hubiera hecho mención y especificado la existencia de la prueba de interés, por la naturaleza jurídica de la fase procesal, así como por las características de las actuaciones de fiscalización, el control ejercido por el Tribunal, no constituye quebranto de las normas de la Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa.”