IMAS as Tax Administration and Obligation to Collect Motel TaxIMAS como administración tributaria y obligación de recaudo del impuesto a moteles

IV.- Based on the arguments of each party, and evaluating the conditions of the administrative file of interest, it must be borne in mind that, from the elements set forth in the complaint, the plaintiff seeks this Court to determine: 1- the absence of functional competence of the defendant entity to classify the plaintiff; and 2- the impossibility of collection or charging of the tax by the plaintiff given the non-existence of the payment obligation, due, according to the plaintiff, to two deficiencies, a- the lack of "classification (calificación)" and b- absence of an "authorizing act (acto autorizatorio)" by IMAS, with the consequence of the non-existence of tax payment obligations for these reasons. In order to resolve what is sought, it is appropriate to adopt the following analysis by the Sala Constitucional in which it proceeds on the regulations related to the motel tax amending Law 8343 and amending Law 5554, and issues its position; in that sense, the cited Chamber states: "(...) Law No. 5554 “Article 1.—Create a tax, in favor of the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, to be paid by businesses classified and authorized by the Ministerio de Gobernación, Policía, Justicia y Gracia, as motels and unregistered hotels, occasional lodging houses and similar establishments. This classification shall include establishments which, even if they have lodging registries, carry out activities that in the judgment of the authorities are encompassed in the aforementioned stipulation. The classification and authorization required for the operation of these businesses shall be issued by the indicated Ministry, in common agreement with IMAS, taking into consideration that they may not be located within a radius of five hundred meters of an educational center, officially recognized by the State”.

"Article 2.—The amount of the tax created in Article 1 shall be equal, per day, to thirty percent (30%) of the value of the tariff set for one use per room. The tax shall be paid monthly, based on a thirty-day month and according to the number of rooms in each establishment".

Law No. 6790 « Article 1.—Reform Article 2 of Law No. 5554 of August 20, 1974, to read as follows:

“Article 2.— The amount of the tax created in Article 1 shall be equal, per day, to thirty percent (30%) of the value of the tariff set for one use per room, but in no case shall a sum less than the equivalent of one daily use per room be paid, except in the case of businesses not classified in Category A by the Ministerio de Gobernación and IMAS.

The tax shall be paid monthly, based on thirty-day months, and according to the number of rooms in each establishment.

The Poder Ejecutivo, by way of regulation, shall establish the necessary means of control to guarantee the efficient collection of this tax” ».

Fiscal contingency law (challenged) “ Article 61. —Creation. A tax is created, in favor of the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, (IMAS); it shall be paid by businesses classified and authorized, by said Institute, as motels, unregistered hotels, occasional lodging houses, massage parlors, "night clubs" with room service and similar establishments. Furthermore, IMAS is empowered to classify establishments into three categories, according to the number of rooms and the quality of the complementary services they offer; likewise, it may include in these categories establishments which, even if they have lodging registries, carry out activities that in the judgment of IMAS may be included in the aforementioned classification. To operate, these businesses must previously register and be classified by IMAS, taking into consideration that they may not be located within a radius of five hundred meters of an educational center, officially recognized by the State. “ Article 62. —Amount. The amount of the tax created in the preceding article shall be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the value of the tariff set for each use of each room; however, in no case shall a sum less than the equivalent of one daily use per room be paid, except in the case of businesses that, due to their characteristics, are classified in Category C, which shall pay a fixed monthly quota. “Use of a room shall be understood as the utilization of the real property intended for rest, shelter, and intimate gathering for a determined period, by payment of a previously established price. Such use shall be understood to mean the room and all complementary services and accessories that form part of the billed invoice, such as furniture, bed linens, bathroom, towels, soaps and other toiletries; electricity, water, radio and television; vehicle parking; tubs, "jacuzzis", sauna baths and similar. Only restaurant and bar service and billing in the room shall be understood as excluded from this concept. “The tax shall be paid, monthly, based on thirty-day months, and according to the number of rooms in each establishment. “The Poder Ejecutivo, by way of regulation, may establish the necessary means of control to guarantee the efficient collection of this tax”. (...) the taxes and the amounts are exactly the same. Regarding the tax in favor of IMAS, Article 61 of Law No. 8343 basically reproduces Article 1 of Law No. 5554. Although it adds the express reference to massage parlors and “night clubs” with room service, in the repealed Article 1 there already existed the possibility of extending the tax in relation to establishments similar to those originally indicated. The same occurs with respect to the current obligation to register with IMAS, since it already had since 1974 the power to classify these businesses. As for Article 2 of Law 5554, since it was reformed in 1982 it stipulated that the amount of the tax in no case would be less than the equivalent of one daily use per room, so this minimum quota is also not an innovation of Law 8343. The detailed description of what is understood by use of the room, added by the new law, aims to prevent tax evasion, but in no way changes the purpose of the 1974 norm. In sum, this Court does not find that a substantial modification of the nature of the tax, which existed unaltered since 1982, has occurred." (see Resolution 2004-13165 of the SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. at seventeen hours and seventeen minutes of November twenty-third, two thousand four.)

According to the cited vote, it is appropriate to indicate that the tax established by Law 8343 turns out to be the already existing one, -created by Law 5554-, having been modified only as to the manner of determining the amount of the withholding, being basically the same sum that the repealed regulation established.

Under that legal analysis, this Court proceeds to address the arguments provided by the plaintiff:

V.- REGARDING THE COMPETENCE OF IMAS AS TAX ADMINISTRATION. Numeral 68 of Law 8343 establishes the competence of IMAS to proceed with the collection of the tax addressed in that law, establishing that said Institution is in charge of the collection of the tax. In the indicated sense, the Seventh Section of this Court recently stated: "In Article 68 of Law No. 8343, the character of Tax Administration that the legislator conferred on the defendant Institute in relation to the tax that this same Law provides in its favor is expressly established, but moreover, this is inferred from the rest of the concerned articles (Articles 63 to 68), in that it orders powers of oversight and collection in charge of said entity. The condition of Tax Administration of the defendant Institute, together with the fact that it has its own legal personality (Article 1 of Law No. 4760), and consequently administrative and functional independence, (see vote Voto N° 08-2009-SVII of the TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, SECCIÓN SÉTIMA, SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ, at fourteen hours of January fourteenth, two thousand nine.-) In the opinion of this Chamber, in accordance with the regulations established in the articles previously stated, the judgment of the Sala Constitucional and resolutions of this same Court, the plaintiff's claim that IMAS cannot proceed to classify its represented entity, and impose tax burdens upon it, is inadmissible, because competence is specifically granted by law, by giving oversight and collection powers over centers destined for commercial activities such as the one the plaintiff acknowledges it develops.

VI.- REGARDING THE AUTHORIZATION CLAIMED BY THE PLAINTIFF AS NON-EXISTENT (AUTHORIZING ACT) AND ADMINISTRATIVE SILENCE: In the opinion of this Chamber, the plaintiff's arguments are not receivable because the condition required by law to be a taxable subject (sujeto pasivo) of the tax established in Law 8343 is constituted by the authorization granted by IMAS. This authorization is called by the plaintiff "authorizing act (acto autorizatorio)", and it claims it as absent in this process, the plaintiff even indicates that administrative silence (silencio administrativo) resulted from the absence of a response to its request dated June 28, two thousand five. That authorization, which the plaintiff claims as absent in its particular case, and which effectively after the entry into force of the law has not been granted expressly, already existed and the express manifestation that is claimed as necessary to proceed to collection is consequently unnecessary; the foregoing by virtue of the fact that throughout the administrative file it is recorded that the operational destination of the location had authorization from IMAS for operation since the initial management of the then Motel Francés, with the authorization for this being recorded at the time of entry into force of Law 8343; consequently, Motel Amar was in operation, was already a subject of collection under Law 5554 and authorization existed for the exercise of activity, in such a way that, according to the aforementioned analysis of the Sala Constitucional, a new and express authorization for operation is not required, because it is an already existing activity and the same tax, it was not necessary to issue the so-called "authorizing act (acto autorizatorio)" that the plaintiff claims as absent, nor does any administrative silence exist for the lack of response, because prior authorization already existed.

VII.- REGARDING THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF COLLECTION. The plaintiff states that it is not obliged to pay tax until what is contained in Article 61 of the Law is fulfilled. In the opinion of this Court, the arguments are not receivable because in the vote of the Sala Constitucional, transcribed in preceding considerations, the category of the service, which is the only element that was absent from the relationship between the parties until July 14 of the year two thousand five, does not impede collection. That classification (calificación) or categorization is necessary in the opinion of this Chamber to define the amount of the tax, because the category A, B, C, what it determines in accordance with the norms in force is an amount of the tax, which arises from a percentage of the price charged to the client -contributor- or a fixed amount if it is an activity center with a "C" classification, it is what defines the amount of the withholding. The plaintiff attacks the duty to pay tax, confusing its condition as contributor and as tax collector. According to the law, the plaintiff must withhold, from its clients, the tax of interest, and proceed to payment by depositing those sums, therefore, its duty of collection arises from the moment it proceeds to provide the service that is taxed, and its obligation to deposit arises at that same legal moment; the lack of classification could only affect the sum established as tax, -withheld-, if the company did not correspond to a classification of A or B, but to one of C, which is what the law obligates to determine, but this only leads to the difference in the percentage of collection withholding -an element not objected to in the record-, and not to the release of the withholding obligation. In that sense, the First Section of this Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo has stated:

VIII.- REGARDING THE DETERMINATIVE PROCEDURE OF IMAS AND RETURN OF THE COLLECTION: This Court considers it valuable to transcribe, in what is of interest, vote N° 107-2008 of thirteen hours thirty minutes of April fifteenth of the year two thousand eight issued by the First Section of this Tribunal Contencioso, since it refers to the same object discussed in the present litigation: "IV.- OF THE DETERMINATIVE PROCEDURE OF THE TAX OBLIGATION: The central point discussed in this matter refers to the application or not by the defendant entity of the due procedure in order to establish the tax obligation being charged to the plaintiff in the challenged acts. Given the nature of the arguments that both parties have raised, it is necessary to indicate that tax matters are also governed by the principles that inform all administrative procedure, that is, ex officio impulse, search for material truth, defense and the adversarial principle basically, with the right to due process being fundamental, which necessarily implies that of being heard (expressing arguments) and that of offering evidence. Precisely, the determination of the tax obligation, when it is the result of an act of the Administration, and not the product of a voluntary self-assessment by the taxpayer, is an administrative tax procedure, and as such, in its development the previously indicated principles must be observed. Thus, the administrative act determining the tax obligation must be the result of carrying out a series of acts aimed at verifying whether or not the taxable event (hecho imponible) has occurred and, if affirmative, at quantifying the debt, but in the execution of these distinct stages, the administered party also participates, because as already stated, it is an administrative procedure that arises within the framework of an administrative legal relationship. In this sense, the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios establishes a series of provisions that regulate the execution of the determination, and that contemplate from the beginning of the proceedings, the participation of the taxable subject of that relationship. Concretely, Article 144 of the cited regulatory body initiates the procedure with a hearing (vista) that the Tax Administration grants to the taxpayer on the actions carried out and the charges formulated, and regarding which the latter has the opportunity to present arguments and exculpatory evidence (Article 145). Regarding the importance of the hearing, Carlos María Folco points out: "The National Tax Court has specifically referred to the hearing provided in the terms of Article 17 of Law 11,683, affirming that it has the character of a fundamental requirement for a correct exercise of the right of defense in trial, a guarantee of the legal order and whose non-observance could not validly be remedied by the existence of a subsequent procedure." (FOLCO, Carlos María Procedimiento Tributario. second edition. Rubinzai - Culzoni Editores. Buenos Aires, Argentina. 2004, p. 277.) It is inferred then that, just as the plaintiff affirms, prior to the stage of tax collection, a determinative phase must occur, in which the adversarial takes place and the party (the taxpayer) has the opportunity to exercise its defense, a stage that it is not possible to equate to that of collection nor substitute with the appellate stage.-. / V.- OF THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IN THE DETERMINATIVE PROCEDURE ANALYZED: As the representative of the defendant entity points out, there effectively exist in our legal system a series of provisions of a tax nature that directly concern that Institute, and for the case being analyzed, it is of interest to cite especially Law No. 5554, of August twentieth, nineteen seventy-four and Law No. 83343 (sic), of December eighteenth, two thousand two. In the first (Law No. 5554) a tax was established in favor of the defendant Institute, chargeable to motels, occasional lodging places among others, on the order of thirty percent of the value of the tariff set for use of the rooms, further indicating that the tax would be paid monthly and that the Poder Ejecutivo, by regulation, would establish the means of control necessary for efficient collection. (Article 1 and 2 of the Law in comment). Subsequently, this regulation was repealed by the Fiscal Contingency Law No. 8343, which, in what is of interest, provided: / “Article 61.— Creation. A tax is created, in favor of the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, (IMAS); it shall be paid by businesses classified and authorized, by said Institute, as motels, unregistered hotels, occasional lodging houses, massage parlors, "night clubs" with room service and similar establishments. Furthermore, IMAS is empowered to classify establishments into three categories, according to the number of rooms and the quality of the complementary services they offer; likewise, it may include in these categories establishments which, even if they have lodging registries, carry out activities that in the judgment of IMAS may be included in the aforementioned classification. To operate, these businesses must previously register and be classified by IMAS, taking into consideration that they may not be located within a radius of five hundred meters of an educational center, officially recognized by the State. / Article 62.—Amount. The amount of the tax created in the preceding article shall be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the value of the tariff set for each use of each room; however, in no case shall a sum less than the equivalent of one daily use per room be paid, except in the case of businesses that, due to their characteristics, are classified in Category C, which shall pay a fixed monthly quota. / Use of a room shall be understood as the utilization of the real property intended for rest, shelter, and intimate gathering for a determined period, by payment of a previously established price. Such use shall be understood to mean the room and all complementary services and accessories that form part of the billed invoice, such as furniture, bed linens, bathroom, towels, soaps and other toiletries; electricity, water, radio and television; vehicle parking; tubs, "jacuzzis", sauna baths and similar. Only restaurant and bar service and billing in the room shall be understood as excluded from this concept. / The tax shall be paid, monthly, based on thirty-day months, and according to the number of rooms in each establishment. / The Poder Ejecutivo, by way of regulation, may establish the necessary means of control to guarantee the efficient collection of this tax. / Article 63.—Payment. The entities or persons owning the businesses subject to this tax must deposit it in the first week of each month, in IMAS or in the bank it designates, in the provincial capitals and in the cantons outside the metropolitan area. / Article 64.—Fine. IMAS has the obligation to register the businesses to which the tax will be charged. Evasion of said taxes shall be punished in accordance with existing tax regulations. / Article 65.—Sworn declaration. The businesses cited in Article 30 of this Law shall be obliged to declare, monthly, before IMAS the number of rooms they have, without prejudice to the verification of that number, carried out by IMAS inspectors, who shall have all the faculties and powers conferred on the Tax Administration. / Article 66.—Verification and control of sworn declarations. For the verification and control of sworn declarations, the number of rooms and the settlement of the tax, the minister of Hacienda, the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo and IMAS may establish cross-checks; and the information provided before any of them may be used as full proof for purposes of payment of that tax. / Article 67.—Serious infraction. A very serious infraction shall be committed by the regulated business that does not provide IMAS the required information within the deadlines set forth in the law; likewise, by the one that provides false data and does not keep accounting or records, or keeps them with essential defects or irregularities that negatively affect the collection of the tax. Committing this fault shall be sanctioned with an amount three times the economic benefit obtained as a direct consequence of the infraction. / Article 68.—Closure of businesses. IMAS, in its condition as tax administration, shall be empowered to order and execute the immediate closure of the business that is delinquent in the payment of this tax for more than two months”. / It can be observed that, basically, the cited norms create the tax in favor of the defendant and chargeable to motels and businesses of similar type, establish the amount of the tax, the taxable event (hecho imponible), the form of payment, the sanctions upon non-compliance with formal duties or the tax obligation, and prescribe the oversight powers of the defendant entity. Nevertheless, none of the referred articles contains provisions that regulate the determinative procedure of the obligation.

Consequently, the withholding having been effected by the plaintiff, the return of quotas sought is not appropriate, because the collection of the tax has already been made effective, and it is only the deposit of the sums that was carried out by the plaintiff; in the record there is no evidentiary element indicating that the deposited monies do not correspond to the sum that should have been withheld from the users of the service provided by the plaintiff, thus making it impossible to define if there was an overpayment or excess deposit of the tax; moreover, the intended return is inappropriate because, as the defendant asserts, the monies paid belong to the users and it would be to them that any amount related to the service provided and paid should be returned.

IX.- Corollary. In accordance with the considerations outlined in the preceding recitals, the claims brought by the plaintiff must be rejected because IMAS acted according to law in the classification issued, the plaintiff was duly authorized for operation, the defendant has collection and oversight competence, and the challenged resolutions were issued in accordance with the legislation in force." “Article 2—The amount of the tax created in article 1 shall be, per day, thirty percent (30%) of the value of the rate set for one use per room. The tax shall be paid monthly, based on a thirty-day month and according to the number of rooms in each establishment.” Law No. 6790 « Article 1—Article 2 of Law No. 5554 of August 20, 1974, is hereby reformed to read as follows:

“Article 2—The amount of the tax created in article 1 shall be, per day, thirty percent (30%) of the value of the rate set for one use per room, but in no case shall an amount less than the equivalent of one daily use per room be paid, except in the case of businesses not classified in category A by the Ministry of Governance and IMAS.

The tax shall be paid monthly, based on thirty-day months, and according to the number of rooms in each establishment.

The Executive Branch, through regulation, shall establish the necessary control measures to guarantee the efficient collection of this tax” » .

Fiscal Contingency Law (challenged) “ Article 61. —Creation. A tax is created, in favor of the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, (IMAS); it shall be paid by businesses qualified and authorized, by said Institute, as motels, unregistered hotels, occasional lodging houses, massage parlors, "night clubs" with room service, and similar establishments. Furthermore, IMAS is empowered to classify establishments into three categories, according to the number of rooms and the quality of the complementary services they offer; likewise, it may include in those categories establishments that, even if they have a lodging registration, carry out activities that in IMAS's judgment may be included in the aforementioned classification. To operate, these businesses must first register and be classified by IMAS, taking into consideration that they may not be located within a radius of five hundred meters of an educational center officially recognized by the State. “ Article 62. —Amount. The amount of the tax created in the preceding article shall be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the value of the rate set for each use of each room; however, in no case shall an amount less than the equivalent of one daily use per room be paid, except in the case of businesses that, due to their characteristics, are classified in category C, which shall pay a fixed monthly fee. “Use of a room shall be understood as the utilization of the real property intended for rest, shelter, and intimate gathering for a determined period, through the payment of a previously established price. Such use shall be understood to include the room and all complementary services and accessories that form part of the billed invoice, such as furniture, bed linens, bathroom, towels, soaps, and other toiletries; electricity, water, radio, and television; vehicle parking; tubs, "jacuzzis", sauna baths, and similar items. Only restaurant and bar service and billing in the room shall be understood as excluded from this concept. “The tax shall be paid monthly, based on thirty-day months, and according to the number of rooms in each establishment. “The Executive Branch, through regulation, may establish the necessary control measures to guarantee the efficient collection of this tax”. (...) the taxes and the amounts are exactly the same. Regarding the tax in favor of IMAS, article 61 of Law No. 8343 basically reproduces article 1 of Law No. 5554. Although it adds express reference to massage parlors and “night clubs” with room service, in the repealed article 1, the possibility of extending the tax to establishments similar to those originally indicated already existed. The same occurs with respect to the current obligation to register with IMAS, since the latter has had the power to classify these businesses since 1974. As far as article 2 of Law 5554 is concerned, since it was reformed in 1982, it stipulated that the amount of the tax would in no case be less than the equivalent of one daily use per room, so this minimum fee is not an innovation of Law 8343 either. The detailed description of what is understood by use of the room, which the new law adds, aims to prevent tax evasion, but in no way changes the purpose of the 1974 regulation. In sum, this Court does not find that a substantial modification of the nature of the tax that existed, unchanged, since 1982 has occurred. " (see Resolution 2004-13165 of the SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. at seventeen hours and seventeen minutes of November twenty-third, two thousand four.)

In accordance with the cited vote, it is appropriate to indicate that the tax established by Law 8343 turns out to be the already existing one, -created by Law 5554-, and it was modified only as to the method of determining the amount of the withholding, the sum being basically the same as the repealed regulation established.

Under that legal analysis, this Court proceeds to hear the arguments given by the plaintiff:

V.- ON THE COMPETENCE OF IMAS AS TAX ADMINISTRATION. Numeral 68 of Law 8343 establishes the competence of IMAS to proceed with the collection of the tax addressed in that law, establishing that said Institution is in charge of the tax collection. In the indicated sense, the Seventh Section of this Court recently indicated: "In article 68 of Law No. 8343, the character of Tax Administration that the legislator conferred on the defendant Institute in relation to the tax that this same Law provides in its favor is expressly established, but moreover, this is inferred from the rest of the concerned articles (articles 63 to 68), insofar as it orders powers of inspection and collection in charge of said entity. The condition of Tax Administration of the sued Institute, together with the fact that it has its own legal personality (article 1 of Law No. 4760), and consequently administrative and functional independence, (see Vote No. 08-2009-SVII of the TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, SECCIÓN SÉPTIMA, SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ, at fourteen hours of January fourteenth, two thousand nine.-) In the opinion of this Chamber, in accordance with the regulations established in the aforementioned articles, the judgment of the Sala Constitucional, and resolutions of this same Court, the plaintiff's claim that IMAS cannot proceed to classify its represented party and impose tax burdens on it is unfounded, because the competence is specifically granted by law, by giving inspection and collection powers over establishments intended for commercial activities such as the one the plaintiff acknowledges it carries out.

VI.- ON THE AUTHORIZATION CLAIMED BY THE PLAINTIFF AS NONEXISTENT (SELF-AUTHORIZING ACT) AND ADMINISTRATIVE SILENCE: In the opinion of this Chamber, the plaintiff's arguments are not admissible because the condition required by law to be a taxable person (sujeto pasivo) of the tax established in Law 8343 is constituted by the authorization granted by IMAS. The plaintiff calls this authorization a "self-authorizing act (acto autorizatorio)", and claims it is absent in this process; the plaintiff even indicates that administrative silence (silencio administrativo) occurred due to the lack of response to its request dated June 28, two thousand five. That authorization that the plaintiff claims as absent in its particular case, and which effectively after the entry into force of the law has not been expressly provided, already existed, and the express manifestation that is claimed as necessary to proceed with the collection is thus unnecessary; the foregoing by virtue of the fact that throughout the administrative file it is evident that the operational purpose of the place had authorization from IMAS to function since the initial management of the then Motel Francés, with the authorization for this being evident at the time Law 8343 entered into force; consequently, the Motel Amar was in operation, it was already subject to collection under Law 5554, and authorization existed for the exercise of the activity, such that, in accordance with the analysis of the Sala Constitucional cited above, a new and express authorization for operation is not required, as it is an already existing activity and the same tax, it was not necessary to issue the so-called "self-authorizing act" that the plaintiff claims as absent, nor does any administrative silence exist for the lack of response, because prior authorization already existed.

VII.- ON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF COLLECTION. The plaintiff states that it is not obliged to pay the tax until what is contained in article 61 of the Law is fulfilled. In the opinion of this Court, the arguments are not admissible because in the vote of the Sala Constitucional, transcribed in previous recitals, the category of the service, which is the only element that was absent from the relationship between the parties until July 14, two thousand five, does not prevent collection. That qualification or classification is necessary, in the opinion of this Chamber, to define the amount of the tax, because the category A, B, or C, what it determines according to current regulations is an amount of the tax, which arises from a percentage of the price charged to the client -taxpayer- or a fixed amount if it is an activity establishment with a "C" classification; it is the determinant of the withholding amount. The plaintiff attacks the duty to pay the tax, confusing its condition as a taxpayer and as a fiscal collector. According to the law, the plaintiff must withhold the tax of interest from its clients and proceed to payment by depositing those sums; therefore, its duty to collect arises from the moment it proceeds to provide the service that is taxed, and its obligation to deposit arises at that same legal moment; the lack of classification could only affect the established sum as tax, -withheld-, if the company did not correspond to a classification of A or B, but rather one of C, which is what the law requires to determine, but this only leads to the difference in the percentage of collection withholding -an element not contested in the record-, and not to the release from the withholding obligation. In that sense, the First Section of this Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo has stated:

VIII.- ON THE DETERMINATIVE PROCEDURE OF IMAS AND REFUND OF THE COLLECTION: This Court considers it valuable to transcribe, as relevant, Vote No. 107-2008 at thirteen hours thirty minutes of April fifteenth, two thousand eight, issued by the First Section of this Tribunal Contencioso, since it refers to the same subject matter discussed in the present litigation: "IV.- OF THE DETERMINATIVE PROCEDURE OF THE TAX OBLIGATION: The central point discussed in this matter refers to the application or not, by the defendant entity, of the due procedure in order to establish the tax obligation that is charged to the plaintiff in the challenged acts. Given the nature of the arguments that both parties have raised, it is necessary to indicate that tax matters are also governed by the principles that inform all administrative procedures, namely ex officio impulse, search for material truth, defense, and the principle of contradictory procedure basically, with the right to due process being of fundamental character, which necessarily implies being heard (expressing arguments) and offering evidence. Precisely the determination of the tax obligation, when it is the result of an act of the Administration and not the product of a voluntary self-assessment by the taxpayer, is an administrative tax procedure, and as such, the aforementioned principles must be observed in its development. Thus, the administrative act determining the tax obligation must be the result of carrying out a series of acts aimed at verifying whether or not the taxable event (hecho imponible) has occurred and, if so, at quantifying the debt, but in the execution of these distinct stages, the individual also participates, since, as already stated, it is an administrative procedure that arises within the framework of an administrative legal relationship. In this sense, the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios establishes a series of provisions that regulate the execution of the determination and that contemplate, from the beginning of the proceedings, the participation of the taxable person (sujeto pasivo) of that relationship. Specifically, article 144 of the cited regulatory body initiates the procedure with a hearing (vista) that the Tax Administration grants to the taxpayer regarding the proceedings carried out and the charges formulated, and concerning which the taxpayer has the opportunity to present arguments and exonerating evidence (article 145). Regarding the importance of the hearing (vista), Carlos María Folco states: 'The Tribunal Fiscal de la Nación has specifically referred to the hearing provided in the terms of article 17 of Law 11,683, affirming that it has the character of a fundamental requirement for a correct exercise of the right of defense in court, a guarantee of the legal order and whose non-observance could not validly be remedied by the existence of a subsequent procedure.' (FOLCO, Carlos María Procedimiento Tributario. second edition. Rubinzai - Culzoni Editores. Buenos Aires, Argentina. 2004, p. 277.) It follows then that, just as the plaintiff affirms, prior to the tax collection stage, a determinative phase must occur, in which the contradictory procedure takes place and the party (the taxpayer) has the opportunity to exercise its defense, a stage that is not possible to equate to the collection stage nor substitute with the appeal stage.-. / V.- OF THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IN THE ANALYZED DETERMINATIVE PROCEDURE: As the representative of the defendant entity points out, there effectively exist in our legal system a series of tax provisions that directly concern that Institute, and for the case under analysis, it is of interest to cite especially Law Number 5554, of August twentieth, nineteen seventy-four, and Law Number 83343 (sic), of December eighteenth, two thousand two. In the first (Law No. 5554), a tax was established in favor of the sued Institute, charged to motels, occasional lodging places, among others, on the order of thirty percent of the value of the rate set for the use of the rooms, further stating that the tax would be paid monthly and that the Executive Branch, through regulation, would establish the necessary control measures for an efficient collection. (articles 1 and 2 of the Law under comment). Subsequently, this regulation was repealed by the Fiscal Contingency Law No. 8343, which, as relevant, provided: / “Article 61.— Creation. A tax is created, in favor of the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, (IMAS); it shall be paid by businesses qualified and authorized, by said Institute, as motels, unregistered hotels, occasional lodging houses, massage parlors, "night clubs" with room service, and similar establishments. Furthermore, IMAS is empowered to classify establishments into three categories, according to the number of rooms and the quality of the complementary services they offer; likewise, it may include in those categories establishments that, even if they have a lodging registration, carry out activities that in IMAS's judgment may be included in the aforementioned classification. To operate, these businesses must first register and be classified by IMAS, taking into consideration that they may not be located within a radius of five hundred meters of an educational center officially recognized by the State. / Article 62.—Amount. The amount of the tax created in the preceding article shall be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the value of the rate set for each use of each room; however, in no case shall an amount less than the equivalent of one daily use per room be paid, except in the case of businesses that, due to their characteristics, are classified in category C, which shall pay a fixed monthly fee. / Use of a room shall be understood as the utilization of the real property intended for rest, shelter, and intimate gathering for a determined period, through the payment of a previously established price. Such use shall be understood to include the room and all complementary services and accessories that form part of the billed invoice, such as furniture, bed linens, bathroom, towels, soaps, and other toiletries; electricity, water, radio, and television; vehicle parking; tubs, "jacuzzis", sauna baths, and similar items. Only restaurant and bar service and billing in the room shall be understood as excluded from this concept. / The tax shall be paid monthly, based on thirty-day months, and according to the number of rooms in each establishment. / The Executive Branch, through regulation, may establish the necessary control measures to guarantee the efficient collection of this tax. / Article 63.—Payment. The entities or persons owning the businesses subject to this tax must deposit it in the first week of each month, at IMAS or at the bank designated by it, in the provincial capitals and in the cantons outside the metropolitan area. / Article 64.—Fine. IMAS has the obligation to register the businesses from which the tax will be collected. Evasion of said taxes shall be punished in accordance with existing tax regulations. / Article 65.—Sworn declaration (Declaración jurada). The businesses cited in article 30 of this Law shall be obliged to declare, monthly, before IMAS the number of rooms they have, without prejudice to the verification of that number by IMAS inspectors, who shall have all the faculties and powers conferred on the Tax Administration. / Article 66.—Verification and control of sworn declarations. For the verification and control of sworn declarations, the number of rooms and the settlement of the tax, the Minister of Finance, the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo, and IMAS may establish cross-controls; and the information provided to any of them may be used as full proof for the purposes of paying that tax. / Article 67.—Very serious infraction. A regulated business that does not provide IMAS with the required information within the deadlines set forth in the law shall incur a very serious infraction; likewise, the one that provides false data and does not keep accounting or records, or keeps them with essential defects or irregularities that negatively affect tax collection. Incurring this fault shall be sanctioned with an amount of three times the economic benefit obtained as a direct consequence of the infraction. / Article 68.—Closure of businesses. IMAS, in its capacity as tax administration, shall be empowered to order and execute the immediate closure of a business that is in default in the payment of this tax for more than two months”. / It can be observed that, basically, the cited norms create the tax in favor of the defendant and charged to motels and establishments of similar nature, establish the amount of the tax, the taxable event, the form of payment, sanctions for non-compliance with formal duties or the tax obligation, and prescribe the inspection powers of the defendant entity. However, none of the referenced articles contain provisions that regulate the determinative procedure of the obligation.

Consequently, once the withholding has been made by the plaintiff, the refund of fees sought is not appropriate, because the collection of the tax has already taken effect, and what has been carried out by the plaintiff is solely the deposit of the sums; in the record, there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that the deposited funds do not correspond to the sum that should have been withheld from the users of the service provided by the plaintiff, so it is impossible to define if there was a payment or deposit in excess of the tax; the refund sought is also unfounded because, as the defendant observes, the funds paid belong to the users, and it would be to the same users to whom any amount related to the service provided and paid for would need to be refunded.

IX.- Corollary. In accordance with the considerations outlined in the preceding recitals, the claims made by the plaintiff must be dismissed because IMAS acted in accordance with the law in the qualification issued, the plaintiff was duly authorized to operate, the defendant has collection and inspection authority, and the challenged resolutions were issued in accordance with current legislation.” 277.", "systematizingEntity": "CENTRO DE INFORMACIÓN JURISPRUDENCIAL", "isChangeOfCriterion": "0", "isUnifyingCriterion": "0", "isSeparateNote": "0", "isProtected": "0", "isKeyResolution": "0", "isStructuralResolution": "0", "isOralResolution": "0", "isRelevantResolution": "0", "isDissentingVote": "0", "caseFile": "050004280161CA", "date": "2009-02-25", "documentFormat": "WRITTEN", "time": "16:00", "id": "ext-1-0034-127692", "nationalNorms": [ "norm_id::6530||norm_num::4755||norm_nom::Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios ( Código Tributario )||art_id::37698||art_num::144||bdt::1||norm_date::03 May 1971||norm_type::Ley||norm_ver::70641||norm_detail::||norm_note::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::6530||norm_num::4755||norm_nom::Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios ( Código Tributario )||art_id::37699||art_num::145||bdt::1||norm_date::03 May 1971||norm_type::Ley||norm_ver::70641||norm_detail::||norm_note::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::7060||norm_num::4760||norm_nom::Ley de Creación del Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social (IMAS)||art_id::41162||art_num::1||bdt::1||norm_date::04 May 1971||norm_type::Ley||norm_ver::65711||norm_detail::||norm_note::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::33524||norm_num::5554||norm_nom::Impuesto en Beneficio IMAS a Moteles y Hoteles sin Registro||art_id::151848||art_num::1||bdt::1||norm_date::20 Aug 1974||norm_type::Ley||norm_ver::35355||norm_detail::||norm_note::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::33524||norm_num::5554||norm_nom::Impuesto en Beneficio IMAS a Moteles y Hoteles sin Registro||art_id::151849||art_num::2||bdt::1||norm_date::20 Aug 1974||norm_type::Ley||norm_ver::35355||norm_detail::||norm_note::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::8632||norm_num::6790||norm_nom::Reforma Impuesto del IMAS a Moteles y Hoteles Sin Registro||art_id::50923||art_num::1||bdt::1||norm_date::14 Oct 1982||norm_type::Ley||norm_ver::71912||norm_detail::||norm_note::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::8632||norm_num::6790||norm_nom::Reforma Impuesto del IMAS a Moteles y Hoteles Sin Registro||art_id::50924||art_num::2||bdt::1||norm_date::14 Oct 1982||norm_type::Ley||norm_ver::71912||norm_detail::||norm_note::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::49812||norm_num::8343||norm_nom::Ley de Contingencia Fiscal||art_id::62||art_num::61||bdt::1||norm_date::18 Dec 2002||norm_type::Ley||norm_ver::53325||norm_detail::||norm_note::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::49812||norm_num::8343||norm_nom::Ley de Contingencia Fiscal||art_id::63||art_num::62||bdt::1||norm_date::18 Dec 2002||norm_type::Ley||norm_ver::53325||norm_detail::||norm_note::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::49812||norm_num::8343||norm_nom::Ley de Contingencia Fiscal||art_id::64||art_num::63||bdt::1||norm_date::18 Dec 2002||norm_type::Ley||norm_ver::53325||norm_detail::||norm_note::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::49812||norm_num::8343||norm_nom::Ley de Contingencia Fiscal||art_id::65||art_num::64||bdt::1||norm_date::18 Dec 2002||norm_type::Ley||norm_ver::53325||norm_detail::||norm_note::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::49812||norm_num::8343||norm_nom::Ley de Contingencia Fiscal||art_id::66||art_num::65||bdt::1||norm_date::18 Dec 2002||norm_type::Ley||norm_ver::53325||norm_detail::||norm_note::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::49812||norm_num::8343||norm_nom::Ley de Contingencia Fiscal||art_id::67||art_num::66||bdt::1||norm_date::18 Dec 2002||norm_type::Ley||norm_ver::53325||norm_detail::||norm_note::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::49812||norm_num::8343||norm_nom::Ley de Contingencia Fiscal||art_id::68||art_num::67||bdt::1||norm_date::18 Dec 2002||norm_type::Ley||norm_ver::53325||norm_detail::||norm_note::||art_subnum::0", "norm_id::49812||norm_num::8343||norm_nom::Ley de Contingencia Fiscal||art_id::69||art_num::68||bdt::1||norm_date::18 Dec 2002||norm_type::Ley||norm_ver::53325||norm_detail::||norm_note::||art_subnum::0" ], "normNamesAndArticles": [ "Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios ( Código Tributario )||144", "Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios ( Código Tributario )||145", "Ley de Creación del Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social (IMAS)||1", "Impuesto en Beneficio IMAS a Moteles y Hoteles sin Registro||1", "Impuesto en Beneficio IMAS a Moteles y Hoteles sin Registro||2", "Reforma Impuesto del IMAS a Moteles y Hoteles Sin Registro||1", "Reforma Impuesto del IMAS a Moteles y Hoteles Sin Registro||2", "Ley de Contingencia Fiscal||61", "Ley de Contingencia Fiscal||62", "Ley de Contingencia Fiscal||63", "Ley de Contingencia Fiscal||64", "Ley de Contingencia Fiscal||65", "Ley de Contingencia Fiscal||66", "Ley de Contingencia Fiscal||67", "Ley de Contingencia Fiscal||68" ], "normNumbersAndArticles": [ "6530||37698", "6530||37699", "7060||41162", "8632||50923", "8632||50924", "33524||151848", "33524||151849", "49812||62", "49812||63", "49812||64", "49812||65", "49812||66", "49812||67", "49812||68", "49812||69" ], "documentNumber": "00031", "parentDocumentNumber": "sen-1-0034-443241", "branchOfLaw": "Tax Law", "drafter": "Alinne Ma. Solano Ramirez", "restrictors": [ "IMAS as tax administration and jurisdiction", "Analysis of the applicable procedure and regulations" ], "thesaurusRoute": [ "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Tributario", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Tributario||Procedimiento administrativo tributario", "CENTRO DE INFORMACION JURISPRUDENCIAL||Derecho Tributario||Procedimiento administrativo tributario||Determinación de la obligación tributaria" ], "relatedRulings": [ "sen-1-0007-295852", "sen-1-0034-408642", "sen-1-0034-427727" ], "sourceName": "Documentos", "subDocumentNumber": "1", "ThemesAndSubthemes": [ { "id": 1, "name": "Determinación de la obligación tributaria", "Subthemes": [ { "id": 2, "name": "Análisis sobre el procedimiento y normativa aplicable" }, { "id": 1, "name": "IMAS como administración tributaria y de la competencia" } ] } ], "contentType": "Majority Vote", "documentType": "EXT", "informationType": "Judicial Resolution", "resolutionType": "On the Merits", "textType": "1", "previousdocs": [], "nextdocs": [], "html": "IV.- Based on the arguments of each party, evaluating the conditions of the administrative case file of interest, it must be kept in mind that, from the elements presented in the complaint, the plaintiff seeks for this Court to determine: 1- the absence of functional jurisdiction (competencia funcional) of the defendant entity to qualify the plaintiff; and 2- the impossibility of tax collection (recaudación) or charging the tax by the plaintiff given the nonexistence of the payment obligation, due, according to the plaintiff, to two deficiencies: a- the lack of \"qualification\" (calificación) and b- the absence of an \"authorizing act\" (acto autorizatorio) by IMAS, with the consequence of the nonexistence of tax payment obligations for these reasons. To resolve what is sought, it is appropriate to adopt the following analysis of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) regarding the regulations related to the motel tax that modifies Law No. 8343 and that modifies Law No. 5554; to issue its position; in that sense, the cited Chamber indicates: \"(...) Law No. 5554 \"Article 1.—A tax is hereby created, in favor of the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, to be paid by businesses qualified and authorized by the Ministry of Governance, Police, Justice, and Grace, as motels and unregistered hotels, occasional lodging houses, and similar establishments. This classification shall include establishments that, even if they have lodging registrations, carry out activities that, in the judgment of the authorities, are included in the aforementioned stipulation. The qualification and authorization required for the operation of these businesses shall be issued by the indicated Ministry, in mutual agreement with IMAS, taking into consideration that they may not be located within a radius of five hundred meters of an educational center officially recognized by the State.\" \"Article 2.—The amount of the tax created in Article 1 shall be equal, per day, to thirty percent (30%) of the value of the rate fixed for one use per room. The tax shall be paid monthly, based on a thirty-day month and according to the number of rooms in each establishment.\" Law No. 6790 « Article 1.—Article 2 of Law No. 5554 of August 20, 1974, is hereby reformed to read as follows:

\"Article 2.— The amount of the tax created in article 1 shall be equal, per day, to thirty percent (30%) of the value of the rate fixed for one use per room, but in no case shall an amount less than the equivalent of one daily use per room be paid, except in the case of businesses not classified in category A by the Ministry of Governance and IMAS.

The tax shall be paid monthly, based on thirty-day months, and according to the number of rooms of each establishment.

The Executive Branch, via regulation, shall establish the control means necessary to guarantee the efficient collection of this tax\" » .

Fiscal Contingency Law (challenged) \" Article 61. —Creation. A tax is hereby created, in favor of the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, (IMAS); it shall be paid by businesses qualified and authorized, by said Institute, as motels, unregistered hotels, occasional lodging houses, massage parlors, \"night clubs\" with room service, and similar establishments. Furthermore, IMAS is empowered to classify establishments into three categories, according to the number of rooms and the quality of the complementary services they offer; likewise, it may include in those categories establishments that, even if they have a lodging registration, carry out activities that, in the judgment of IMAS, may be included in the aforementioned qualification. To operate, these businesses must first register and be qualified by IMAS, taking into consideration that they may not be located within a radius of five hundred meters of an educational center officially recognized by the State.\" \" Article 62. —Amount. The amount of the tax created in the previous article shall be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the value of the rate fixed for each use of each room; however, in no case shall an amount less than the equivalent of one daily use per room be paid, except in the case of businesses that, due to their characteristics, are classified in category C, which shall pay a fixed monthly fee.\" \"Use of a room shall be understood as the use of the real property intended for rest, shelter, and intimate gathering for a determined period, through the payment of a previously established price. Such use shall be understood as including the room and all complementary services and accessories that form part of the charged invoice, such as furniture, bed linens, bathroom, towels, soaps, and other toiletries; electricity, water, radio, and television; vehicle parking; tubs, \"jacuzzis\", sauna baths, and similar. Only restaurant and bar service and billing in the room shall be understood as excluded from this concept.\" \"The tax shall be paid monthly, based on thirty-day months, and according to the number of rooms of each establishment.\" \"The Executive Branch, via regulation, may establish the control means necessary to guarantee the efficient collection of this tax\". (...) the taxes and the amounts are exactly the same. Regarding the tax in favor of IMAS, article 61 of Law No. 8343 basically reproduces article 1 of Law No. 5554. Although it adds the express reference to massage parlors and \"night clubs\" with room service, in the repealed article 1, the possibility already existed to extend the tax in relation to establishments similar to those originally indicated. The same applies with respect to the current obligation to register with IMAS, since it already had, since 1974, the power to qualify these businesses. As far as article 2 of Law 5554 is concerned, since it was reformed in 1982, it stipulated that the tax amount would in no case be less than the equivalent of one daily use per room, so this minimum fee is also not an innovation of Law 8343. The detailed description of what is understood by use of the room, which the new law adds, aims to prevent tax evasion, but in no way changes the purpose of the 1974 rule. In sum, this Court does not find that a substantial modification of the nature of the tax that existed, unaltered, since 1982 has occurred.\" (see Resolution 2004-13165 of the SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. at seventeen hours and seventeen minutes on November twenty-third, two thousand four.)

According to the cited vote, it is appropriate to indicate that the tax established by Law No. 8343 turns out to be the already existing one, -created by Law No. 5554-, having been modified only regarding the method for determining the withholding amount, being basically the same sum that the repealed regulations established.

Under that legal analysis, this Court proceeds to examine the arguments given by the plaintiff:

V.- ON THE JURISDICTION OF IMAS AS A TAX ADMINISTRATION. Section 68 of Law No. 8343 establishes the jurisdiction of IMAS to proceed with the tax collection (recaudo) addressed in that law, establishing that said Institution is responsible for the collection of the tax. In the indicated sense, the Seventh Section of this Court recently indicated: \"In article 68 of Law No. 8343, the nature of Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) that the legislator conferred upon the defendant Institute in relation to the tax that this same Law provides in its favor is expressly established, but furthermore, this is inferred from the rest of the concerned articles (articles 63 to 68), in that it orders powers of inspection (fiscalización) and collection (recaudación) to be carried out by said entity. The condition of Tax Administration of the defendant Institute, together with the fact that it has its own legal personality (article 1 of Law No. 4760), and consequently administrative and functional independence, (see Vote No. 08-2009-SVII of the TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, SECCIÓN SÉTIMA, SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ, at fourteen hours on January fourteenth, two thousand nine.-) In the opinion of this Chamber, in accordance with the regulations established in the aforementioned articles, the ruling of the Constitutional Chamber, and resolutions of this same Court, the plaintiff's claim that IMAS cannot proceed to qualify its represented party, and impose tax burdens on it, is inadmissible, because the jurisdiction is specifically granted by law, by giving powers of inspection and collection over centers destined for commercial activities such as the one the plaintiff acknowledges it carries out.

VI.- ON THE AUTHORIZATION CLAIMED BY THE PLAINTIFF AS NONEXISTENT (AUTHORIZING ORDER) AND ON ADMINISTRATIVE SILENCE: In the opinion of this Chamber, the plaintiff's arguments are not admissible because the condition required by law to be the taxable person (sujeto pasivo) of the tax established in Law 8343 is constituted by the authorization granted by IMAS. The plaintiff calls said authorization \"authorizing act\" (acto autorizatorio), and claims it is absent in this process; the plaintiff even indicates that administrative silence (silencio administrativo) occurred due to the lack of response to its request dated June 28, two thousand five. That authorization that the plaintiff claims as absent in its particular case, and which indeed after the entry into force of the law has not been expressly granted, already existed, and the express manifestation that is claimed as necessary to proceed with collection is consequently unnecessary; the foregoing by virtue of the fact that throughout the administrative case file, it is recorded that the operational purpose of the place had authorization from IMAS for operation since the initial management of the then Motel Francés, with the authorization for this being recorded at the time of the entry into force of Law 8343; consequently, the Motel Amar was in operation, was already subject to collection according to Law 5554, and authorization for the exercise of the activity existed, in such a way that, in accordance with the analysis of the Constitutional Chamber cited above, a new and express authorization for operation is not required, because it involves an already existing activity and the same tax; it was not necessary to issue the so-called \"authorizing act\" (acto autorizatorio) that the plaintiff claims as absent, nor is there any administrative silence due to the lack of response, because prior authorization already existed.

VII.- ON THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF COLLECTION. The plaintiff states that it is not obligated to pay the tax until the content of article 61 of the Law is complied with. In the opinion of this Court, the arguments are not admissible because in the vote of the Constitutional Chamber, transcribed in previous considerations (considerandos), the category of the service, which is the only element that was absent from the relationship between the parties until July 14, two thousand five, does not prevent collection. That qualification or classification is necessary, in the opinion of this Chamber, to define the amount of the tax, because the category A, B, or C determines, according to the current regulations, an amount of tax that arises from a percentage of the price charged to the client -taxpayer- or a fixed amount if dealing with an activity center with a \"C\" classification; it is the determinant of the withholding amount. The plaintiff attacks the duty to pay the tax, confusing its status as a taxpayer and as a tax collector (recaudador fiscal). According to the law, the plaintiff must withhold from its clients the tax of interest, and proceed with its payment by depositing those sums; therefore, its duty of collection arises from the moment it proceeds to provide the service that is taxed, and its obligation to deposit arises at that same legal moment; the lack of classification could only affect the sum established as the tax -withheld- if the company did not correspond to an A or B classification, but rather to a C, which is what the law mandates to determine, but that only leads to a difference in the withholding percentage of the collection -an element not challenged in the case file-, and not to the release from the withholding obligation. In that sense, the First Section of this Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo has stated:

VIII.- ON THE DETERMINATIVE PROCEDURE (PROCEDIMIENTO DETERMINATIVO) OF IMAS AND RETURN OF THE COLLECTION: This Court deems it valuable to transcribe, in what is pertinent, Vote No. 107-2008 of thirteen hours and thirty minutes on April fifteenth, two thousand eight, issued by the First Section of this Tribunal Contencioso, since it refers to the same object discussed in the present litigation: \"IV.- ON THE DETERMINATIVE PROCEDURE OF THE TAX OBLIGATION (PROCEDIMIENTO DETERMINATIVO DE LA OBLIGACIÓN TRIBUTARIA): The central point discussed in this matter refers to the application or non-application by the defendant entity of the due process (procedimiento debido) in order to establish the tax obligation (obligación tributaria) that is being charged to the plaintiff in the challenged acts. Given the nature of the arguments that both parties have raised, it is necessary to indicate that tax matters are also governed by the principles that inform all administrative proceedings, that is, ex officio action, search for material truth, defense, and the adversary principle (principio de contradictorio) basically, with the right to due process (debido proceso) being fundamental, which necessarily implies the right to be heard (to express arguments) and to offer evidence. Precisely the determination of the tax obligation, when it is the result of an act of the Administration, and not the product of a voluntary self-assessment (autoliquidación) by the taxpayer, is a tax administrative procedure, and as such, in its development, the previously mentioned principles must be observed. Thus, the administrative act of determining the tax obligation must be the result of performing a series of acts aimed at verifying whether or not the taxable event (hecho imponible) has occurred and, if affirmative, at quantifying the debt, but the administered party also participates in the execution of these different stages, since, as already stated, it is an administrative procedure that arises within the framework of an administrative legal relationship. In this sense, the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios establishes a series of provisions that regulate the execution of the determination, and that contemplate, from the initiation of the proceedings, the participation of the taxable person (sujeto pasivo) of that relationship. Specifically, article 144 of the cited legal body initiates the procedure with a hearing (vista) that the Tax Administration grants to the taxpayer on the proceedings carried out and the charges formulated, and with respect to which the latter has the opportunity to present arguments and exculpatory evidence (article 145). Regarding the importance of the hearing, Carlos María Folco states: \"The Fiscal Court of the Nation has specifically referred to the hearing provided in the terms of article 17 of Law 11,683, affirming that it has the character of a fundamental requirement for a correct exercise of the right of defense in court, a guarantee of the legal order, and whose non-observance could not validly be remedied by the existence of a subsequent procedure.\" (FOLCO, Carlos María Procedimiento Tributario. second edition. Rubinzai - Culzoni Editores. Buenos Aires, Argentina. 2004, p. 277.) It follows then that, as the plaintiff affirms, prior to the tax collection stage, a determinative phase must occur, in which the adversarial process (contradictorio) takes place and the party (the taxpayer) has the opportunity to exercise its defense, a stage that it is not possible to equate to the collection stage nor substitute with the appeal stage.-. / V.- ON THE APPLICABLE REGULATIONS IN THE ANALYZED DETERMINATIVE PROCEDURE: As the representative of the defendant entity indicates, there are indeed in our legal system a series of tax provisions that directly concern that Institute, and for the case under analysis, it is pertinent to cite especially Law No. 5554, of August twentieth, nineteen seventy-four, and Law No. 83343 (sic), of December eighteenth, two thousand two.-" In the first (Law No. 5554) a tax was established in favor of the defendant Institute, levied on motels, occasional lodging establishments among others, at the rate of thirty percent of the value of the tariff set for the use of the rooms, further stating that the tax would be paid monthly and that the Executive Branch, by regulation, would establish the necessary control means for efficient collection. (articles 1 and 2 of the Law under commentary). Subsequently this regulation was repealed by the Tax Contingency Law No. 8343, which, as relevant, provided: / “Article 61.— Creation. A tax is hereby created, in favor of the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social (IMAS); it shall be paid by businesses qualified and authorized by said Institute as motels, unregistered hotels, occasional lodging houses, massage parlors, "night clubs" with room service and similar. Furthermore, IMAS is empowered to classify establishments into three categories, according to the number of rooms and the quality of the complementary services they offer; likewise, it may include in those categories establishments that, even when they have a lodging registration, carry out activities that in IMAS’s judgment may be included in the aforementioned classification. To operate, these businesses must first register and be qualified by IMAS, taking into consideration that they may not be located within a radius of five hundred meters of an educational center, officially recognized by the State. / Article 62.—Amount. The amount of the tax created in the preceding article shall be equal to thirty percent (30%) of the value of the tariff set for each use of each room; however, in no case shall an amount less than the equivalent of one daily use per room be paid, except in the case of businesses that, due to their characteristics, are classified in category C, which shall pay a fixed monthly fee. / Use of a room shall be understood as the utilization of the real property intended for rest, lodging, and intimate gathering for a determined period, through the payment of a previously established price. Such use shall be understood to include the room and all complementary services and accessories that form part of the invoiced bill, such as furniture, bed linens, bathroom, towels, soaps and other toiletries; electricity, water, radio and television; vehicle parking; tubs, "jacuzzis", sauna baths and similar. Only the service and billing of a restaurant and bar in the room shall be understood as excluded from this concept. / The tax shall be paid monthly, based on thirty-day months, and according to the number of rooms in each establishment. / The Executive Branch, by way of regulation, may establish the necessary control means to guarantee the efficient collection of this tax. / Article 63.—Payment. The entities or persons owning the businesses subject to this tax must deposit it in the first week of each month, at IMAS or at the bank designated by it, in the provincial capitals and in the cantons outside the metropolitan area. / Article 64.—Fine. IMAS has the obligation to register the businesses to which the tax will be charged. Evasion of said taxes shall be punished in accordance with existing tax regulations. / Article 65.—Sworn declaration. The businesses cited in article 30 of this Law shall be obligated to declare monthly before IMAS the number of rooms they have, without prejudice to the verification of that number carried out by IMAS inspectors, who shall have all the powers and attributions conferred upon the Tax Administration. / Article 66.—Verification and control of sworn declarations. For the verification and control of the sworn declarations, of the number of rooms and of the liquidation of the tax, the Minister of Finance, the Instituto Costarricense de Turismo and IMAS may establish cross-checks; and the information provided before any of them may be used as full proof for the purposes of paying that tax. / Article 67.—Serious infraction. A regulated business that does not provide IMAS with the required information within the deadlines indicated in the law shall incur a very serious infraction; likewise, one that provides false data and does not keep accounting or records, or keeps them with essential defects or irregularities that negatively affect the collection of the tax. Incurring this fault shall be sanctioned with an amount of three times the patrimonial benefit obtained as a direct consequence of the infraction. / Article 68.—Closure of businesses. IMAS, in its capacity as tax administration, shall be empowered to order and execute the immediate closure of a business that is in default in the payment of this tax for more than two months”. / It can be observed that, basically, the cited norms create the tax in favor of the defendant and levied on motels and establishments of similar type, establish the amount of the tribute, the taxable event (hecho imponible), the form of payment, the sanctions on the occasion of non-compliance with formal duties or the tax obligation, and prescribe the oversight powers of the defendant entity. However, none of the referenced articles contain provisions that regulate the determination procedure of the obligation.

Consequently, the withholding having been carried out by the plaintiff, the restitution of fees sought is not appropriate, because the collection of the tribute has already been made effective, and it is solely the deposit of the sums that was carried out by the plaintiff; in the case file there is no evidentiary element whatsoever indicating that the deposited monies do not correspond to the sum that should have been withheld from the users of the service provided by the plaintiff, making it impossible to define whether there was an excess payment or deposit of the tribute; the restitution sought is also inappropriate because, as the defendant points out, the monies paid belong to the users and it would be to them that any amount related to the service provided and paid for should be returned.

IX.- Corollary. In accordance with the considerations outlined in the preceding recitals, the claims brought by the plaintiff must be rejected because IMAS acted lawfully in the classification issued, the plaintiff is duly authorized to operate, the defendant has collection and oversight authority, and the challenged resolutions were issued in accordance with current legislation.”

“IV.- A partir de los argumentos de cada parte, evaluando las condiciones del expediente administrativo de interés, debe tenerse presente, que de los elementos expuestos en la demanda, la actora pretende que este Tribunal determine: 1- la ausencia de competencia funcional de la entidad demandada para calificar a la actora; y 2- la imposibilidad de recaudación o cobro del tributo por parte de la actora ante la inexistencia de la obligación de pago, en atención según la actora a dos carencias, a- la falta de "calificación" y b- ausencia de "acto autorizatorio" por parte del IMAS, con la consecuencia de la inexistencia de obligaciones de pago del tributo por esas causas. Para resolver entonces lo pretendido, procede hacer propio el siguiente análisis de la Sala Constitucional en que procede sobre la normativa relacionada con el impuesto a moteles que modifica la ley 8343 y que modifica la ley 5554; a emitir su posición; en ese sentido la citada Sala indica: "(...) Ley No. 5554 “Artículo 1°.—Créase un impuesto, a favor de Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, que pagarán los negocios calificados y autorizados por el Ministerio de Gobernación, Policía, Justicia y Gracia, como moteles y hoteles sin registro, casas de alojamiento ocasional y similares. Formarán parte de esta clasificación los establecimientos, que aun cuando tengan registros de hospedaje, lleven a cabo actividades que a juicio de las autoridades estén comprendidas en el estipulación antes mencionada. La calificación y autorización requeridas para la operación de estos negocios las dictará el Ministerio indicado, de común acuerdo con el IMAS, tomando en consideración que no podrán estar ubicados en un radio de quinientos metros de un centro educativo, oficialmente reconocido por el Estado”.

“Artículo 2°—El monto del impuesto que se crea en el artículo 1° será igual, por día al treinta por ciento (30%) del valor de la tarifa fijada por un uso por cada habitación. El impuesto se pagará mensualmente, con base en un mes de treinta días y de acuerdo con el número de habitaciones de cada establecimiento”.

Ley No. 6790 « Artículo 1°—Refórmase el artículo 2° de la ley N° 5554 del 20 de agosto de 1974, para que diga así:

“Artículo 2°— El monto del impuesto que se crea en el artículo 1° será igual, por día al treinta por ciento (30%) del valor de la tarifa fijada por un uso por cada habitación, pero en ningún caso se pagará un monto menor al equivalente a un uso diario por habitación, excepto en el caso de los negocios no clasificados en la categoría A por el Ministerio de Gobernación y el IMAS.

El impuesto se pagará mensualmente, con base en meses de treinta días, y de acuerdo con el número de habitaciones de cada establecimiento.

El Poder Ejecutivo, por la vía del reglamento, establecerá los medios de control necesarios para garantizar la eficiente recaudación de este impuesto” » .

Ley de contingencia fiscal (impugnada) “ Artículo 61. —Creación. Créase un impuesto, a favor del Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, (IMAS); será pagado por los negocios calificados y autorizados, por dicho Instituto, como moteles, hoteles sin registro, casas de alojamiento ocasional, salas de masaje, "night clubs" con servicio de habitación y similares. Además, se faculta al IMAS para que califique los establecimientos en tres categorías, según el número de habitaciones y la calidad de los servicios complementarios que ofrezcan; asimismo, podrá incluir en esas categorías los establecimientos que, aun cuando tengan registro de hospedaje, lleven a cabo actividades que a juicio del IMAS puedan incluirse en la calificación antes mencionada. Para operar, esos negocios de previo deberán inscribirse y ser calificados por el IMAS, tomando en consideración que no podrán estar ubicados en un radio de quinientos metros de un centro educativo, oficialmente reconocido por el Estado. “ Artículo 62. —Monto. El monto del impuesto creado en el artículo anterior será igual al treinta por ciento (30%) del valor de la tarifa fijada para cada uso de cada habitación; no obstante, en ningún caso se pagará un monto menor al equivalente a un uso diario por habitación, excepto en el caso de los negocios que, por sus características, sean calificados en la categoría C, las cuales pagarán una cuota mensual fija. “Se entenderá por uso de habitación, la utilización del bien inmueble destinado al descanso, albergue y la reunión íntima por un plazo determinado, mediante el pago de un precio previamente establecido. Por tal uso, se entenderá la habitación y todos los servicios y accesorios complementarios que formen parte de la factura cobrada, tales como muebles, ropa de cama, baño, paños, jabones y otros artículos de aseo; electricidad, agua, radio y televisión; parqueo de vehículos; tinas, "jacuzzis", baños sauna y similares. Solo se entenderá excluido de este concepto, el servicio y la facturación de restaurante y bar en la habitación. “El impuesto se pagará, mensualmente, con base en meses de treinta días, y de acuerdo con el número de habitaciones de cada establecimiento. “El Poder Ejecutivo, por la vía de reglamento, podrá establecer los medios de control necesarios para garantizar la eficiente recaudación de este impuesto”. (...) los tributos y los montos son exactamente iguales. En lo que se refiere al impuesto a favor del IMAS, el artículo 61 de la ley No. 8343 reproduce básicamente el artículo 1 de la ley No. 5554. Si bien agrega la referencia expresa a salas de masaje y “night clubs” con servicio de habitación, en el artículo 1 derogado ya existía la posibilidad de extender el tributo en relación con establecimientos similares a los originalmente indicados. Igual sucede con respecto a la obligación actual de registrarse ante el IMAS, pues este ya contaba desde 1974 con la facultad de calificar estos negocios. En lo que al artículo 2 de la ley 5554 se refiere, desde que se reformó en 1982 estipulaba que el monto del impuesto en ningún caso sería menor al equivalente a un uso diario por habitación, por lo que esta cuota mínima tampoco es una innovación de la ley 8343. La descripción pormenorizada de qué se entiende por uso de la habitación, que añade la nueva ley, apunta a evitar la evasión del impuesto, pero en modo alguno cambia el propósito de la norma de 1974. En suma, no encuentra este Tribunal que haya operado una modificación sustancial de la naturaleza del tributo que existía, inalterado, desde 1982. " (véase Resolución 2004-13165 de la SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. de las diecisiete horas con diecisiete minutos del veintitrés de noviembre del dos mil cuatro.)

De acuerdo al voto citado, es procedente indicar que el impuesto establecido por la ley 8343, resulta ser el ya existente, -creado por la ley 5554-, siendo que fue modificado, solamente en cuanto a la forma de determinación del monto de la retención, siendo básicamente la misma suma que la normativa derogada establecía.

Bajo ese análisis jurídico procede este Tribunal al conocimientode las argumentaciones dadas por la actora:

V.- SOBRE LA COMPETENCIA DEL IMAS COMO ADMINISTRACION TRIBUTARIA. El numeral 68 de la Ley 8343 establece la competencia del IMAS para proceder al recaudo del impuesto tratado en esa ley, estableciendo que dicha Institución es la encargada del recaudo del impuesto. En el sentido indicado, la Sección Sétima de este Tribunal, indicó en fecha reciente: "En el artículo 68 de la Ley Nº 8343, se establece expresamente el carácter de Administración Tributaria que el legislador le confirió al Instituto demandado en relación con el impuesto que esta misma Ley dispone a su favor, pero además, ello se colige del resto del articulado concernido (artículos 63 a 68), en cuanto ordena potestades de fiscalización y recaudación a cargo de dicho ente. La condición de Administración Tributaria del Instituto accionado, unido al hecho de que éste cuenta con personalidad jurídica propia (artículo º1 de la Ley Nº 4760 ), y por consiguiente independencia administrativa y funcional, (véase voto Voto N° 08-2009-SVII del TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO, SECCIÓN SÉTIMA, SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ, a las catorce horas del catorce de enero del dos mil nueve.-) En criterio de esta Cámara, conforme a las regulaciones establecidas en los artículos antes enunciados, sentencia de la Sala Constitucional y resoluciones de este mismo Tribunal, el reclamo del actor en cuanto a que el IMAS no puede proceder a calificar a su representada, e imponer cargas tributarias sobre ella, es improcedente, por cuanto la competencia está específicamente otorgada por ley, al dar potestades fiscalizadoras y de recaudación sobre los centros destinados a actividades comerciales como la que reconoce que desarrolla la actora.

VI.- SOBRE LA AUTORIZACION RECLAMADA POR LA ACTORA COMO INEXISTENTE (AUTO AUTORIZATORIO) Y DEL SILENCIO ADMINISTRATIVO: En criterio de esta Cámara los argumentos de la actora no son de recibo por cuanto la condición requerida por ley para ser sujeto pasivo del impuesto que se establece en la ley 8343, la constituye la autorización otorgada por el IMAS. A dicha autorización la llama la actora "acto autorizatorio", y la reclama como ausente en este proceso, incluso indica la actora que procedió el silencio administrativo por ausencia de respuesta a su solicitud de fecha 28 de junio del dos mil cinco. Esa autorización que la actora reclama como ausente en su caso particular, y que efectivamente luego de la entrada en vigencia de la ley no se ha brindado en forma expresa, ya existía y la manifestación expresa que se reclama como necesaria para proceder al recaudo, resulta en consecuencia innecesaria; lo anterior en virtud de que a lo largo del expediente administrativo consta que el destino operacional del lugar, contaba con autorización por parte del IMAS, para funcionamiento desde la gestión inicial del entonces Motel Francés, constando la autorización para ello al momento de entrada en vigencia de la ley 8343; en consecuencia, el Motel Amar se encontraba en funcionamiento, ya era sujeto de recaudo según la Ley 5554 y existía autorización para el ejercicio de actividad, de manera tal, que conforme al análisis de la Sala Constitucional precitado, no se requiere de nueva y expresa autorización para funcionamiento, por tratarse de una actividad ya existente y del mismo impuesto, no era menester, emitir el llamado "acto autorizatorio" que reclama la actora como ausente, ni existe silencio administrativo alguno por la falta de respuesta, porque ya existía autorización previa.

VII.- SOBRE LA IMPOSIBILIDAD DE RECAUDACION. Expone la parte actora, que no se encuentra obligada a pagar impuesto hasta tanto se cumpla con lo contenido por el artículo 61 de la Ley. En criterio de este Tribunal los argumentos no son de recibo por cuanto en el voto de la Sala Constitucional, transcrito en considerandos anteriores, la categoría del servicio que es el único elemento que se encontraba ausente de la relación entre partes hasta el 14 de julio del año dos mil cinco, no impide el recaudo. Esa calificación o clasificación, es necesaria a criterio de esta Cámara, para definir el monto del impuesto, porque la categoría en A, B, C, lo que determina de acuerdo con las normas vigentes es un monto del tributo, que surge de un porcentaje del precio cobrado al cliente -contribuyente- o a un monto fijo de tratarse de centro de actividades con calificación de "C", es el definitor del monto de la retención. La actora ataca el deber de pago de impuesto, confundiendo su condición de contribuyente y de recaudador fiscal. De acuerdo con la ley, la actora, debe retener de sus clientes, el impuesto de interés, y proceder a la cancelación mediante depósito de esas sumas, por ello, su deber de recaudación nace desde el momento en que procede a brindar el servicio que se encuentra gravado, y su obligación de depósito nace en ese mismo momento jurídico; la falta de la calificación solamente podría afectar la suma establecida como impuesto, -retenida-, si la empresa no correspondiera a una calificación de A o B, sino a una de C, que es lo que obliga a determinar la ley, pero ello, solamente lleva a la diferencia del porcentaje de retención del recaudo -elemento no objetado en autos-, y no a la liberación de la obligación de retención. En ese sentido la Sección Primera de este Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo ha expuesto :

VIII.- SOBRE EL PROCEDIMIENTO DETERMINATIVO DEL IMAS Y DEVOLUCION DEL RECAUDO: Este Tribunal estima valioso transcribir en lo que interesa el voto N° 107-2008 de las trece horas treinta minutos del quince de abril del año dos mil ocho dictado por la Sección Primera de este Tribunal Contencioso, toda vez que se refiere al mismo objeto discutido en el presente litigio: "IV.- DEL PROCEDIMIENTO DETERMINATIVO DE LA OBLIGACIÓN TRIBUTARIA: El punto central que se discute en este asunto se refiere a la aplicación o no por parte del ente demandado, del procedimiento debido en orden a establecer la obligación tributaria que se cobra al actor en los actos impugnados. Dada la naturaleza de los alegatos que ambas partes han planteado es menester indicar que la materia tributaria también está regida por los principios que informan todo procedimiento administrativo, esto es impulso de oficio, búsqueda de la verdad material, defensa y principio de contradictorio básicamente, siendo de carácter fundamental el derecho al debido proceso que implica necesariamente el de ser oído (expresar argumentos) y el de ofrecer prueba. Precisamente la determinación de la obligación tributaria, cuando ésta es el resultado de un acto de la Administración, y no el producto de una autoliquidación voluntaria del contribuyente, es un procedimiento administrativo tributario, y como tal, en su desarrollo deben observarse los principios anteriormente señalados. Así, el acto administrativo de determinación de la obligación tributaria, debe ser el resultado de la realización de una serie de actos tendientes a comprobar si se ha producido o no el hecho imponible y en caso afirmativo, a la cuantificación del adeudo, pero en la ejecución de estas distintas etapas, participa también el administrado, pues como ya se dijo, se trata de un procedimiento administrativo que surge en el marco de una relación jurídica administrativa. En este sentido, el Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios establece una serie de disposiciones que regulan la ejecución de la determinación, y que contemplan desde el inicio de las actuaciones, la participación del sujeto pasivo de esa relación. Concretamente, el artículo 144 del cuerpo normativo citado, inicia el procedimiento con una vista que la Administración Tributaria le otorga al contribuyente sobre las actuaciones realizadas y los cargos formulados, y respecto de los cuales éste tiene la oportunidad de presentar alegatos y prueba de descargo (artículo 145). En relación con la importancia de la vista Carlos María Folco señala: "El Tribunal Fiscal de la Nación se ha referido específicamente a la vista dispuesta en los términos del artículo 17 de la ley 11.683, afirmando que reviste el carácter de requisito fundamental para un correcto ejercicio del derecho de defensa en juicio, garantía del orden jurídico y cuya inobservancia no podría válidamente ser saneada por la existencia de un procedimiento posterior." (FOLCO, Carlos María Procedimiento Tributario. segunda edición. Rubinzai - Culzoni Editores. Buenos Aires, Argentina. 2004, pág. 277.) Se colige entonces que, tal y como lo afirma la actora, previa a la etapa de cobro del tributo, debe producirse una fase determinativa, en la cual se produce el contradictorio y la parte (el contribuyente), tiene la oportunidad de ejercer su defensa, etapa que no es posible equiparar a la de cobro ni sustituir por la etapa recursiva.-. / V.- DE LA NORMATIVA APLICABLE EN EL PROCEDIMIENTO DETERMINATIVO ANALIZADO: Como señala el personero del ente demandado, efectivamente existen en nuestro ordenamiento, una serie de disposiciones de carácter impositivo, que conciernen directamente a ese Instituto, y para el caso que se analiza, interesa citar especialmente la Ley número 5554, de veinte de agosto de mil novecientos setenta y cuatro y la Ley número 83343 (sic), de dieciocho de diciembre del año dos mil dos. En la primera (Ley Nº 5554) se estableció un impuesto a favor del Instituto accionado, a cargo a los moteles, sitios de alojamiento ocasional entre otros, del orden del treinta por ciento del valor de la tarifa fijada para uso de las habitaciones, señalando además que el impuesto se pagaría mensualmente y que el Poder Ejecutivo, mediante reglamento, establecería los medios de control necesarios para una eficiente recaudación. (artículo º1 y º2 de la Ley de comentario). Posteriormente esta normativa fue derogada por la Ley de Contingencia Fiscal Nº 8343, la cual, en lo que interesa, dispuso: / “Artículo 61.— Creación. Créase un impuesto, a favor del Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, (IMAS); será pagado por los negocios calificados y autorizados, por dicho Instituto, como moteles, hoteles sin registro, casas de alojamiento ocasional, salas de masaje, "night clubs" con servicio de habitación y similares. Además, se faculta al IMAS para que califique los establecimientos en tres categorías, según el número de habitaciones y la calidad de los servicios complementarios que ofrezcan; asimismo, podrá incluir en esas categorías los establecimientos que, aun cuando tengan registro de hospedaje, lleven a cabo actividades que a juicio del IMAS puedan incluirse en la calificación antes mencionada. Para operar, esos negocios de previo deberán inscribirse y ser calificados por el IMAS, tomando en consideración que no podrán estar ubicados en un radio de quinientos metros de un centro educativo, oficialmente reconocido por el Estado. / Artículo 62.—Monto. El monto del impuesto creado en el artículo anterior será igual al treinta por ciento (30%) del valor de la tarifa fijada para cada uso de cada habitación; no obstante, en ningún caso se pagará un monto menor al equivalente a un uso diario por habitación, excepto en el caso de los negocios que, por sus características, sean calificados en la categoría C, las cuales pagarán una cuota mensual fija. / Se entenderá por uso de habitación, la utilización del bien inmueble destinado al descanso, albergue y la reunión íntima por un plazo determinado, mediante el pago de un precio previamente establecido. Por tal uso, se entenderá la habitación y todos los servicios y accesorios complementarios que formen parte de la factura cobrada, tales como muebles, ropa de cama, baño, paños, jabones y otros artículos de aseo; electricidad, agua, radio y televisión; parqueo de vehículos; tinas, "jacuzzis", baños sauna y similares. Solo se entenderá excluido de este concepto, el servicio y la facturación de restaurante y bar en la habitación. / El impuesto se pagará, mensualmente, con base en meses de treinta días, y de acuerdo con el número de habitaciones de cada establecimiento. / El Poder Ejecutivo, por la vía de reglamento, podrá establecer los medios de control necesarios para garantizar la eficiente recaudación de este impuesto. / Artículo 63.—Pago. Las entidades o personas dueñas de los negocios sujetos a este impuesto deberán depositarlo en la primera semana de cada mes, en el IMAS o en el banco que este designe, en las cabeceras de la provincia y en los cantones fuera del área metropolitana. / Artículo 64.—Multa. El IMAS tiene la obligación de inscribir los negocios a los que se les cobrará el impuesto. La evasión de dichos impuestos será castigada de acuerdo con la normativa tributaria existente. / Artículo 65.—Declaración jurada. Los negocios citados en el artículo 30 de esta Ley estarán obligados a declarar, mensualmente, ante el IMAS el número de habitaciones con que cuentan, sin perjuicio de la verificación que de ese número, efectúen los inspectores del IMAS, quienes tendrán todas las facultades y atribuciones conferidas a la Administración Tributaria. / Artículo 66.—Verificación y control de las declaraciones juradas. Para la verificación y el control de las declaraciones juradas, del número de habitaciones y de la liquidación del impuesto y el ministro de Hacienda, el Instituto Costarricense de Turismo y el IMAS podrán establecer controles cruzados; y la información suministrada ante cualquiera de ellos podrá usarse como plena prueba para efectos de pago de ese impuesto. / Artículo 67.—Infracción grave. Incurrirá en infracción muy grave, el negocio regulado que no suministre al IMAS la información requerida dentro de los plazos señalados en la ley; asimismo, el que suministre datos falsos y no lleve la contabilidad ni los registros, o los lleve con vicios o irregularidades esenciales que afecten negativamente la recaudación del impuesto. Incurrir en esta falta se sancionará con un monto de tres veces el beneficio patrimonial obtenido como consecuencia directa de la infracción. / Artículo 68.—Cierre de negocios. El IMAS, en su condición de administración tributaria, estará facultado para ordenar y ejecutar el cierre inmediato del negocio que se encuentre moroso en el pago de este impuesto durante más de dos meses”. / Puede observarse que, básicamente, las normas citadas crean el impuesto a favor del accionado y a cargo de los moteles y locales de giro similar, establece el monto del tributo, el hecho imponible, la forma de pago, las sanciones con ocasión del incumplimiento de deberes formales o de la obligación tributaria y prescribe las potestades de fiscalización del ente demandado. No obstante, ninguno de los artículos referidos contiene disposiciones que regulen el procedimiento determinativo de la obligación En consecuencia, efectuada la retención por parte de la parte actora, la devolución de cuotas pretendida no es procedente, porque ya se hizo efectivo el recaudo del tributo, y es únicamente el depósito de las sumas lo efectuado por la actora; en autos no consta elemento probatorio alguno que indique que los dineros depositados no correspondan a la suma que debía ser retenida a los usuarios del servicio brindado por la actora, por lo que resulta imposible definir si existió un pago o depósito en exceso del tributo; resulta improcedente además la devolución pretendida porque como lo hace ver la demandada, los dineros cancelados son de los usuarios y sería a los mismos a quienes procedería devolver cualquier monto relacionado con el servicio prestado y cancelado.

IX.- Corolario. Conforme a las consideraciones esbozadas en los considerandos precedentes, las pretensiones deducidas por la actora, deben ser rechazadas por encontrarse el IMAS a derecho en la calificación emitida, encontrarse debidamente autorizada la actora para funcionamiento, existir competencia recaudadora y fiscalizadora en la demandada y emitirse las resoluciones impugnadas acorde a la legislación vigente.”