Applicable IDA tax percentage for cigarette selective consumption tax basePorcentaje aplicable del impuesto IDA en la base del selectivo de consumo de cigarrillos

VI.- Based on the arguments of the complaint and its respective responses, it is necessary to elucidate in this forum what percentage of the “tax on the consumption of domestic and foreign machine-made cigarettes” (IDA Tax established in Ley N°5792 as amended by Ley N°6735) must be used to calculate the taxable base (base imponible) of the “selective consumption tax (impuesto selectivo de consumo)” on cigarettes, within the legal formula established for those purposes (Ley N°7972). In this regard, it must be clear that although these are two different taxes, by express legal provision, in order to calculate the taxable base of the “selective consumption tax (impuesto selectivo de consumo)” on cigarettes, the amount payable for the tax “on the consumption of domestic and foreign machine-made cigarettes” (IDA tax) must necessarily be calculated within the corresponding formula (Article 12 of Ley 7972), given that, effectively, as the plaintiff points out, the amount determined for this second tax will have a direct effect on the calculation of the first, that is, the higher the amount set for the IDA tax, the lower the amount to be paid for the selective consumption tax on those articles, and vice versa; by virtue of the legal formula regulated in Article 12 of Ley 7972. It is for this reason that it is of interest to define the percentage corresponding to the IDA tax within that formula. The plaintiff´s thesis is that the percentage of the IDA tax to be taken into account in that calculation method is 2.5%, and not 2.4%, which was the percentage set by the Large Taxpayers Office (Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes). Well, after analyzing the legal point brought to debate, the Tribunal considers that the arguments of the plaintiff are receivable, for the reasons set forth below.

VII.- The basis given by the Large Taxpayers Office in official communication SRAC-767-2007, of August 6, 2007, to establish that the aforementioned percentage corresponds to 2.4% and not 2.5%, is Article 3 of Ley 5792, insofar as it makes a distribution of the tax established in Article 1, with the purpose of allocating the product as follows: 2.4% to the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, 0.05% to the Tobacco Defense Board (junta de Defensa del Tabaco), and 0.05% for the increase in the price of tobacco. Indeed, see that this office, in the challenged act, literally stated: “… For the purposes of allocation, the established tax is 2.40%; the 0.05% for the Tobacco Defense Board and 0.05% for the increase in the tobacco purchase price are not considered.” (folio 4 of the administrative file). In the opinion of this Tribunal, the error of the Tax Administration lies in the fact that this office confuses the tax, in itself, with the distribution of percentages of that tax made by numeral 3 of the same legislation. For greater clarity, the aforementioned provisions are transcribed below. Ordinal 1 of Ley 5792 (amended by Ley 6735) provides thus:

“A tax on the consumption of domestic and foreign cigarettes, made by machine, is created; according to the following rates, which shall be applied to the price of the article, before the sales tax:

…

• b)2.5% for foreign cigarettes and for those manufactured in the country, in whose production imported tobaccos are used, totally or partially.

The product of this levy (gravamen), except for the percentages established in Article 3° below, shall be transferred, monthly, by the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, directly, to the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, to be destined for the fulfillment of the purposes provided in its constitutive law.” (the bold is not from the original).

For its part, numeral 3 of the cited legal norm states thus:

“For the purposes of distribution of the product, the tax established in this law is allocated as follows:

…

• 3)That corresponding to the category of cigarettes manufactured in the country exclusively with imported tobaccos, and to foreign cigarettes:

(…)” (the bold is not from the original).

As can be observed, there is a clear differentiation between the tax on the consumption of domestic and foreign machine-made cigarettes, properly speaking (2.5% on the price of the article), and the distribution intended by the law to grant a specific destination to the product obtained from that tax. Now, as explained before, in the case of cigarettes, cigars, and puros, there is a special law –different from the Ley de Consolidación de Impuestos Selectivos de Consumo N°4961–, through which the rate is set and the determination of the taxable base of the selective consumption tax on those products is regulated. That Law is N°7972, whose numeral 12 contains the formula through which that taxable base is calculated. As part of the factors to consider within the formula referred to, there is one called "IIDA", which is precisely the subject of debate here, in order to establish whether the calculation of this factor should be made from a percentage of 2.5% or 2.4%. In this regard and as relevant, the alluded article (12) provides as follows:

“Every time a suggested retail price to the public (precio de venta al público), suggested by the manufacturer or importer for cigarettes, cigars, and puros of any brand is reported to the Tax Administration, the taxable base of the selective consumption tax shall be determined as follows:

…

• b)When the price is higher than the last reported one, this shall be used to adjust and establish the new taxable base within eight days following its report or the date on which the Tax Administration has founded knowledge.

The taxable base shall be calculated according to the following formula:

BI={[PVS/(1+PUD)/(1+PDESC)/(1+PUDIST)]-IIDA-IGV}/(1+TISC) For the purposes of this article, the following is defined:

…

IIDA: Amount of the tax in favor of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario.

(…)” (the bold and underlining are not from the original).

As is notable from the above transcription, the law clearly defines the IIDA factor as the amount of the tax in favor of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, and not, as the State's representation tries to suggest, the percentage that corresponds to the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario according to the distribution contained in ordinal 3 of Ley 5792. The fact that there is a breakdown in the law creating the tax on the consumption of cigarettes, through which the legislator intended to allocate a specific destination to the collected amount, does not imply that this is per se the tax to be considered in the legal formula described above. The truth of the matter is that Ley 5792 (amended by Ley 6735) created a tax on the consumption of cigarettes, which is defined in its Article 1, corresponding to a rate of 2.5% on the price of the article, so that, according to the letter of numeral 12 of Ley 7972, within the formula to determine the taxable base of the selective consumption tax, the percentage that must be used to calculate the IIDA factor (IDA tax) is 2.5% and not 2.4 as the Large Taxpayers Office erroneously understood. Even the challenged act itself reveals a contradiction on the point under discussion, since that Fisco body expressly acknowledges that for the calculation of the taxable base of the selective consumption tax, the tax in favor of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario must be taken into account, expressly indicating that it corresponds to 2.5%, as is obtained from the following quote, in the pertinent part: “… Having verified said calculation for the cigarette brands MARLBORO FF 20 S FA 006961 (VAO promotion) and MARLBORO LIGHTS 20S FA 0006960 (VAO promotion), it is appropriate to adjust it in that which corresponds to the tax in favor of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, in accordance with Article 35 of Ley No. 6735, in which Article 1 of Ley No. 5792 of September 1, 1975, subsection b) was amended, which establishes a 2.5% tax in favor of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario for foreign cigarettes and for those manufactured in the country, in whose production imported tobaccos are used, totally or partially …” (folio 4 of the administrative file, the bold and underlining are not from the original). This being the case, in the opinion of this Chamber, the action of the central Administration violates the principle of tax legality contained in Article 5 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, since it is a matter reserved to law to establish the tax rates and their calculation bases, and in the specific case, it is clear that the Fisco authorities disregarded the 2.5% tax expressly created by Ley 7972 and regulated in its first article, giving it their own interpretation regarding the percentage that should be taken into account in the formula of ordinal 12 of Ley 7972, for the IIDA factor, even though a harmonious interpretation of the legal provisions analyzed herein allows concluding the opposite. Consequently, the administrative act contained in official communication 767-SRAC-2007, of August 6, 2007, is vitiated by absolute nullity for being substantially inconsistent with the legal system and must be so declared (Articles 158 and 166 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública).

VIII.- Even though there is sufficient grounds in the preceding analysis to declare the nullity of the challenged act, we agree with the argument of the plaintiff, in the sense that the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, in its capacity as the competent tax administration in relation to the collection of the tax under Ley 5792, had already issued a prior opinion expressing that the percentage corresponding for that tax was the 2.5% indicated in the Law. It is not unknown that the central Tax Administration has the competence to set the taxable base of the selective consumption tax on cigarettes, and that within the calculation it must perform for this purpose, it must in turn calculate the amount of the IDA tax; however, this latter situation occurs not because the centralized Tax Administration is the active subject (sujeto activo) of the obligation arising with the taxable event (hecho generador) of that tax, but because it is a consequence of the formula in numeral 12, which includes it as a factor to be taken into consideration. This being so, it is clear that the central Administration can make the corresponding calculations, but not determine by itself and exceeding its legal powers, the percentage of the IDA tax, since such power is reserved to the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, as it is the creditor entity of the aforementioned tax (Articles 11, 14 and 99 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios).

IX.- Finally, the arguments of the plaintiff are rejected, in the sense that the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario does not have legitimate title to collect the 0.10% corresponding to 0.05% of the Tobacco Defense Board and 0.05% for the increase in the tobacco price, because although it is true, in materiality, the destinations that the legislator set at the time for those percentages have ceased to be in force, the rule of Article 3 of Ley 5792 (which regulates their distribution) remains fully in force, with which, what exists is a problem of allocation of the tax product once paid, and not a problem of legitimacy for the collection thereof, given that the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario is certainly the creditor entity in the tax legal relationship, which is configured when the taxable event of the tax on the consumption of domestic and foreign machine-made cigarettes occurs (2.5% on the price of the article), and it must be kept in mind that to date no law has been issued that expressly orders the suppression or modification of such tax, in consideration that this is a matter reserved to law. From the above, it follows that the plaintiff would have no right to request the refund (devolución) of the sums paid for that 0.10%, because in reality the tax has not varied and its rate is 2.5% on the price of the article, just as the plaintiff herself has been requesting to be declared in the complaint, consequently rejecting this petitionary aspect.

X.- By virtue of what is ruled herein, it is appropriate to partially grant the claims asserted, in the terms and with the clarifications indicated below. The Tribunal understands that claims 1 to 3 have been filed against the State and numbers 4 and 5 are against the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario. For its part, number 6 constitutes a subsidiary aspect in case 4 and 5 are rejected. Consequently, the claims filed against the State (1 to 3) are granted as follows: the annulment of official communication SRAC-767/2007, of August 6, 2007, issued by the Sub-Management of Collections and Taxpayer Service (Subgerencia de Recaudación y Atención al Contribuyente) of the Large Taxpayers Office, is ordered, based on Articles 62 subsection a) in relation to 82 of the Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa. The refund in favor of the plaintiff of what she may have paid in excess as selective consumption tax is ordered; however, prior to said refund and in order to avoid unjust enrichment, the Large Taxpayers Office shall recalculate the selective consumption and IDA taxes (Ley 5792), for the cigarette brands Marlboro FF 20 S FA 006961 (VAIO promotion) and Marlboro Lights 20 S FA 006990 (VAO promotion), in accordance with the price structure communicated by the plaintiff as effective from July thirty, two thousand seven, using for this purpose the value of 2.5% for the IIDA factor within the legal formula. Once said calculation is verified, the Large Taxpayers Office shall transfer to the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario the amount corresponding to the tax under Ley 5792, if, as a result of official communication SRAC-767-2007 –which is hereby annulled–, that entity had received less than what it was legally entitled to for that tax. After that, and if a balance exists in favor of the plaintiff, the Tax Administration shall return to the plaintiff the amount paid in excess for selective consumption tax on cigarettes, in which case said sum shall accrue interest at the legal rate in effect from the date the payment was made until its effective refund. The claims asserted against the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (numbers 4 and 5 of the complaint) are denied as they are improper, as analyzed in this judgment. Lastly, claim number 6 filed is rejected, as it is a logical consequence that based on what is declared in this matter, the Tax Administration must calculate the "IIDA" factor at 2.5% and not at 2.4%, for the purposes of determining the selective consumption tax.

Section 1 of Law 5792 (amended by Law 6735) provides as follows:

“**A tax on the consumption of cigarettes** is hereby created, both national and foreign, machine-made; **in accordance with the following rates, which shall be applied to the price of the article**, before the sales tax:

…

• b)**2.5%** for foreign cigarettes and for those manufactured in the country, in whose production imported tobacco is used, in whole or in part.

The proceeds of this levy, except for the percentages established in Article 3 below, shall be transferred, monthly, by the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, directly, to the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, to be used for the fulfillment of the purposes set forth in its organic law.” (the bold is not in the original).- For its part, section 3 of the aforementioned legal norm states as follows:

“**For the purposes of distributing the proceeds, the tax established in this law is allocated as follows:** …

• 3)The portion corresponding to the category of cigarettes manufactured in the country exclusively with imported tobacco, and to foreign cigarettes:

2.40% for the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario. 0.05% for the Tobacco Defense Board (Junta de Defensa del Tabaco). 0.05% increase in the purchase price of tobacco. --- **2.50% total** (…)” (the bold is not in the original).

As can be observed, there is a clear differentiation between the tax on the consumption of national and foreign machine-made cigarettes, strictly speaking (2.5% on the price of the article), and the distribution conceived by the law to grant a specific destination to the proceeds obtained from that tax. Now, as explained before, in the case of cigarettes, cigars, and cigarillos, there is a special law –different from the Ley de Consolidación de Impuestos Selectivos de Consumo No. 4961– through which the rate is set and the determination of the taxable base for the selective consumption tax on those products is regulated. That Law is No. 7972, whose section 12 contains the formula through which said taxable base is calculated. As one of the factors to be considered within the formula referred to, there is one called “IIDA,” which is precisely the one debated here, in order to establish whether the calculation of this factor should be made based on a percentage of 2.5% or 2.4%. In this regard and to the point, the aforementioned article (12) provides as follows:

“Every time a suggested retail price to the public is reported to the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) by the manufacturer or importer for cigarettes, cigars, and cigarillos of any brand, **the taxable base of the selective consumption tax shall be determined in the following manner**:

…

• b)When the price is higher than the last reported one, it shall be used to adjust and establish the new taxable base within eight days following its report or the date on which the Tax Administration has grounded knowledge thereof.

**The taxable base shall be calculated according to the following formula:** BI={[PVS/(1+PUD)/(1+PDESC)/(1+PUDIST)]-**IIDA**-IGV}/(1+TISC) **For the purposes of this article, the following is defined:** …

**IIDA**: Amount **of the tax** in favor of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario.

(…)” (the bold and underline are not in the original).- As is notable from the preceding transcription, the law clearly defines the IIDA factor as the amount of the **tax** in favor of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, and not, as the State’s representation seeks to suggest, the percentage that corresponds to the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario according to the distribution contained in section 3 of Law 5792. The fact that there is a breakdown in the law creating the tax on cigarette consumption, through which the legislator intended to assign a specific destination to the amount collected, does not imply that this is, per se, the tax to be considered in the legal formula described above. The truth of the matter is that Law 5792 (amended by Law 6735) created a tax on the consumption of cigarettes, which is defined in its Article 1, corresponding to a rate of 2.5% on the price of the article, so that, according to the letter of section 12 of Law 7972, within the formula to determine the taxable base of the selective consumption tax, the percentage that must be used to calculate the IIDA factor (IDA tax) is 2.5% and not 2.4%, as the Large Taxpayers Administration (Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes) erroneously understood. Even more, a contradiction on the point under discussion emerges from the contested act itself, inasmuch as that Treasury body expressly acknowledges that for the calculation of the taxable base of the selective consumption tax, **the tax in favor of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario** must be taken into account, expressly indicating that it corresponds to 2.5%, as obtained from the following citation, as relevant: “… Having verified said calculation for the cigarette brands MARLBORO FF 20 S FA 006961 (VAO promotion) and MARLBORO LIGHTS 20S FA 0006960 (VAO promotion), it is appropriate to adjust the same in what corresponds **to the tax in favor of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario**, in accordance with Article 35 of Law No. 6735, in which **Article 1 of Law No. 5792 of September 1, 1975, subsection b) was amended**, **which establishes a 2.5% tax in favor of the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario** for foreign cigarettes and for those manufactured in the country, in whose production imported tobacco is used, in whole or in part …” (folio 4 of the administrative file, the bold and underline are not in the original). This being so, in this Chamber’s opinion, the central Administration’s action violates the principle of tax legality contained in Article 5 of the Tax Code (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), as it is a matter reserved exclusively to law to establish tax rates and their calculation bases, and in the specific case, it is clear that the Treasury authorities disregarded the 2.5% tax expressly created by Law 7972 and regulated in its first article, giving it their own interpretation regarding the percentage that must be taken into account in the formula of section 12 of Law 7972, for the IIDA factor, even though a harmonious interpretation of the legal provisions analyzed here allows concluding the opposite. Consequently, the administrative act contained in official letter 767-SRAC-2007, of August 6, 2007, is vitiated by absolute nullity for being substantially inconsistent with the legal system and must be so declared (Articles 158 and 166 of the General Law of Public Administration, Ley General de la Administración Pública).- **VIII.-** Even though there is sufficient reason in the preceding analysis to declare the nullity of the contested act, the argument presented by the plaintiff is shared, in the sense that the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, in its capacity as competent tax administration regarding the collection of the Law 5792 tax, had already issued a prior opinion expressing that the percentage corresponding to said tax was the 2.5% indicated in the Law. It is not unknown that the central Tax Administration has the competence to set the taxable base for the selective consumption tax on cigarettes, and that within the calculation it must perform for this purpose, it must in turn calculate the amount of the IDA tax; however, this latter situation occurs not because the centralized Tax Administration is the active subject of the obligation arising from the taxable event of that tribute, but because it is a consequence of the formula in section 12, which includes it as a factor to be taken into consideration. This being the case, it is clear that the central Administration can perform the corresponding calculations, but it cannot determine by itself and exceeding its legal faculties, the percentage of the IDA tax, as such power is reserved to the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, being the entity creditor of the aforementioned tribute (Articles 11, 14, and 99 of the Tax Code).- **IX.-** Finally, the plaintiff’s arguments are rejected, to the effect that the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario does not have a legitimate title to collect the 0.10% corresponding to 0.05% for the Tobacco Defense Board (Junta de Defensa del Tabaco) and 0.05% for an increase in the price of tobacco, because although it is true, in reality, the destinations that the legislator once set for those percentages have ceased to be effective, the norm of Article 3 of Law 5792 (which regulates the distribution thereof) remains fully in force, meaning that what exists is a problem of allocation of the tax proceeds once paid, and not a problem of legitimacy for the collection thereof, given that the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario is indeed the creditor entity in the tax legal relationship, which is configured when the taxable event of the tax on the consumption of national and foreign machine-made cigarettes occurs (2.5% on the price of the article), bearing in mind that to date, no law has been issued expressly providing for the suppression or modification of such tribute, given that this is a matter reserved exclusively to law. From the foregoing it follows that the plaintiff would not have the right to request the refund of the sums paid for that 0.10%, as in reality the tax has not varied and its rate is 2.5% on the price of the article, just as the plaintiff itself has been requesting to be declared in the lawsuit, this petitionary claim being consequently rejected.- **X.-** By virtue of what is ruled here, it is appropriate to partially uphold the claims asserted, in the terms and with the clarifications indicated below. The Court understands that claims 1 to 3 have been formulated against the State, and numbers 4 and 5 are against the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario. Number 6, for its part, constitutes a subsidiary claim in case 4 and 5 are rejected. Consequently, the claims formulated against the State (1 to 3) are upheld in the following manner: the annulment is ordered of official letter SRAC-767/2007, of August 6, 2007, issued by the Subgerencia de Recaudación y Atención al Contribuyente, of the Large Taxpayers Administration, based on Articles 62, subsection a) in relation to 82 of the Law Regulating the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso-Administrativa). The refund in favor of the plaintiff of any amount paid in excess for the selective consumption tax is ordered; however, prior to said refund and in order not to generate unjust enrichment, the Large Taxpayers Administration shall proceed to re-calculate the selective consumption and IDA (Law 5792) taxes for the cigarette brands Marlboro FF 20 S FA 006961 (VAIO promotion) and Marlboro Lights 20 S FA 006990 (VAO promotion), according to the price structure communicated by the plaintiff as effective as of July thirty, two thousand seven, **using for this purpose the value of 2.5% for the IIDA factor within the legal formula**. Once said calculation is verified, the Large Taxpayers Administration shall transfer to the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario the amount corresponding to the Law 5792 tax, if as a result of official letter SRAC-767-2007 –which is annulled here–, that entity had received less than what it was legally due for that tribute.

Subsequently, and should there be a balance in favor of the plaintiff, the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) shall refund the plaintiff the excess amount paid for the selective consumption tax on cigarettes, in which case such sum shall accrue interest at the current legal rate from the date the payment was made until its effective refund. The claims brought against the Institute of Agrarian Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, IDA) (items 4 and 5 of the complaint) are denied as being inadmissible, as analyzed in this judgment. Finally, the formulated claim number 6 is rejected, as it is a logical consequence that from what is declared in this matter, the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) must calculate the "IIDA" factor at 2.5% and not at 2.4%, for the purposes of determining the selective consumption tax.-“ **“VI.-** In accordance with the arguments of the complaint and their respective responses, it is necessary to elucidate in this venue what percentage of the “tax on the consumption of domestic and foreign machine-made cigarettes” (IDA Tax established in Law 5792 as amended by Law 6735) must be used to calculate the tax base of the “selective consumption tax” on cigarettes, within the legal formula established for such purposes (Law 7972). In this regard, it must be clear that although these are two distinct taxes, by express legal provision, to calculate the tax base of the “selective consumption tax” on cigarettes, the amount payable for the tax “on the consumption of domestic and foreign machine-made cigarettes” (IDA tax) must necessarily be calculated within the corresponding formula (Article 12 of Law 7972), and, indeed, as the plaintiff points out, the amount determined for this second tax will have a direct effect on the calculation of the first; that is, the higher the amount set for the IDA tax, the lower the amount payable for the selective consumption tax on those articles, and vice versa, by virtue of the legal formula regulated in Article 12 of Law 7972. It is for this reason that it is of interest to define the percentage that corresponds to the IDA tax within that formula. The plaintiff's thesis is that the percentage of the IDA tax to be considered in this calculation method is 2.5%, and not 2.4%, which is the one set by the Large Taxpayers Administration (Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes). Well then, after analyzing the legal point brought to debate, the Court considers that the plaintiff's arguments are acceptable, for the reasons set forth below.- **VII.-** The basis provided by the Large Taxpayers Administration in official communication SRAC-767-2007, dated August 6, 2007, for establishing that the aforementioned percentage corresponds to 2.4% and not 2.5%, is Article 3 of Law 5792, insofar as it distributes the tax established in Article 1 for the purpose of allocating its proceeds as follows: 2.4% to the Institute of Agrarian Development, 0.05% to the Tobacco Defense Board (Junta de Defensa del Tabaco), and 0.05% for the increase in the tobacco purchase price. Indeed, note that this office, in the challenged act, literally stated: *“… For allocation purposes, the established tax is 2.40%; the 0.05% for the Tobacco Defense Board and the 0.05% increase in the tobacco purchase price are not considered.”* (folio 4 of the administrative file). In the judgment of this Court, the error of the Tax Administration lies in the fact that this office confuses the tax itself with the distribution of percentages of that tax made in numeral 3 of the same legislation. For greater clarity, the aforementioned provisions are transcribed below. Ordinal 1 of Law 5792 (amended by Law 6735) provides as follows:

*“**A tax is created on the consumption of domestic and foreign** machine-made cigarettes; **in accordance with the following rates, which shall be applied to the price of the article**, before the sales tax:* *…* *b) **2.5%** for foreign cigarettes and for those manufactured in the country, in whose production imported tobaccos are used, totally or partially.* *The proceeds of this levy, except for the percentages established in Article 3 below, shall be transferred monthly, by the Costa Rican Social Security Fund (Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social), directly to the Institute of Agrarian Development, to be used for the fulfillment of the purposes provided in its constitutive law.”* (boldface not in the original).- For its part, numeral 3 of the cited legal rule reads as follows:

*“**For the purposes of distributing the proceeds, the tax established in this law is allocated as follows:*** *…* *3) The one corresponding to the category of cigarettes manufactured in the country exclusively with imported tobaccos, and to foreign cigarettes:* *2.40% for the Institute of Agrarian Development.* *0.05% for the Tobacco Defense Board.* *0.05% increase in the tobacco purchase price.* *---* ***2.50% total*** *(…)”* (boldface not in the original).

As can be observed, there is a clear differentiation between the tax on the consumption of domestic and foreign machine-made cigarettes, properly speaking (2.5% on the price of the article), and the distribution envisioned by the law for giving a specific purpose to the proceeds obtained from that tax. Now, as explained before, in the case of cigarettes, cigars, and cigarillos, there is a special law—different from the Law for the Consolidation of Selective Consumption Taxes (Ley de Consolidación de Impuestos Selectivos de Consumo) 4961—by means of which the rate is set and the determination of the tax base for the selective consumption tax on these products is regulated. That Law is 7972, whose numeral 12 contains the formula by which that tax base is calculated. As part of the factors to consider within the referenced formula, there is one denominated "IIDA", which is precisely the one debated here, in order to establish whether the calculation of this factor must be made based on a percentage of 2.5% or 2.4%.

In that regard, and as relevant here, the aforementioned article (12) provides as follows:

“Whenever a suggested retail price, proposed by the manufacturer or importer for cigarettes, cigarillos, and cigars of any brand, is reported to the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), **the taxable base (base imponible) of the selective consumption tax (impuesto selectivo de consumo) shall be determined in the following manner**:

…

• b)When the price is higher than the last reported price, it shall be used to adjust and establish the new taxable base within eight days following its report or the date on which the Tax Administration obtains well-founded knowledge thereof.

**The taxable base shall be calculated according to the following formula:** BI = {[PVS/(1+PUD)/(1+PDESC)/(1+PUDIST)]-**IIDA**-IGV}/(1+TISC) **For the purposes of this article, the following is defined:** …

**IIDA**: Amount **of the tax** in favor of the Institute of Agrarian Development (Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario).

(…)” (bold and underline not in original).- As is evident from the above transcription, the law clearly defines the IIDA factor as the amount of the **tax** in favor of the Institute of Agrarian Development, and not, as the State’s representation tries to make it seem, the percentage that corresponds to the Institute of Agrarian Development according to the distribution contained in section 3 of Law 5792. The fact that a breakdown exists in the law that created the tax on the consumption of cigarettes, through which the legislator intended to assign a specific destination to the collected funds, does not imply that this is *per se* the tax to be considered in the legal formula described above. The truth of the matter is that Law 5792 (amended by Law 6735) created a tax on the consumption of cigarettes, which is defined in its Article 1 as a rate of 2.5% on the price of the article, so that, according to the letter of section 12 of Law 7972, within the formula to determine the taxable base of the selective consumption tax, the percentage that must be used to calculate the IIDA factor (IDA tax) is 2.5% and not 2.4% as the Large Taxpayers Administration erroneously understood. Even the contested act itself reveals a contradiction on the point under discussion, since that organ of the Treasury expressly acknowledges that for the calculation of the taxable base of the selective consumption tax, **the tax in favor of the Institute of Agrarian Development** must be taken into account, expressly indicating that it corresponds to 2.5%, as is obtained from the following quote, in its relevant part: “… Having verified said calculation for the cigarette brands MARLBORO FF 20 S FA 006961 (VAO promotion) and MARLBORO LIGHTS 20S FA 0006960 (VAO promotion), it is appropriate to adjust the same with respect to **the tax in favor of the Institute of Agrarian Development**, in accordance with Article 35 of Law No. 6735, which amended **Article 1, subsection b) of Law No. 5792 of September 1, 1975** ***which establishes a 2.5% tax in favor of the Institute of Agrarian Development*** for foreign cigarettes and for those manufactured in the country, in whose preparation imported tobaccos are used, in whole or in part …” (page 4 of the administrative file, bold and underline not in original). This being the case, in the opinion of this Chamber, the action of the central Administration is in violation of the principle of tax legality contained in Article 5 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), since it is a matter reserved to law to establish the rates of the taxes and their bases of calculation, and in the specific case, it is clear that the authorities of the Treasury disregarded the 2.5% tax expressly created by Law 7972 and regulated in its first article, giving it their own interpretation regarding the percentage that must be taken into account in the formula of section 12 of Law 7972, for the IIDA factor, even though a harmonious interpretation of the legal provisions analyzed here allows concluding the contrary. Consequently, the administrative act contained in official letter 767-SRAC-2007, of August 6, 2007, is vitiated by absolute nullity for being substantially inconsistent with the legal system and must be so declared (Articles 158 and 166 of the General Law on Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública)).- VIII.- Even though sufficient grounds are found in the preceding analysis to declare the nullity of the contested act, the arguments of the plaintiff are shared, in the sense that the Institute of Agrarian Development, in its capacity as the competent tax administration regarding the collection of the tax in Law 5792, had issued a prior opinion stating that the percentage that applied for that tax was the 2.5% indicated in the Law. It is not unknown that the central Tax Administration has the authority to set the taxable base of the selective consumption tax on cigarettes, and that within the calculation it must perform for this purpose, it must, in turn, calculate the amount of the IDA tax; however, the latter situation occurs not because the centralized Tax Administration is the active subject of the obligation arising from the taxable event of that tax, but because it is a consequence of the formula in section 12, which includes it as a factor to be taken into account. That being so, it is clear that the central Administration can perform the corresponding calculations, but not determine by itself, and exceeding its legal powers, the percentage of the IDA tax, since such power is reserved to the Institute of Agrarian Development, as it is the creditor entity of the aforementioned tax (Articles 11, 14 and 99 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures).- IX.- Finally, the arguments of the plaintiff are rejected, in the sense that the Institute of Agrarian Development lacks a legitimate title to collect the 0.10% that corresponds to 0.05% for the Tobacco Defense Board (Junta de Defensa del Tabaco) and 0.05% for a tobacco price increase, since although it is true that, materially, the destinations that the legislator at the time set for those percentages have ceased to be in force, the rule in Article 3 of Law 5792 (which regulates their distribution) remains fully in force, whereby what exists is a problem of allocation of the product of the tax once it is paid, and not a problem of legitimacy for its collection, given that the Institute of Agrarian Development is indeed the creditor entity in the tax legal relationship, which is configured when the taxable event of the tax on the consumption of domestic and foreign machine-made cigarettes occurs (2.5% on the price of the article), bearing in mind that to date, no law has been enacted that expressly provides for the suppression or modification of such tax, considering that this is a matter reserved to law. It follows from the foregoing that the plaintiff would have no right to request a refund (devolución) of the sums paid for that 0.10%, since in reality the tax has not varied and its rate is 2.5% on the price of the article, just as the petitioner herself has been requesting be declared in the claim; consequently, this request is rejected.- X.- By virtue of what is adjudged here, it is appropriate to partially grant the claims asserted, in the terms and with the clarifications indicated below. The Court understands that claims numbered 1 to 3 have been filed against the State and numbers 4 and 5 are against the Institute of Agrarian Development. For its part, number 6 constitutes a subsidiary request should 4 and 5 be rejected. Consequently, the claims filed against the State (1 to 3) are granted as follows: the annulment is ordered of official letter SRAC-767/2007, of August 6, 2007, issued by the Sub-Management of Collection and Taxpayer Service (Subgerencia de Recaudación y Atención al Contribuyente) of the Large Taxpayers Administration, based on Articles 62 subsection a) in relation to 82 of the Regulatory Law of the Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa). The refund is ordered in favor of the plaintiff of what she may have paid in excess for selective consumption tax; however, prior to said refund and in order not to generate unjust enrichment, the Large Taxpayers Administration shall proceed to recalculate the selective consumption and IDA taxes (Law 5792) for the cigarette brands Marlboro FF 20 S FA 006961 (VAIO promotion) and Marlboro Lights 20 S FA 006990 (VAO promotion), in accordance with the price structure communicated by the plaintiff as effective as of July 30, 2007, **using the value of 2.5% for the IIDA factor within the legal formula**. Once said calculation has been verified, the Large Taxpayers Administration shall transfer to the Institute of Agrarian Development the corresponding amount for the tax under Law 5792, if as a result of official letter SRAC-767-2007—which is annulled here—that entity had received less than what legally corresponded to it for that tax. Subsequent to that, and if there is a balance in favor of the plaintiff, the Tax Administration shall refund the petitioner what was paid in excess for selective consumption tax on cigarettes, in which case said sum shall accrue interest at the legal rate in force from the date payment was made until its effective refund. The claims asserted against the Institute of Agrarian Development (numbers 4 and 5 of the complaint) are denied as being inadmissible, as analyzed in this judgment. Lastly, filed claim number 6 is rejected, since it is a logical consequence that from what is declared in this matter, the Tax Administration must calculate the “IIDA” factor at 2.5% and not at 2.4%, for purposes of determining the selective consumption tax.

“VI.- Conforme los argumentos de la demanda y sus respectivas contestaciones, corresponde dilucidar en esta vía, cuál es el porcentaje del “impuesto sobre el consumo de cigarrillos nacionales y extranjeros elaborados a máquina” (Impuesto IDA establecido en la Ley N°5792 reformada por la Ley N°6735), que debe utilizarse para calcular la base imponible del “impuesto selectivo de consumo” de los cigarrillos, dentro de la fórmula legal establecida para esos efectos (Ley N°7972). Al respecto debe tenerse claro que si bien se trata de dos tributos distintos, por disposición legal expresa, para poder calcular la base imponible del impuesto “selectivo de consumo” de los cigarrillos, necesariamente debe calcularse, dentro de la fórmula correspondiente (artículo 12 de la Ley 7972), el monto a pagar por el impuesto “sobre el consumo de cigarrillos nacionales y extranjeros elaborados a máquina” (impuesto IDA), siendo que, efectivamente, tal y como lo hace ver la parte actora, el monto que se determine para este segundo tributo tendrá un efecto directo en el cálculo del primero, es decir, entre mayor sea el monto que se fije para el impuesto del IDA, menor será el monto a cancelar por el impuesto selectivo de consumo de esos artículos, y a la inversa; en virtud de la fórmula legal regulada en el artículo 12 de la Ley 7972. Es por esta razón que resulta de interés que se defina el porcentaje que corresponde al impuesto del IDA dentro de esa fórmula. La tesis del actor es que el porcentaje del impuesto del IDA a tomar en cuenta en ese método de cálculo, es de un 2,5%, y no un 2,4%, que fue el que fijó la Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes. Pues bien, luego de analizar el punto jurídico que se ha traído a debate, estima el Tribunal que los argumentos de la accionante son de recibo, por las razones que se exponen a continuación.- VII.- El fundamento dado por la Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes en el oficio SRAC-767-2007, del 6 de agosto del 2007, para establecer que el porcentaje aludido corresponde a un 2,4% y no un 2,5%, lo constituye el artículo 3 de la Ley 5792, en tanto hace una distribución del impuesto establecido en el artículo 1, con el objeto de asignar el producto así: un 2,4% al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, un 0,05% a la junta de Defensa del Tabaco y un 0,05% para el aumento de precio del tabaco. En efecto, véase que ésa dependencia, en el acto impugnado, literalmente indicó así: “… Para los fines de asignación el impuesto establecido es de 2,40%; no se considera el 0,05% para la Junta de Defensa del Tabaco y 0,05% de aumento del precio de compra de tabaco.” (folio 4 del expediente administrativo). A juicio de este Tribunal, el yerro de la Administración Tributaria radica en que esta dependencia confunde el impuesto, en sí mismo, con la distribución de porcentajes que de ese impuesto hace el numeral 3 de la misma legislación. Para mayor claridad a continuación se transcriben las disposiciones antes citadas. El ordinal 1 de la Ley 5792 (reformada por Ley 6735) dispone así:

“Créase un impuesto sobre el consumo de cigarrillos nacionales y extranjeros, elaborados a máquina; de acuerdo con las siguientes tarifas, que se aplicarán sobre el precio del artículo, antes que el impuesto de venta:

…

• b)2,5% para los cigarrillos extranjeros y para los fabricados en el país, en cuya elaboración se empleen, total o parcialmente, tabacos importados.

El producto de este gravamen, excepto los porcentajes establecidos en el artículo 3° siguiente, será girado, mensualmente, por la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, en forma directa, al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, para ser destinado al cumplimiento de los fines previstos en su ley constitutiva.” (la negrita no es del original).- Por su parte, el numeral 3 de la citada norma legal dice así:

“Para los fines de distribución del producto, el impuesto establecido en esta ley se asigna de la siguiente manera:

…

• 3)El correspondiente a la categoría de cigarrillos elaborados en el país con tabacos importados, exclusivamente, y a los cigarrillos extranjeros:

2,40% para el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario.

0,05% para la junta de Defensa del Tabaco.

0,05% aumento del precio de compra de tabaco.

--- 2,50% total (…)” (la negrita no es del original).

Como se puede observar, existe una clara diferenciación entre el impuesto sobre el consumo de cigarrillos nacionales y extranjeros elaborados a máquina, propiamente dicho (2,5% sobre el precio del artículo), y la distribución pensada por la ley para otorgar un destino específico al producto que se obtiene de ese impuesto. Ahora, tal y como se explicó antes, en el caso de los cigarrillos, cigarros y puros, existe una ley especial –distinta a la Ley de Consolidación de Impuestos Selectivos de Consumo N°4961-, mediante la cual se fija la tarifa y se regula la determinación de la base imponible del impuesto selectivo de consumo de esos productos. Esa Ley es la N°7972, cuyo numeral 12 contiene la fórmula por medio de la cual se calcula esa base imponible. Como parte de los factores a considerar dentro de la fórmula a la que se ha hecho referencia, se encuentra uno denominado "IIDA", que es precisamente sobre el que aquí se debate, a efecto de establecer si el cálculo de este factor se debe hacer a partir de un porcentaje del 2,5% o de un 2,4%. Al respecto y en lo que interesa, el artículo aludido (12) dispone de la siguiente manera:

“Cada vez que se reporte a la Administración Tributaria un precio de venta al público, sugerido por el fabricante o importador para cigarrillos, cigarros y puros de cualquier marca se procederá a determinar la base imponible del impuesto selectivo de consumo de la siguiente forma:

…

• b)Cuando el precio resulte mayor que el último reportado, éste se utilizará para ajustar y establecer la nueva base imponible dentro de los ocho días siguientes a su reporte o a la fecha en que la Administración Tributaria tenga conocimiento fundado.

La base imponible se calculará según con la siguiente fórmula:

BI={[PVS/(1+PUD)/(1+PDESC)/(1+PUDIST)]-IIDA-IGV}/(1+TISC) Para efectos de este artículo, se define lo siguiente:

…

IIDA: Monto del impuesto a favor del Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario.

(…)” (la negrita y el subrayado no es del original).- Como es notable de la anterior transcripción, la ley claramente define al factor IIDA como el monto del impuesto a favor del Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, y no como lo pretende hacer ver la representación del Estado, el porcentaje que le corresponde al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario conforme la distribución contenida en el ordinal 3 de la Ley 5792. El hecho de que exista un desglose en la ley creadora del impuesto sobre el consumo de cigarrillos, a través del cual el legislador pretendió asignar un destino específico a lo recaudado, no implica que ése sea per se el impuesto a considerar en la fórmula legal antes descrita. Lo cierto del caso es que la Ley 5792 (reformada por la Ley 6735) creó un impuesto sobre el consumo de cigarrillos, mismo que está definido en su artículo 1, correspondiente a una tarifa del 2,5% sobre el precio del artículo, de manera que, conforme a la letra del numeral 12 de la Ley 7972, dentro de la fórmula para determinar la base imponible del impuesto selectivo de consumo, el porcentaje que debe utilizarse para calcular el factor IIDA (impuesto IDA) es 2,5% y no 2,4 como erradamente entendió la Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes. Incluso, del propio acto impugnado se desprende una contradicción sobre el punto en discusión, por cuanto aquel órgano del Fisco reconoce expresamente que para el cálculo de la base imponible del impuesto selectivo de consumo, debe tomarse en cuenta el impuesto a favor del Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, indicando expresamente que el mismo corresponde a un 2,5%, tal y como se obtiene de la siguiente cita, en lo conducente: “… Verificado dicho cálculo para las marcas de cigarrillos MARLBORO FF 20 S FA 006961 (VAO promoción) y MARLBORO LIGHTS 20S FA 0006960 (VAO promoción), procede ajustar el mismo en lo que corresponde al impuesto a favor del Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, de conformidad con el artículo 35 de la Ley No. 6735, en el cual se reformó el artículo 1 de la Ley No. 5792 del 01 de setiembre de 1975 inciso b) que establece un 2,5% de impuesto a favor del Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario para los cigarrillos extranjeros y para los fabricados en el país, en cuya elaboración se empleen, total o parcialmente, tabacos importados …” (folio 4 del expediente administrativo, la negrita y el subrayado no es del original). Así las cosas, en criterio de esta Cámara, la actuación de la Administración central resulta violatoria del principio de legalidad tributaria contenido en el artículo 5 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, pues es materia privativa de ley establecer las tarifas de los tributos y sus bases de cálculo, y en el caso concreto, es claro que las autoridades del Fisco desconocieron el impuesto del 2,5% expresamente creado por la Ley 7972 y regulado en su artículo primero, dándole su propia interpretación en relación al porcentaje que se debe tomar en cuenta en la fórmula del ordinal 12 de la Ley 7972, para el factor IIDA, a pesar de que una interpretación armónica de las disposiciones legales aquí analizadas permite concluir lo contrario. En consecuencia, el acto administrativo contenido en el oficio 767-SRAC-2007, del 6 de agosto del 2007, se encuentra viciado de nulidad absoluta por ser sustancialmente disconforme con el ordenamiento jurídico y así debe declararse (artículos 158 y 166 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública).- VIII.- Aún cuando se encuentra motivo suficiente en el análisis precedente para declarar la nulidad del acto cuestionado, se comparte lo argumentado por la actora, en el sentido que ya el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, en su condición de administración tributaria competente en relación con el cobro del impuesto de la Ley 5792, había emitido un criterio previo expresando que el porcentaje que correspondía por concepto de dicho tributo, era el 2,5% señalado en la Ley. No se desconoce que la Administración Tributaria central cuenta con la competencia para fijar la base imponible del impuesto selectivo de consumo de los cigarrillos, y que dentro del cálculo que debe realizar para ello, debe calcular a su vez el monto del impuesto del IDA, sin embargo, ésta última tal situación ocurre no porque la Administración Tributaria centralizada sea el sujeto activo de la obligación que surge con el hecho generador de ese tributo, sino porque ello es consecuencia de la fórmula del numeral 12, que lo incluye como un factor a tomar en consideración. Siendo así, es claro que la Administración central puede efectuar los cálculos correspondientes, pero no determinar por sí misma y excediendo sus facultades legales, el porcentaje del impuesto del IDA, pues tal potestad esta reservada al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario, por ser el ente acreedor del tributo aludido (artículos 11, 14 y 99 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios).- IX.- Por último, se rechazan los argumentos de la actora, en el sentido que el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario no tiene título legítimo para recaudar el 0,10% que corresponde a 0,05% de la junta de Defensa del Tabaco y 0,05% para aumento de precio del tabaco, pues si bien es cierto, en la materialidad, los destinos que en su momento fijó el legislador para esos porcentajes han dejado de tener vigencia, la norma del artículo 3 de la Ley 5792 (que regula la distribución de los mismos) se mantiene plenamente vigente, con lo cual, lo que existe es un problema de asignación del producto del impuesto una vez cancelado, y no un problema de legitimación para el cobro del mismo, dado que ciertamente el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario es el ente acreedor en la relación jurídica tributaria, que se configura cuando se produce el hecho generador del impuesto sobre el consumo de cigarrillos nacionales y extranjeros elaborados a máquina (2,5% sobre el precio del artículo), debiendo tenerse presente que a la fecha no se ha emitido ley alguna que expresamente disponga la supresión o modificación de tal tributo, en atención a que ello es materia privativa de ley. De lo anterior se deriva que no tendría derecho la actora para solicitar la devolución de las sumas canceladas por concepto de ese 0,10%, pues en realidad el impuesto no ha variado y su tarifa es un 2,5% sobre el precio del artículo, tal y como la propia accionante ha venido solicitando que se declare en la demanda, rechazándose en consecuencia este extremo petitorio.- X.- En virtud de lo aquí fallado, procede acoger parcialmente las pretensiones aducidas, en los términos y con las aclaraciones que se indican a continuación. Entiende el Tribunal que las pretensiones que van de la 1 a la 3 han sido formuladas contra el Estado y las número 4 y 5 lo son contra el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario. Por su parte, la número 6 constituye un extremo subsidiario en caso de rechazarse la 4 y la 5. Consecuentemente, se acogen las pretensiones formuladas contra el Estado (1 a la 3) de la siguiente forma: se ordena la anulación del oficio SRAC-767/2007, del 6 de agosto del 2007, emitido por la Subgerencia de Recaudación y Atención al Contribuyente, de la Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes, con fundamento en los artículos 62 inciso a) en relación con el 82 de la Ley Reguladora de la Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa. Se ordena la devolución a favor de la actora de lo que hubiere pagado en exceso por concepto de impuesto selectivo de consumo, sin embargo, de previo a dicha devolución y en aras de no generar un enriquecimiento sin causa, proceda la Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes a realizar de nuevo el cálculo de los impuestos selectivo de consumo e IDA (Ley 5792), para las marcas de cigarrillos Marlboro FF 20 S FA 006961 (VAIO promoción) y Marlboro Lights 20 S FA 006990 (VAO promoción), de acuerdo con la estructura de precios comunicada por la actora como vigente a partir del treinta de julio del año dos mil siete, utilizando para ello el valor de 2,5% para el factor IIDA dentro la fórmula legal. Una vez verificado dicho cálculo, la Administración de Grandes Contribuyentes trasladará al Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario el monto que corresponda por concepto del impuesto de la Ley 5792, si producto del oficio SRAC-767-2007 -que aquí se anula-, ese ente hubiere percibido menos de que lo que legalmente le correspondía por ese tributo. Con posterioridad a ello y de existir un saldo a favor de la actora, proceda la Administración Tributaria a devolverle a la accionante lo pagado en exceso por concepto de impuesto selectivo de consumo de cigarrillos, en cuyo caso dicha suma devengará intereses al tipo legal vigente a partir de la fecha de la realización del pago y hasta su efectiva devolución. Se deniegan las pretensiones aducidas contra el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (números 4 y 5 de la demanda) por ser improcedentes, según se analizó en esta sentencia. De último, se rechaza la pretensión número 6 formulada, pues es lógica consecuencia que a partir de lo declarado en este asunto, la Administración Tributaria deberá calcular el factor "IIDA" en un 2,5% y no en un 2,4%, para efectos de determinar el impuesto selectivo de consumo.-“