Motel tax does not violate legislative reserve or IMAS competenceImpuesto a moteles no viola reserva de ley ni competencia del IMAS

SIXTH: OPINION OF THE COURT: MERITS OF THE CASE. 1) Object of the proceeding. With the present tax claim, the plaintiff does not formulate claims for compensation, reparation, or restitution of its rights or of any legal situation it might consider violated, but only claims for annulment against the specific actions of IMAS in the exercise of its taxing power, by means of which said entity has brought the action for collection of the tax on motels and similar establishments established by Article 61 of the Ley de Contingencia Fiscal (see supra the section of unproven facts of this same judgment). The action of IMAS is the resolution determining the tax obligation (resolución determinativa de la obligación tributaria), issued on March 21, 2007, which—because the plaintiff so petitioned—would have to be annulled, if that were the decision of this Court, and as a logical consequence, also the administrative resolution issued by the General Management of IMAS at 12:40 p.m. on September 26, 2007, by means of which that Administration decides to declare without merit the appeal (recurso de apelación) filed against the aforementioned act determining the tax, by the company Cabinas Cascada Azul, in its capacity as owner of the establishment called Motel Cabinas Cascada Azul (copies of which are attached to folios 4 through 14 of the main file).

• 2)On the legal reserve in tax matters—brought to the specific case. The basic legal meaning—if one may say so—of the institution of legal reserve (reserva de ley) implies that tax rules or provisions subjecting the citizen to the payment of taxes cannot be created except by means of a legal rule having the rank of a law of the Republic, which must be issued precisely by the constitutionally empowered bodies to issue that type of laws (Article 121(13) of the Constitución Política). Examining the point brought to this dispute, it is clear that the tax consisting of the payment of 30% of the rate set for each room in establishments classified as motels and similar for intimate encounters was created by Ley Nº 5554 of August 20, 1974, and its amendments (now repealed), whose first article provided as follows:

"Artículo 1º.— Créase un impuesto, a favor del 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, casa 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 la 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 podrán estar ubicados en un radio de quinientos metros de un centro educativo, oficialmente reconocido por el Estado." That same regulatory framework provides the descriptive elements of the structure of the tax, such as the rate, period, calculation, method of payment, active and passive subjects of the obligation, as well as a clear warning to comply with its payment and the legal consequences (such as a fine) in the event of non-compliance. The rule that was applied to the plaintiff company is the provision contained in Article 61 of the Ley de Contingencia Fiscal, No. 8343, issued on December 18, 2002, published in La Gaceta No. 250 of December 27, 2002, which literally provides:

"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." By means of Article 70 of the recently cited Ley de Contingencia Fiscal, Ley Nº 5554 of August 20, 1974, was repealed, the same law that—as just indicated—created this tax. From the analysis of the remaining provisions contained in the Ley de Contingencia Fiscal, it is evident that the legislator provided, in Articles 62 through 69, and Transitory Article I and Article 89, the description of the configuration elements of the tax, regarding its structure, rate, active and passive subjects, withholding agent (agente retenedor), periodicity, calculation method, payment, consequences of non-compliance, and entry into force of the regulation, which, integrally applied, allow the application of the tax practically from its promulgation (Article 89), and which, as unnecessary, are not transcribed in this judgment. It is clear to this Court that the legislator of the Ley de Contingencia Fiscal did not provide a new tax but rather a modification of the one already created under Ley Nº 5554 of August 20, 1974, although due to legislative technique, it did not give the new law that denomination, so that on a strictly regulatory plane, only a more recent version of a regulation that had already typified the tax in question was produced; but in no way was the creation of a new tax produced.

Regarding the use of a Manual to establish the categorization of the classes of establishments covered by the tax obligation, against which the plaintiff's action is directed, this Court finds that the questioned provision does not entail the defect of nullity (vicio de nulidad) attributed to it, not only because there is an express delegation from the legislator to IMAS in the very text of the Law, inasmuch as said entity is responsible for the categorization and classification of the establishments subject to the tax, but also because in its own content, no transgression of the legal order is produced. Having said that, trying to pinpoint the substantive complaint of the plaintiff, which at all times misses the lack of a decree having the rank of executive decree (reglamento ejecutivo) to regulate such classification, the criterion of this Court is that the plaintiff is not right, since IMAS is empowered by law to issue the regulations it deems pertinent with a view to the application of the tax, and moreover, because this furthers the fulfillment of its objectives, being endowed with its own legal personality in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of its Creation Law, No. 4760 of May 4, 1971, and that type of regulation is inherent to its legal regime as it enjoys legal personality in the fulfillment of strictly public purposes such as those described in said regulatory body, as indeed is solving the problem of extreme poverty in the country (Article 2). Therefore, in the present case, this Court does not find that the application of the Manual to regulate the application of categories and classification of motel and similar establishments subject to the tax in question gives rise to the defect of nullity alleged by the plaintiff, nor does the questioned rule prove to be devoid of the rationality and reasonableness required for the application of this type of provisions that are often perceived as real burdens by taxpayers. Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that in the application of the tax to Motel Cascada Azul, IMAS has not performed any action other than the application of the tax law, and the defect of transgression of the legal reserve and the principle of tax legality (principio de legalidad tributaria) that constitutionally must govern this matter has not occurred.

• 3)Competence of IMAS in the administration of the tax. The tax on motels has been governed by various legal norms; first, it was stipulated by Ley Nº 5554, of August 20, 1974, and article 1 of Ley Nº 6790, of October 14, 1982, providing in this regard that a tax is created, in favor of the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, to be paid by businesses qualified and authorized by the Ministerio de Gobernación, Policía, Justicia y Gracia, as motels and unregistered hotels, occasional lodging houses, and the like. Forming part of this classification are establishments that, even if they have lodging registrations, carry out activities that, in the opinion of the authorities, are encompassed by the description already made. The qualification and authorization required for the operation of these businesses shall be issued by the indicated Ministry, in common agreement with IMAS. Subsequently, the Ley de Contingencia fiscal number 8343 of December 18, 2002, came into force, which in its articles 61 to 70, Chapter VI, stipulated the present tax, repealing in its article 70 Ley 5554 and the first article of Law 6790, which contained it, by reason of which the matters concerning it must be governed entirely by it, applying as regards this chapter as from its publication on December 27, 2002. According to the articles of Law 8343 of December 18, 2002, it is observed that in its article 61, the referred tax is created in favor of the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, whose withholding agents shall be the businesses qualified and authorized by said Institute, such as motels, unregistered hotels, occasional lodging houses, massage parlors, "night clubs" with room service, and the like, and likewise IMAS is empowered to classify the establishments into three categories, according to the number of rooms and the quality of the complementary services they offer, being able to include in those same categories the establishments that, even if they have lodging registration, carry out activities that, in its opinion, can be included in the aforementioned classification. Likewise, it was provided that in order to operate, those businesses must first be registered and qualified by IMAS. Article 62 idem indicates that the rate shall be thirty percent of the value set each time each room is used; without paying an amount less than the equivalent of one daily use for the same room, except in the case of businesses that, due to their characteristics, are classified in category C, which shall pay a fixed monthly fee. Regarding the payment period, it shall be disbursed monthly, based on thirty-day months, and according to the number of rooms of each establishment, and must be deposited in the first week of each month, in IMAS or in the bank designated by it, under penalty of a fine. Hence, it is possible to conclude that with the entry into force of Ley 8343, the functions formerly exercised by the Ministerio de Gobernación were transferred to IMAS, an entity which is responsible, in its capacity as Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), for the qualification, authorization, registration, verification, control, determination, and audit (fiscalización) of the passive subjects, by virtue of which they must declare monthly before it the number of rooms they have, without prejudice to the verification of that number carried out by the inspectors of said entity, but without this empowering the withholding agents of this tax not to comply with their obligations for not having the indicated authorization and qualification, which cannot be presumed abrogated or eliminated, so the tax obligations subsist, a duty they must obey as long as and insofar as the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax is configured and maintained. Upon Law 8343 taking effect, IMAS became the Tax Administration exclusively with respect to the tax on motels. It must be understood that for tax and payment purposes, businesses that have been operating and carrying out their commercial activity under the previous regulatory framework must continue fulfilling their tax obligations regardless of whether IMAS has authorized and classified them or not, without prejudice to said entity classifying or reviewing the authorization criteria at the time it deems appropriate. Consequently, the plaintiff's arguments are unfounded, especially because it seeks to exempt itself from withholding this tax, arguing that IMAS has not issued the regulatory authorization and that the obligation will arise from that authorization, which is valid only for businesses that begin their activity and operations for the first time after the entry into force of this law, which in any case may not operate if they do not have authorization and classification, but this would not be applicable to establishments already constituted and authorized under the protection of Leyes 5554 and 6790, as is the business subject to this proceeding. By virtue of this, the Tax Administration is correct in its arguments contained in the aforementioned administrative resolutions that denied the plaintiff's claims, for whom the taxpayer withholding the tax is duly authorized and registered to operate, well in advance of the entry into force of the Ley de Contingencia Fiscal, which it has indeed been doing since the entry into force of Law 8343.

For the foregoing reasons, the Tribunal concludes that in the application of the tax to Motel Cascada Azul, IMAS has not acted in a manner distinct from the application of tax law; therefore, the defect of violating the legal reservation (reserva de ley) and the principle of tax legality (principio de legalidad tributaria) that constitutionally must govern this matter has not occurred.

• 3)Competence of IMAS in the administration of the tax. The tax on motels has been governed by various legal provisions. First, it was stipulated by Law N° 5554, of August 20, 1974, and Article 1 of Law N° 6790, of October 14, 1982, which provided that a tax be 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. Forming part of this classification are establishments that, even if they have lodging registrations, carry out activities that, in the judgment of the authorities, fall within the description already made. The qualification and authorization required for the operation of these businesses shall be issued by the indicated Ministry, in common agreement with IMAS. Subsequently, the Fiscal Contingency Law, number 8343 of December 18, 2002, entered into force, which, in its articles 61 to 70, Chapter VI, stipulated the present tax, repealing in its Article 70 Law 5554 and the first numeral of Law 6790, which contained it. Consequently, everything concerning this tax must be governed entirely by it, governing matters related to this chapter from its publication on December 27, 2002. According to the articles of Law 8343 of December 18, 2002, it is observed that in article 61, the aforementioned tax is created in favor of the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, the withholding agent (agente retenedor) of which shall be the businesses qualified and authorized by said Institute, such as motels, unregistered hotels, occasional lodging houses, massage parlors, "night clubs" with room service, and similar establishments. Similarly, IMAS is empowered to classify the establishments into three categories, according to the number of rooms and the quality of the complementary services they offer, and may include in these categories establishments that, even if they have lodging registrations, carry out activities that, in its judgment, may be included in the aforementioned qualification. Likewise, it was provided that to operate these businesses, they must first register and be qualified by IMAS. Article 62 ibid indicates that the rate shall be thirty percent of the price established each time each room is used, with a minimum payment amount equivalent to one daily use for the same, except in the case of businesses that, due to their characteristics, are classified in category C, which shall pay a fixed monthly fee. Regarding the payment period, the tax shall be paid monthly, based on thirty-day months, and according to the number of rooms in each establishment. Payment must be deposited in the first week of each month, at IMAS or at the bank it designates, under penalty of a fine. Hence, it is possible to conclude that with the entry into force of Law 8343, the functions formerly exercised by the Ministry of Governance were transferred to IMAS, the entity responsible, in its capacity as Tax Administration, for the qualification, authorization, registration, verification, control, determination, and oversight (fiscalización) of the taxable persons (sujetos pasivos). In virtue of this, they must declare monthly to it the number of rooms they have, without prejudice to the verification of that number by the inspectors of said entity. However, this does not authorize the withholding agents of this tax to fail to comply with their obligations for lack of the indicated authorization and qualification, which cannot be presumed abrogated or eliminated, meaning the tax obligations subsist and must be obeyed as long as the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax is configured and maintained. Upon Law 8343 taking effect, IMAS is constituted as the Tax Administration with exclusivity regarding the tax on motels. It must be understood that for tax purposes and payment of the tax, businesses that have been operating and exercising their commercial activity under the previous regulations must continue to comply with their tax obligations regardless of whether IMAS has authorized and classified them or not, without prejudice to such entity classifying or reviewing the authorization criteria at the moment it deems appropriate. Consequently, the arguments of the plaintiff are unfounded, especially because it seeks to exempt itself from the withholding of this tax by arguing that IMAS has not issued the regulatory authorization and that the obligation will arise from it. This is valid only for businesses that begin their activity and operations for the first time after the entry into force of this law, which in any case may not operate if they do not have authorization and qualification. However, this would not be applicable to establishments already constituted and authorized under Laws 5554 and 6790, as is the business object of this process. In virtue of this, the Tax Administration is correct in its arguments contained in the administrative resolutions cited above that denied the plaintiff's claims, for whom the taxpayer (contribuyente) withholding the tax is duly authorized and registered to operate long before the entry into force of the Fiscal Contingency Law, which it has indeed been doing since the entry into force of Law 8343." Thus, in this case, the Court does not find that the application of the Manual to regulate the application of categories and classification of motel and similar establishments subject to the tax in question gives rise to the defect of nullity alleged by the plaintiff, nor does the challenged provision prove to be a norm devoid of the rationality and reasonableness required for the application of this type of disposition, which taxpayers often perceive as true burdens. For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that in the application of the tax to the Motel Cascada Azul, the IMAS has not acted in any manner other than the application of the tax law, and the defect of transgression of the reservation of law and the principle of tax legality that constitutionally govern this matter has not occurred.
• 3)Competence of the IMAS in the administration of the tax. The tax on motels has been governed by various legal provisions. It was first stipulated by Ley Nº 5554, of August 20, 1974, and Article 1 of Ley Nº 6790, of October 14, 1982, which provided that a tax is 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. Included in this classification are establishments that, even if they have lodging registries, carry out activities that, in the judgment of the authorities, fall within the description already given. The qualification and authorization required for the operation of these businesses shall be issued by the indicated Ministry, in agreement with the IMAS. Subsequently, the Tax Contingency Law number 8343 of December 18, 2002, entered into force, which in its articles 61 to 70, Chapter VI, stipulated this tax, repealing in its Article 70 Ley 5554 and the first article of Ley 6790, which contained it. Consequently, matters concerning the tax must be governed entirely by it, with the provisions of this chapter being in force as of its publication on December 27, 2002. According to the articles of Ley 8343 of December 18, 2002, it is observed that its Article 61 creates the referred tax in favor of the Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, the withholding agent (agente retenedor) of which shall be the businesses qualified and authorized by said Institute, such as motels, unregistered hotels, occasional lodging houses, massage parlors, "night clubs" with room service, and similar establishments. Likewise, the IMAS is empowered to classify the establishments into three categories, according to the number of rooms and the quality of the complementary services they offer, and may include in these categories establishments that, even if they have a lodging registry, carry out activities that, in its judgment, may be included in the aforementioned classification. Likewise, it was provided that in order to operate these businesses, they must first register and be classified by the IMAS. Article 62 ibidem indicates that the rate shall be thirty percent of the value set for each use of each room, without paying an amount less than the equivalent of one daily use per room, except in the case of businesses that, due to their characteristics, are classified in category C, which shall pay a fixed monthly fee. Regarding the payment period, they shall be paid monthly, based on thirty-day months, and according to the number of rooms of each establishment, and must be deposited in the first week of each month, at the IMAS or at the bank it designates, under penalty of a fine. Hence, it is possible to conclude that with the entry into force of Ley 8343, the functions formerly exercised by the Ministry of Governance were transferred to the IMAS, an entity which, in its capacity as Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), is responsible for the qualification, authorization, registration, verification, control, determination, and audit of the taxable persons (sujetos pasivos). By virtue of this, they must declare monthly to it the number of rooms they have, without prejudice to the verification of that number carried out by the inspectors of said entity, but without this empowering the withholding agents of this tax to fail to comply with their obligations for not having the indicated authorization and classification, which cannot be presumed abrogated or eliminated. Therefore, the tax obligations subsist, a duty they must obey as long as the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax is configured and maintained. Upon the coming into force of Ley 8343, the IMAS is constituted as the Tax Administration exclusively with respect to the tax on motels. It must be understood that for tax and payment purposes, businesses that have been operating and carrying out their commercial activity under the previous regulations must continue to comply with their tax obligations regardless of whether the IMAS has authorized and classified them or not, without prejudice to that entity classifying or reviewing the authorization criteria at the time it deems appropriate. Consequently, the plaintiff's arguments are unfounded, especially because it seeks to exempt itself from the withholding of this tax, arguing that the IMAS has not issued the regulatory authorization and that the obligation is generated only from that point forward. This is valid only for businesses starting their activity and operations for the first time after the entry into force of this law, which in any case may not operate if they do not have authorization and classification. However, this would not be applicable to establishments already constituted and authorized under Leyes 5554 and 6790, as is the business subject to this proceeding. By virtue of this, the Tax Administration is correct in its arguments set forth in the aforementioned administrative resolutions that denied the plaintiff's claims, for whom the taxpayer withholding the tax is duly authorized and registered to operate, well before the entry into force of the Tax Contingency Law, which it has indeed been doing since the entry into force of Ley 8343.”

“ SEXTO: CRITERIO DEL TRIBUNAL: FONDO DEL ASUNTO. 1) Objeto del proceso. Con la presente demanda tributaria, la parte actora no formula peticiones resarcitorias, reparadoras o restitutorias de sus derechos o de alguna situación jurídica que pudiere considerar quebrantada, sino solamente pretensiones anulatorias en contra de las concretas actuaciones del IMAS en el ejercicio de la potestad tributaria, mediante las cuales, dicha entidad ha formulado la acción de cobro del tributo a los moteles y similares establecimientos establecido mediante el Artículo 61 de la Ley de Contingencia Fiscal (véase supra el acápite de hechos no demostrados de esta misma resolución). Las actuación del IMAS es la resolución determinativa de la obligación tributaria, vertida el 21 de marzo del 2007, la cual, -por haberlo así peticionado la parte actora-, tendría que ser anulada, si tal fuera la decisión de este Tribunal, y por lógica consecuencia, también la resolución administrativa emitida por la Gerencia General del IMAS, de las 12:40 horas del día 26 de septiembre del 2007, mediante la cual aquélla Administración resuelve declarar sin lugar el recurso de apelación presentado en contra de la mecionada actuación determinativa del tributo, por la sociedad Cabinas Cascada Azul, en su condición de propietaria del establecimiento llamado Motel Cabinas Cascada Azul (copia de los cuales está agregada a folios del 4 al 14 del principal).

• 2)Sobre la reserva de ley en materia tributaria -traída al caso concreto-. El significado jurídico elemental -si se quiere- del instituto de la reserva de ley implica que no pueden crearse normas tributarias o disposiciones que sometan al ciudadano el pago de tributos, sino no es mediante una norma jurídica que tenga rango de ley de la República que debe ser dispuesta precisamente por los órganos constitucionalmente habilitados para emitir ese tipo de leyes (artículo 121 inciso 13 de la Constitución Política). Examinando el punto traído a esta litis, es claro que el impuesto que consiste en el pago de un 30% de la tarifa señalada para cada habitación en establecimientos catalogados como moteles y afines para citas íntimas, fue creado mediante la ley Nº 5554 del 20 de Agosto de 1974 y sus reformas (hoy derogada), cuyo Artículo primero lo disponía de la siguiente manera:

"Artículo 1º.- Créase un impuesto, a favor del 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, casa 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 la 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 podrán estar ubicados en un radio de quinientos metros de un centro educativo, oficialmente reconocido por el Estado." Esa misma normativa dispone los elementos descriptivos de la estructura del impuesto, tales como la tarifa, período, cálculo, forma de pago, sujeto activo y pasivo de la obligación, así como, una clara conminación a cumplir con el pago del mismo y las consecuencias jurídicas (como la multa) para el caso en que éste se incumpla. La norma que se aplicó a la empresa actora, es la disposición contenida en el Artículo 61 de la Ley de Contingencia Fiscal, Nº 8343 emitida el 18 de diciembre del 2002, publicada en La Gaceta Nº 250 del 27 de diciembre del 2002, que literalmente dispone:

"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." Mediante el Artículo 70 de la recién citada Ley de Contingencia Fiscal, fue derogada la Ley Nº 5554 del 20 de Agosto de 1974, misma que -como recién se indica- creó este impuesto. Del análisis de las restantes disposiciones que contiene la Ley de Contingencia Fiscal, resulta evidente que el legislador dispuso en los Artículos 62 al 69 y Artículo Transitorio I y el Artículo 89, la descripción de los elementos configurativos del tributo, en cuanto a su estructura, tarifa, sujetos activo y pasivo, agente retenedor, periodicidad, forma de cálculo, pago, consecuencias del incumplimiento y vigencia de la normativa, los cuales integralmente aplicados, permiten concebir la aplicación del tributo prácticamente desde su promulgación (Artículo 89), mismos que por innecesario no se transcriben en esta sentencia. Para el Tribunal está claro que el legislador de la Ley de Contingencia Fiscal dispuso no un tributo nuevo sino una modificación del que ya había sido creado en la ley Nº 5554 del 20 de Agosto de 1974, aunque por técnica legislativa no le dió a la nueva ley esa denominación, de tal manera que en el plano estrictamente normativo, tan sólo se produjo una versión más reciente de una normativa que ya había tipificado del tributo en cuestión; pero no se produjo de ninguna manera la creación de un nuevo impuesto.

Respecto al uso de un Manual para establecer la categorización de las clases de establecimientos cubiertos por la obligación tributaria, contra el cual se dirige la acción de la parte actora, este Tribunal encuentra que la disposición cuestionada no entraña el vicio de nulidad que se le atribuye, no sólo por existir una delegación expresa del legislador hacia el IMAS en el texto mismo de la Ley, en cuanto que a dicha entidad corresponde la categorización y clasificación de los establecimientos objeto del tributo, sino porque en su contenido propio, no se produce transgresión alguna al ordenamiento jurídico. Ahora bien, tratando de puntualizar la queja sustantiva de la parte actora, que en todo momento hecha de menos la falta de un decreto con rango de reglamento ejecutivo para regular dicha clasificación, el criterio de este Tribunal es que no le asiste la razón a la actora, ya que el IMAS está facultado por ley para emitir la reglamentación que considere pertinente con miras a la aplicación del tributo, y sobremanera, porque ello propende al cumplimiento de sus objetivos, al estar dotado de personería jurídica propia de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el Artículo 1 de su Ley de Creación, Nº 4760 del 4 de mayo de 1971, y ese tipo de reglamentación es propia de su régimen jurídico al gozar de personería jurídica en el cumplimiento de fines estrictamente públicos como los descritos en dicho cuerpo normativo, como en efecto lo es resolver el problema de la pobreza extrema en el país (Artículo 2). De tal manera que en la especie, no encuentra el Tribunal que con la aplicación del Manual para regular la aplicación de categorias y clasificación de los establecimientos de motel y afines sujetos al tributo en mención, surja el vicio de nulidad que alega la parte actora, así como no resulta la cuestionada una norma desprovista de la racionalidad y razonabilidad requeridas para la aplicación de este tipo de disposiciones que suelen ser percibidos como verdaderos gravamenes por los contribuyentes. Por lo expuesto el Tribunal concluye que en la aplicación del tributo al Motel Cascada Azul, el IMAS no ha hecho actuación distinta de la aplicación de la ley tributaria, no ocurriendo el vicio de transgresión a la reserva de ley y principio de legalidad tributaria que constitucionalmente han de regir esta materia.

• 3)Competencia del IMAS en la administración del tributo El impuesto a los moteles se ha regido por diversas normas jurídicas, primeramente lo estipuló la Ley Nº 5554, de 20 de agosto de 1974, y el artículo 1 de la Ley Nº 6790, de 14 de octubre de 1982, disponiéndose al respecto que se crea un impuesto, a favor del 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. Formando 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 la descripción ya hecha. La calificación y autorización requeridas para la operación de estos negocios las dictará el Ministerio indicado, de común acuerdo con el IMAS. Posteriormente, entró en vigencia la Ley de Contingencia fiscal número 8343 del 18 de diciembre del 2002, misma que es sus ordinales 61 a 70, capítulo VI, estipuló el presente tributo, derogando en su artículo 70 la Ley 5554 y el numeral primero de la ley 6790, que lo contenía, en razón de lo cual lo concerniente al mismo se debe regir enteramente por ella, rigiendo en lo atinente a este capítulo a partir de su publicación el 27 de diciembre del 2002. Al tenor del articulado de la ley 8343 del 18 de diciembre del 2002, se observa que en su ordinal 61 se crea a favor del Instituto Mixto de Ayuda Social, el referido tributo, cuyo agente retenedor serán los negocios calificados y autorizados por tal Instituto, como moteles, hoteles sin registro, casas de alojamiento ocasional, salas de masaje, "night clubs" con servicio de habitación y similares y de igual forma 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, pudiendo incluir en las mismas los establecimientos que, aun cuando tengan registro de hospedaje, lleven a cabo actividades que a su juicio puedan incluirse en la calificación antes mencionada. De igual forma, se dispuso que para operar esos negocios, de previo deberán inscribirse y ser calificados por el IMAS. Indica el ordinal 62 ibídem, que la tarifa será de un treinta por ciento del valor fijado cada vez que se use cada habitación; sin que se pague un monto menor al equivalente a un uso diario por la misma, excepto en el caso de los negocios que, por sus características, sean calificados en la categoría C, las cuales pagarán una cuota mensual fija. Sobre el período de cancelación, se erogarán mensualmente, con base en meses de treinta días, y de acuerdo con el número de habitaciones de cada establecimiento, debiendo depositarse en la primera semana de cada mes, en el IMAS o en el banco que este designe, bajo pena de multa. De allí que, sea dable concluir que con la entrada en vigencia de la Ley 8343, las funciones que otrora ejercía el Ministerio de Gobernación, le fueron trasladadas al IMAS, entidad a la cual le compete en su condición de Administración Tributaria, la calificación, autorización, inscripción, verificación, control, determinación y fiscalización de los sujetos pasivos, en mérito de lo cual deberán declarar mensualmente ante ella el número de habitaciones con que cuentan, sin perjuicio de la verificación que de ese número efectúen los inspectores de dicha entidad, pero sin que ello faculte a los agentes retenedores de este tributo a no cumplir con sus obligaciones por no contar con la autorización y calificación indicada, que no puede presumirse abrogada o eliminada, por lo que subsisten las obligaciones fiscales, deber que deberán obedecer en tanto y cuanto se configure y mantenga el hecho generador del impuesto. Al entrar a regir la Ley 8343, el IMAS se constituye en Administración Tributaria con exclusividad respecto al impuesto a los moteles. Debe entenderse que para efectos tributarios y de cancelación del impuesto, los negocios que hayan venido funcionando y ejerciendo su actividad comercial al amparo de la anterior normativa deberán seguir cumpliendo con sus obligaciones tributarias independientemente de que el IMAS los haya autorizado y clasificado o no, sin perjuicio de que tal entidad clasifique o revise los criterios de autorización en el momento que lo considere oportuno. Por consiguiente, las argumentaciones de la actora resultan infundadas, sobretodo porque pretende eximirse de la retención de este tributo, aduciendo que el IMAS no ha emitido la autorización reglamentaria y que es a partir de ella que se generará la obligación, lo cual es válido únicamente para los negocios que inicien por primera vez su actividad y operaciones a partir de la entrada en vigencia de esta ley, los que en todo caso no podrán operar si no cuentan con autorización y calificación, pero esto no sería aplicable para los establecimientos ya constituidos y autorizados al amparo de las Leyes 5554 y 6790, como los es el negocio objeto de este proceso. En virtud de ello, lleva razón la Administración Tributaria en su argumentaciones que rolan en las resoluciones administrativas supracitadas que denegaron las reclamaciones de la actora, para quién la contribuyente retenedora del tributo se encuentra debidamente autorizada e inscrita para poder operar, con mucha antelación a la entrada en vigencia de la Ley de Contingencia Fiscal, lo cual efectivamente ha venido realizando desde la entrada en vigencia de la ley 8343.”