Withholding agent liability for wrongful withholding from tax-exempt fundResponsabilidad del agente de retención por retenciones indebidas a fondo exento

III.- ON THE PRINCIPLE OF TAX LEGALITY. THE PURPOSE OF RULES THAT PROVIDE FOR EXEMPTIONS. THE INTERPRETATION OF TAX RULES, ESPECIALLY THOSE CONCERNING EXEMPTIONS.

On this matter, the First Division (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice, in judgment number 000399-F-2006 of ten hours forty minutes on June twenty-eighth, two thousand six, has considered:

“…III.- Principle of tax legality. (…) Taxes and their exceptions are covered by the principle of legislative reserve (principio de reserva de ley), according to which, their creation, modification, and extinction correspond to the legislator. This principle is called 'tax legality' (legalidad tributaria). At the constitutional level, it finds its basis in the letter of numeral 121, subsection 13 of the Magna Carta, which assigns to the Legislative Assembly the exclusive power to 'establish national taxes and contributions, and authorize municipal ones.' Said norm has been subject to legal development to clearly and precisely establish the scope and coverage of the cited postulate. Thus, Article 5 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) clearly provides: 'In tax matters, only the law may: a) Create, modify, or abolish taxes; define the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax relationship; establish the tax rates and their bases of calculation; and indicate the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo); b) Grant exemptions, reductions, or benefits; (...)' A precept that is in full harmony with canon 124 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública), as it provides: 'Regulations, circulars, instructions, and other administrative provisions of a general nature may not establish penalties nor impose exactions, fees, fines, or other similar charges.' For its part, numeral 4 ibidem defines the tax as the payments in money, whether taxes (impuestos), fees (tasas), or special contributions (contribuciones especiales), that the State, in the exercise of its sovereign power, demands for the purpose of obtaining resources to fulfill its aims. The characteristics of each of these types are developed by that same precept. This Division, moreover, in various pronouncements, supported by provisions 5 and 6 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code, has been emphatic in respecting the principle of tax legality. For this reason, the impossibility of creating taxes or exemptions by means other than express law has been highlighted (among others, no. 5 of 15 hours 30 minutes on January 5, 2000). This postulate therefore implies not only the unity of the tax system in general, but also legal security and certainty (seguridad y certeza jurídica) in tax matters, as the taxpayer can anticipate and know with due advance and sufficient precision, the scope and content of the tax obligations, which is relevant to knowing the regime of subjection, chargeable event, basis of calculation, rate, among other elements of the levy. It should be specified that it also infers a material scope, within which the components of the tax that necessarily must be created by express law are established. These are the essential and determining components of the tax, which necessarily must be established by the legislator. These elements include, undeniably, the taxable event, the taxpayer, the tax base, the tax rate, as well as the collection period, depending on whether it is progressive or instantaneous. The intervention of the law, therefore, is imperative in all those points that affect the rights and guarantees of the individual vis-à-vis the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria). Merely procedural components, such as collection mechanisms, processing, among others, escape its rigor. However, regarding the rate, the Constitutional Court has established the possibility of legislative delegation, of course, through a law that establishes in advance the limits within which this exercise may be carried out. This is the case of the selective consumption tax. Hence, the referred legislative reserve can be qualified as 'relative' (relativa), as said Division has ratified in several of its pronouncements, among others in resolutions nos. 8271-2001, 8580-2001, and 5504-2002. Within this conception, exemptions and tax benefits in general must equally be created by law, in which the factual situation (supuesto de hecho) or the taxable event of the fiscal benefit must be incorporated for applicative clarity. In this direction, the initial paragraph of ordinal 62 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code provides: 'The law that contemplates exemptions must specify the conditions and requirements set for granting them, the beneficiaries, the goods, the taxes it comprises, whether it is total or partial, the term of its duration, and whether at the end or during said period the goods can be released or whether the taxes must be settled, or whether transfer to third parties can be authorized and under what conditions.' IV.- Purpose of the rules that provide for exemptions. The tax exemption (exención tributaria) takes place when a rule contemplates that in certain expressly provided situations, despite the occurrence of the taxable event, the obligation of the taxpayer to pay the tax obligation does not arise. It is part of the so-called 'tax benefits' (beneficios fiscales), which usually respond to an extra-fiscal purpose, or to stimulate certain activities. On many occasions, these benefits are based on the logic of the principle of economic capacity, or on other reasons that motivate the legislator's decision. In this sense, within tax doctrine, they are constituted, and thus must be considered, as mechanisms and tools characteristic of the tax environment. They constitute avenues that, in essence, seek and allow, through strategic (which may be temporary) conditions, the promotion, development, or advancement of a specific economic sector, of certain areas of activity, social contexts, or the equalization of economic conditions to foster a state of equality in the distribution of the tax burden, in the short, medium, or long term. On occasions, they simply seek to prevent the tax system from becoming confiscatory. Hence, they become unviable when their purpose is an unjustified benefit, incompatible with their para-fiscal purpose, or depart from reasonable criteria and the value system of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política). Seen this way, their creation is not incompatible with the principles of equality, generality, and the duty to contribute to public burdens that derives from numeral 18 of the Political Constitution, but rather they are elements that complement each other to achieve, in principle, a balance and stability in the fiscal situation of the country in its integral dimension. That is, in essence, they seek the fulfillment of those postulates, through actions oriented to constitute a system vested with conditions of equity in terms of economic capacity and development. Therefore, in its new composition, this Division considers that contrary to the criterion held until now in this field, they do not constitute, stricto sensu, exceptions to the duty to contribute, but rather parts of a system that provide for the exemption from the payment of tax, or other benefits, which, integrally considered, seek to improve, in a global sense, the tax system in quantitative and qualitative terms. The foregoing through the total or partial release from the payment of the tax or the reduction of its calculation basis; ergo, they may fall upon the tax obligation in its entirety, or upon the exclusion of some components from that basis. Given these particularities, their handling must be careful and cautious, since their arbitrary application can cause harm to the principles of generality and equality, disrupting their own purpose.

V.- Interpretation of tax rules and exemptions. Purpose. The hermeneutical work of the rules regulating tax relations must be carried out within the channels of the rules of legal interpretation, common to all branches of law, resorting to its various methods, in order to specify the scope and particularities of a given mandate, so that the hypothetical formulation, applied in daily practice, fulfills its intrinsic purpose and the aim the legislator has provided for its issuance. In this sense, numeral 6 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code establishes: 'Tax rules shall be interpreted in accordance with all methods admitted by Common Law. / Analogy is an admissible procedure to fill legal gaps but by virtue of it, taxes or exemptions cannot be created.' In this work, in tune with the principle of constitutional equality, it is clear that the interpreter must weigh the various variables that converge in each situation, among them, the nature of the provision, ensuring that its use, in the form and scope it establishes, is equal for all similar cases and avoiding a material application that undermines the very purpose of its content. The exegesis of tax rules cannot be restrictive. Tax is distinguished by its coercive nature, as it emanates from the exercise of Public Power, which through this means, imposes, under the protection of the Constitution, economic levies on taxpayers. But it is also identified by its contributive character as its purpose is to collaborate with public burdens, in order to provide the State with the adequate resources that allow it to deploy its functional and service-providing framework for the benefit of the collectivity. This of course does not exclude that in certain cases, this type of burden is created with a different objective, as would be the case of the criterion of para-fiscality. From this perspective, tax rules cannot be considered exceptional or limiting of the rights of individuals, given that this character would lead to their application, and therefore their interpretation, being equally restrictive. Nor is that interpretive form correct within the context of provisions that establish exemptions or tax benefits. This Division, to date, had held the thesis that, in accordance with the provisions of the referred Code and the legal regime specific to exemptions, their interpretation must be restrictive, because from the context of numerals 5, 6 in relation to the cited ordinal 62, all of that legal body, the protection of the principle of legality in matters of exemptions is inferred, through the impossibility of broadly interpreting the rules referring to them. In this sense among many, judgment no. 162, of 15 hours 22 minutes on September 25, 1991, no. 93 of 15 hours 30 minutes on August 28, 1996, no. 86 of 15 hours on August 19, 1998, and no. 318 of 9 hours on May 19, 2004. However, with its new composition, and after a profound reflection on the point, it arrives at a criterion different from the one referred to. The nature and object of the rules of the type alluded to, in the terms already stated, as well as their legal regime, do not imply nor justify that they must be interpreted with a different prism than that of other tax provisions, that is, with special criteria, because ultimately, it is reiterated, they are all components of the same system that seeks, in its teleological dimension, equity in the tax burden. For this, it is necessary, in some cases, to implement rules that, at their core, seek the fulfillment of the various principles with which the constitution-maker has vested the fiscal system. As stated, it is frequent that tax benefits respond to economic capacity, or to extra-fiscal criteria, which can equally be present in other components of the tax. A restrictive interpretation in this matter would suppose that this type of benefit is exceptional, being only applicable when the law so provides. However, the principle of tax legality to which they are subject, cannot be constituted as a valid condition that justifies a special (restrictive) interpretation, but must be weighed in its correct dimension, that is, they can only be created by legal means, their source of origin must meet the conditions indicated in numeral 62 of the cited Code, and they only produce effects if the event pre-established for their occurrence happens. Therefore, tax legality seen this way, is not a justification for a restrictive consideration of fiscal benefits (gracias fiscales). It should be clarified, however, that rules of this type are what are known as mandates with an exclusive factual situation (supuesto de hecho exclusivo), which, in tune with the provisions of Articles 6 and 62 mentioned, prevent their analogical application, which is a situation distinct from their interpretation itself. In this context, just as taxes are subject to a principle of legal reserve, so too are exemptions and benefits, in whose source of creation, the basic elements that delimit it must be enunciated. Within this approach then, rules containing regulations of the referred type, must be weighed without subjection to any special or specific criterion. In this task, it must be remembered that the transcribed norm establishes in its final paragraph an objective limit to this exegetical work, which is the impossibility of creating taxes or exemptions via analogy, a mechanism that while useful for filling legal gaps, cannot substitute, in these terms, the role of the legislator by virtue of the principle of legal reserve. Seen this way, the field of creating levies and tax benefits is forbidden by this means, being therefore figures that must be created by a formal legislative manifestation, in the terms already clearly stated beforehand. Now, this last characteristic alluded to supposes that exemptions and tax benefits can only be granted if the concrete event invoked corresponds to the factual scenario of the authorizing norm and its granting is feasible according to the parameter set by the legislator in the source of its creation. Therefore, when the norm imposes clearly and indubitably concrete conditions for the enjoyment or reception of the benevolent effects of the fiscal regime, in its application these parameters cannot be evaded as they are an inexorable part of the conditioning event that the legal system has set. Seen this way, the conditioned effect will occur, when those factual scenarios stipulated in the mandate have been satisfied. Thus, the judge must analyze in each case, with due care, whether the factual situation proposed by the taxpayer fits and coincides with the exempt event (hecho exento) provided by the norm that establishes the benefit, within its material content. In this confrontation, in principle, it is inappropriate to extend the effects of the norm to extremes that it does not contemplate, nor that derive from its content, just as analogical practices are equally unviable by mandate of law in this type of situation, because the risk arises of incorporating within the exempt event, scenarios that the law does not contemplate, which would violate the aforementioned principle of legal reserve that prevails in these fields (…) (the underlining is not from the original).

IV.- EXEMPTION OF ARTICLE 241 OF THE ORGANIC LAW OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH (Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial).

In consonance with the analysis made by the First Division of the Supreme Court of Justice regarding the principle of tax legality and the regime of exemptions, it can be affirmed that exemption consists of the elimination of the creation of the tax obligation. So that for certain cases established by law, the economic legal consequences inherent to the tax norm are not produced, as defined by numeral 61 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code, it is a legal release (dispensa legal) from the tax obligation. So that in the face of the existence of a tax obligation established by law, it is the law itself that can exempt a specific situation or a specific taxpayer from the collection of the tax. Although the taxable event of the tax occurs, the obligation to pay the tax on the part of the taxpayer does not arise. The establishment of exemptions is a matter reserved to law, in this sense the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch, in its Article 241 establishes an exemption from taxes and fees for the Pension and Retirement Fund of the Judicial Branch (Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial) by stating: "The operations executed with resources coming from the Fund shall be exempt from all types of taxes and fees." An exemption that is of a general nature, as it refers to all types of taxes, without distinguishing the nature of the tax, the only condition or restriction that the norm establishes for the operations to be exempt is that they come from resources of the same Fund. In this sense, it must be clear that the exemption is for all types of operations (whether investments in securities, macro-securities (macrotítulos) with or without coupons), since the law does not give a different treatment based on the nature of the investment; note that the norm establishes "the operations that are executed..." Thus, any withholding (retención) made on monies coming from this Fund turns out to be an undue and illegal withholding insofar as it is done in clear contravention of what the norm in question provides. In the same sense, numeral 3 subsection a) of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) pronounces by excluding from this tax the State and other institutions that by special law enjoy such exemption; such is the case of the Pension and Retirement Fund of the Judicial Branch.

V.- ON THE CONDITION OF THE CENTRAL BANK OF COSTA RICA (BANCO CENTRAL DE COSTA RICA) AS A WITHHOLDING AND COLLECTION AGENT. ITS RESPONSIBILITY.

In accordance with numerals 100 and 101 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica (Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica): "The Central Bank shall be responsible for the collection of all public revenues under the terms and conditions determined in the contract that for such purpose it shall conclude with the Government of the Republic." In the same sense, Article 23 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code provides that persons designated by law, who by their public functions or by reason of their activity, trade, or profession, intervene in acts or operations in which they must make the withholding or collection of the corresponding tax, are withholding or collection agents. In the case under analysis, it has been duly accredited and is an uncontested fact that the Pension and Retirement Fund of the Judicial Branch invested in securities issued by the Central Bank and that it has been the latter, in its capacity as withholding agent (agente retenedor), which withheld 8% of income tax on the interest generated by the invested amounts. A withholding that should not have been made due to the general exemption (from all types of taxes and fees) provided by the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch for operations carried out with resources coming from said Fund. So the 8% withholdings made by the Central Bank of Costa Rica as withholding agent on the interest generated by the sums invested by the Pension and Retirement Fund of the Judicial Branch, constitute undue payments by virtue of said Fund being exempt by express legal norm from said obligation and therefore the withholding agent lacks a legal norm authorizing it to carry it out. Now, for the purposes of what is discussed in this process, it is of interest to establish what the responsibility of the withholding and collection agent is, and in this sense Article 24 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code establishes: "Once the withholding or collection of the tax has been made, the agent is the sole person responsible before the Treasury for the amount withheld or collected; and if it does not make the withholding or collection, it is jointly and severally liable, unless it proves before the Tax Administration that the taxpayer has paid the tax. If the agent, in fulfillment of this joint and several liability, satisfies the tax, it may recover from the taxpayer the amount paid to the Treasury. The agent is responsible before the taxpayer for withholdings made without legal or regulatory norms that authorize them; and in such case the taxpayer may recover from the agent the sums unduly withheld." According to what this norm indicates, the withholding and collection agent possesses a double responsibility: before the Treasury and before the taxpayer. Before the Treasury, it responds personally and directly for the amount that it may have withheld or collected, and jointly and severally if it does not make the withholding or collection, unless it demonstrates before the Tax Administration that the taxpayer has paid the tax; if, on the contrary, the agent pays the tax, it may recover from the taxpayer the amount that it may have satisfied to the Treasury. Before the taxpayer, the withholding and collection agent is also responsible, for those withholdings made without legal basis, that is, undue withholdings, amounts regarding which, according to the transcribed numeral, the taxpayer has a credit right in its favor and may exercise the right of recovery against the withholding agent. Thus, it is clear to this Chamber that the person responsible before the Pension and Retirement Fund of the Judicial Branch for the income tax withholdings made on the interest generated by the invested amounts, given that there is an express norm establishing the exemption from all types of taxes and fees for operations carried out with resources coming from said Fund, is according to the Tax Rules and Procedures Code, Law 4755, in force since May 3, 1971, the withholding and collection agent, a condition that in this instance, the Central Bank of Costa Rica holds.

VI.- ON RESOLUTION N° DGT-20-2006 OF AUGUST 28, 2006.

In accordance with numeral 99 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code, the Tax Administration may issue general norms for the correct application of tax laws, within the limits set by the pertinent legal and regulatory provisions. This norm is clear in the sense that the resolutions that are issued shall be for a correct application of the tax laws. From this perspective, the procedures established in those general provisions must be oriented and guided by what is provided in the tax legal rules. Within a correct legal hermeneutics, procedures could not be established that distort what is provided by the tax rules. Thus, and with respect to Article 24 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code, it is evident and there is no room for doubt that the legislator expressly established that the withholding and collection agent is the person responsible before the taxpayer for the withholdings made unduly and that the latter has the right to recover those amounts from the withholding agent. So the procedure, the requirements, and formalities to proceed with the refund of the unduly withheld amounts, bind only whoever issues the directives and the entities subject to such guidelines, since it is not these provisions that establish the condition of withholding agent and responsible person before the taxpayer, but the law. In this sense, Resolution DGT-20-2006, what it changed was the mechanism or procedure for the refund of amounts unduly withheld by the withholding agent. Particularly, in the case of the Pension and Retirement Fund of the Judicial Branch, such withholding is undue given its impropriety, as there exists an express norm establishing the exemption from all types of taxes for the operations carried out with resources coming from said Fund. Regarding the effective date of the cited resolution and its eventual retroactive application, it is of no interest for the purposes of determining to whom the obligation to refund the unduly withheld amounts corresponds, since the indicated resolution is a provision of a general nature that comes to regulate the correct application of the law, it does not modify it; therefore, it could not alter what is provided by the Tax Rules and Procedures Code regarding the responsibility of the withholding and collection agent, in this case of the Central Bank of Costa Rica, as obligated to the refund of the unduly withheld amounts; being the person responsible for such withholdings according to numeral 24, already mentioned many times, a norm that has been in force since nineteen seventy-one. Consequently, the variations introduced by resolution DGT-20-2006, refer solely to the mechanisms or procedures to follow for such undue refunds; on the understanding that the withholding and collection agent is the person responsible before the taxpayer for the withholdings made in an undue manner, a condition established in the law (Tax Rules and Procedures Code) that has not changed to date.

VII.- ON THE REFUND OF THE AMOUNTS UNDULY WITHHELD FOR INCOME TAX AND THE INTEREST THEREON.

Just as it has been accredited through the facts that have been taken as proven, the refund of the amounts withheld for income tax as well as the interest thereon have been requested in a timely and permanent manner both by the Financial Accounting Department of the Judicial Branch (Departamento Financiero Contable del Poder Judicial) and by the President of the Supreme Court of Justice; directly before the Treasury Department of the Central Bank of Costa Rica, said entity showing an initial refusal to make the refund of the sums, indicating that it could not proceed with the reimbursement of sums that had already been deposited in the State coffers and, to that extent, suggests the corresponding claim be formulated before the Tax Administration. For its part, the Tax Administration indicates that the procedure for the refund of unduly withheld sums is established in Resolution DGT-20-2006, and that the one who must carry it out is the withholding agent, according to what is established by numeral 24 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code; which is reiterated on more than one occasion by said Administration to the Central Bank of Costa Rica, due to the clarity of the norm that obligates the Bank as a withholding and collection agent to be liable before the taxpayer for the amounts withheld in an undue manner, and as already indicated in preceding considerations, it is evident that this is an undue withholding insofar as the investments made with monies coming from the Pension and Retirement Fund of the Judicial Branch are exempt from all kinds of taxes and fees by express legal provision (Article 241 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch, in the same sense Article 3 subsection a) of the Income Tax Law). So the reimbursement of what was collected for income tax is a legal obligation to be fulfilled by whoever made the respective withholding, in the present case the withholding agent was the Central Bank of Costa Rica, who erroneously believed it was making the withholding on a taxpayer obligated to pay that tax, when the truth is that it was exempt from such obligation.

Therefore, it is under a legal obligation to reimburse the taxpayer for the amounts unduly withheld, an obligation not established by the Tax Administration, nor is it an interpretation of what is set forth in numeral 24 of the Tax Code of Standards and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), but rather it is what the cited rule provides in a clear, express, and exhaustive manner. It is so clear that it leaves no room for interpretation as to who must make the refund, for the rule expressly states: "The agent is liable to the taxpayer for withholdings made without legal or regulatory norms authorizing them; and in such case, the taxpayer may claim from the agent the sums unduly withheld." Despite the reluctance of the Banco Central de Costa Rica to make the refund, it subsequently agrees to do so, and it is thus how it makes the corresponding deposits of the sums unduly withheld into the account of the Judicial Branch Pension and Retirement Fund (Fondo de Pensiones y Jubilaciones del Poder Judicial), as recorded on folios 103, 104, 138, 144, 145, 149, 181, 182, 183, 184, and 201. However, it refuses to make the refunds of the corresponding interest, arguing that this is not an undue collection of taxes, but rather that there has been an operation that did not allow for the prior identification of exempt entities and that, therefore, the payment of interest is not applicable. In this regard, it must be stated, just as the Director of Collection of the Dirección General de Tributación does, that the manner in which the issuing entity, in this case the Banco Central, carries out the withholding without making any distinction, is what creates the risk of making withholdings from exempt entities, as has occurred in the case of the Judicial Branch Pension and Retirement Fund. And, the responsibility for the mechanism used to effect the withholding lies exclusively with the withholding agent (agente de retención), that is, the Banco Central de Costa Rica, which uses a highly risky system by not distinguishing between the entities from which it deducts the tax, which does not allow for establishing when exempt entities are involved. It is for this reason that the Dirección General de Tributación points out to the issuing entity that with this withholding system, the Banco Central assumes the risk that some entity from which it makes a deduction is exempt and, therefore, it must then proceed to refund the amounts unduly withheld, as well as the legally corresponding interest, since the circumstance that the issuing entity does not know the identity of the investor is the sole and exclusive responsibility of the Banco itself for establishing that withholding system, which is not only risky but also lacks transparency, given the possibility of making withholdings from exempt entities, a situation that will only become known to the withholding agent at the time the investor makes the corresponding claim, thus forcing investors to file claims each time withholdings are made, whenever there are taxpayers exempt from tax payment. So, if the withholding agent is the only party liable to the taxpayer, it is liable not only for the refunds of the sums unduly withheld but also for the interest generated by those sums, regarding the delay in their refund. This is clearly established by numeral 43 of the Tax Code of Standards and Procedures, which states: "... In the case of undue payments, the creditor shall have the right to recognition of an interest equal to that established in article 58 of this Code. Said interest shall run from the calendar day following the date of the payment made by the taxpayer." VIII.- ON THE PARTIAL NULLITY OF THE RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN OFFICIAL LETTER TESO-289 OF JUNE 13, 2008, AND RESOLUTIONS DSF-047-2010 AND DSF-556-2010.

The resolution contained in official letter TESO-289 of June 13, 2008, by which the Treasury Department of the Banco Central determined that the payment of interest was not appropriate because, in its opinion, there had been no undue collection of taxes, is partially revoked through resolution DSF-047-2010 of March 30, 2010, establishing that the recognition of interest is appropriate; however, because several institutions participate in the process, each of them must assume its responsibility. For its part, resolution DSF-556-2010 issued by the Management of the Banco Central de Costa Rica partially upholds the appeal and declares the payment of interest appropriate; however, it maintains that, due to the participation of other entities, said recognition would be circumscribed, in the case of the Banco Central, to the additional days beyond the period required by the Banco Central to effect the refund of the withholdings, which run from the moment the elements of judgment to request the exemption are actually available to the date the refund of the income tax (impuesto sobre la Renta) is made effective. And it orders the Treasury Department to make a payment of late-payment interest (intereses moratorios) in accordance with articles 43 and 58 of the Tax Code of Standards and Procedures, based on the exact days additional to the period reasonably estimated as required to carry out the various procedures, for the sum of ¢1,205,807.90.

Now then, it is clear to this Chamber that the 8% income tax withholding constitutes an undue payment by the Judicial Branch Pension and Retirement Fund, as it is exempt from paying that tax; however, it was withheld by the Banco Central de Costa Rica, in its capacity as withholding agent, as established in numeral 24 of the Tax Code of Standards and Procedures. It is by reason of what is provided in this norm that said institution is responsible for the refund of those amounts unduly withheld, and if it is responsible for the refund of those undue withholdings, it is also responsible for the interest generated by the delay in the refund. Interest that the taxpayer or investor, in this case, the Judicial Branch Pension and Retirement Fund, has the right to have recognized by the party who, through an undue withholding (Banco Central de Costa Rica acting as withholding agent), made it pay income tax, while it was exempt from such payment; so that the interest that the Pension and Retirement Fund is entitled to collect as creditor shall begin to be calculated from the calendar day following the date of the payment made by the taxpayer, as established by article 43 of the Tax Code of Standards and Procedures transcribed above. However, trying to justify the refusal to pay interest on the fact that other institutions participated in the withholding and refund procedure is to disregard what the Tax Law provides, for it is not the refund procedure and its participants that determine the party liable for the payment of refunds and their interest, but rather article 24, many times mentioned, of the Tax Code of Standards and Procedures, which provides that the withholding agent "is liable to the taxpayer for withholdings made without legal or regulatory norms authorizing them; and in such case, the taxpayer may claim from the agent the sums unduly withheld." In relation to interest, numeral 43 of the same regulatory body provides: "... In the case of undue payments, the creditor shall have the right to recognition of an interest equal to that established in article 58 of this Code. Said interest shall run from the calendar day following the date of the payment made by the taxpayer." From the foregoing, what can be deduced, on one hand, is the determination made by the Tax Law of the withholding agent as liable to the taxpayer for the undue withholdings as well as the interest generated by those undue payments. The foregoing is also clear in the sense that no entity can establish on its own motion under what assumptions it is liable, or in what cases or conditions it is liable, and the extent of that liability. The Banco Central de Costa Rica, as withholding agent, cannot arrogate powers that the law itself does not grant it, so it is prohibited from determining liability quotas, deadlines for the refund, and for the payment of interest, when there are legal or regulatory norms establishing those parameters. In its capacity as withholding and collection agent (agente de retención y percepción), it is obliged to comply with the regulations of the Tax Code of Standards and Procedures as they are set forth. This being the case, it must be reiterated that regardless of the procedures, mechanisms, or systems used by the withholding agent to effect the refund of the amounts unduly withheld for income tax, as well as their interest, the truth of the matter is that the party exclusively liable to the taxpayer is the withholding agent for those sums unduly withheld, as well as their interest. Nor can the issue of the institutions or entities involved in the refund procedure be raised against the taxpayer, or who is responsible for carrying out one procedure or another, for all of this is irrelevant in light of the clear and precise determination, in the Tax Code of Standards and Procedures, of who is liable to the taxpayer or investor for the undue withholdings, as well as the interest that arises as an inevitable consequence of the delay in refunding those sums unduly withheld. Sums that, like any obligation, generate interest upon delay in payment. This being the case, it is evident that the provisions of the resolutions whose partial nullity is requested conflict with legality by openly contravening what is provided in the tax norms, specifically articles 24, 43, and 58 of the Tax Code of Standards and Procedures, by ordering situations contrary to what they establish. All of these reasons compel the partial nullity requested of the challenged resolutions to be upheld, in the terms indicated above.

IX.- ON DAMAGES AND PREJUDICES (DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS):

In accordance with the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that as a consequence of the conduct of the Banco Central de Costa Rica in not paying the amounts that, as interest, it is under a legal obligation to refund, damage (daño) has been generated to the patrimony of the State and, particularly, to the Judicial Branch Pension and Retirement Fund, by not having the interest produced from the undue 8% income tax withholding, which has not been paid, and which, as creditor, it has the right to have recognized, in accordance with numeral 43 of the Tax Code of Standards and Procedures, and which amounts to the sum of one hundred forty-three million ninety thousand two hundred thirty colones with two céntimos (¢143,090,230.02), an amount resulting after subtracting the difference of one million two hundred five thousand eight hundred seven colones with ninety céntimos, the latest sum of late-payment interest paid. Said amount must be granted as material damage (daño material), and as lost profits (perjuicios), interest must be granted, from the date of the undue payment until its effective cancellation. Both amounts must be indexed from the date the first income tax withholding was made until their effective payment.” Nor is that interpretive approach correct within the context of provisions establishing tax exemptions or benefits (exenciones o beneficios fiscales). This Chamber, until now, had maintained the thesis that, in accordance with the provisions of the cited Code and the legal regime of exemptions, their interpretation must be restrictive, because the context of numerals 5 and 6 in relation to the cited ordinal 62, all of that legal body, reveals the protection of the principle of legality in matters of exemptions, through the impossibility of expansively interpreting the rules referring to them. In this sense, among many, judgment no. 162, at 15:22 on September 25, 1991, no. 93 at 15:30 on August 28, 1996, no. 86 at 15:00 on August 19, 1998, and no. 318 at 9:00 on May 19, 2004. However, with its new composition, and after a profound reflection on the point, it reaches a different criterion from the one mentioned. The nature and purpose of the rules of the type mentioned, in the terms already set forth, as well as their legal regime, neither imply nor justify that they must be interpreted with a different prism than the other tax provisions, that is, with special criteria, because ultimately, it is reiterated, they are all components of the same system that seeks, in its teleological dimension, equity in contributive burdens. For this, it is necessary, in some cases, to implement rules that at their core seek compliance with the various principles with which the constituent has clothed the fiscal system. As has been said, tax benefits (beneficios fiscales) frequently respond to economic capacity, or to non-tax criteria (criterios extrafiscales), which can equally be present in other components of the tax. A restrictive interpretation in this matter would assume that this type of benefit is exceptional, being only applicable when the law so provides. However, the principle of tax legality to which they are subject cannot constitute a valid condition justifying a special (restrictive) interpretation, but must be weighed in its correct dimension, that is, they can only be created by law, their source of origin must meet the conditions indicated in numeral 62 of the cited Code, and they only take effect if the fact that has been pre-established for their occurrence happens. Therefore, tax legality viewed in this way is not justification for a restrictive consideration of tax relief (gracias fiscales). It should be clarified, however, that rules of this class are those known as mandates with exclusive factual presuppositions, which, in line with the provisions of the cited Articles 6 and 62, prevent their application by analogy (aplicación analógica), which is a situation distinct from interpretation itself. In this context, just as taxes are subject to a principle of legal reserve, so too are exemptions (exenciones) and benefits, in whose source of creation the basic elements that delimit it must be enunciated. Within this approach, then, rules containing regulations of the referenced type must be weighed without subjection to any special or specific criterion. In this task, it must be remembered that the transcribed norm establishes in its final paragraph an objective limit to this exegetical work, such as the impossibility of creating taxes or exemptions through analogy, a mechanism that, while useful for filling legal gaps, cannot in these terms replace the role of the legislator by virtue of the principle of legal reserve. Seen this way, the field of creating levies (gravámenes) and tax benefits is closed by this means, being therefore figures that must be created by a formal legislative manifestation, in the terms already explained previously. Now, this last characteristic mentioned means that tax exemptions and benefits can only be granted if the specific fact invoked corresponds to the factual assumption of the authorizing norm and its granting is feasible according to the parameter set by the legislator in the source of its creation. Therefore, when the norm clearly and undoubtedly imposes concrete conditions for the enjoyment or reception of the benevolent effects of the fiscal regime, in its application these parameters cannot be circumvented, as they are an inexorable part of the conditioning fact that the legal system has established. Seen this way, the conditioned effect will occur when those factual presuppositions stipulated in the mandate have been satisfied. Thus, the judge must analyze in each case, with rigorous care, whether the factual assumption proposed by the passive subject fits and coincides with the exempted fact (hecho exento) provided by the norm that foresees the benefit, within its material content. In this confrontation, as a matter of principle, it is improper to extend the effects of the norm to extremes that it does not contemplate, nor that derive from its content, just as analogical practices (prácticas analógicas) in this type of situation are unfeasible by law, since the risk arises of incorporating within the exempted fact assumptions that the law does not contemplate, which would violate the aforementioned principle of legal reserve that prevails in these fields (...) (the underlining is not from the original).

**IV.-** **EXEMPTION OF ARTICLE 241 OF THE ORGANIC LAW OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH.** In line with the analysis carried out by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice regarding the principle of tax legality and the regime of exemptions, it can be affirmed that the exemption consists of the elimination of the birth of the tax obligation. So that for certain cases established by law, the economic legal consequences inherent to the tax rule do not occur, as defined by numeral 61 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), it is a legal dispensation from the tax obligation. So that, given the existence of a tax obligation established by law, it is the law itself that can exempt a specific situation or a specific taxpayer from the collection of the tax. Even though the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax occurs, the obligation to pay the tax on the part of the passive subject does not arise. The establishment of exemptions is a matter reserved to law; in this sense, the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch, in its Article 241, establishes an exemption from taxes and fees for the Judicial Branch Retirement and Pension Fund (Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial) by stating: *"The operations executed with resources from the Fund shall be exempt from all types of taxes and fees"*. This exemption is of a general nature, as it refers to all types of taxes, without distinguishing the nature of the tax; the only condition or restriction established by the norm for the operations to be exempt is that they come from resources of the Fund itself. In this sense, it must be clear that the exemption is for all kinds of operations (be they investments in securities, macro-securities (macrotítulos) with or without coupons), since the law does not provide different treatment based on the nature of the investment; note that the norm establishes *"the operations that are executed..."*.

Thus, any withholding (retención) made on money from this Fund turns out to be an undue and illegal withholding insofar as it is done in clear contravention of what the norm in question provides. In the same sense, numeral 3 subsection a) of the Income Tax Law is pronounced, by excluding from this tax the State and other institutions that by special law enjoy such exemption; such is the case of the Judicial Branch Retirement and Pension Fund.

**V.-** **ON THE CONDITION OF THE CENTRAL BANK OF COSTA RICA AS A WITHHOLDING AND COLLECTION AGENT. ITS RESPONSIBILITY.** In accordance with numerals 100 and 101 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica: *"The Central Bank shall be in charge of the collection of all public revenues under the terms and conditions determined in the contract that, for this purpose, it shall enter into with the Government of the Republic."* In the same sense, Article 23 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code provides that persons designated by law, who by their public functions or by reason of their activity, trade, or profession intervene in acts or operations in which they must make the withholding or collection of the corresponding tax, shall be withholding or collection agents (agentes de retención o percepción). In the case under analysis, it has been duly accredited and is a non-controverted fact that the Judicial Branch Retirement and Pension Fund invested in securities issued by the Central Bank and that it was the latter, in its capacity as withholding agent (agente retenedor), who withheld 8% income tax on the interest generated by the invested amounts. This withholding should not have been made due to the general exemption (from all types of taxes and fees) provided by the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch for operations carried out with resources from said Fund. So that the 8% withholdings made by the Central Bank of Costa Rica as withholding agent on the interest generated by the sums invested by the Judicial Branch Retirement and Pension Fund constitute undue payments (pagos indebidos) by virtue of said Fund being expressly exempted by law from said obligation, and therefore the withholding agent lacks a legal norm authorizing it to perform it. Now, for the purposes of what is discussed in this proceeding, it is of interest to establish what the responsibility of the withholding and collection agent is, and in this sense, Article 24 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code establishes: *"Once the withholding or collection of the tax is made, the agent is solely responsible before the Tax Authority (Fisco) for the amount withheld or collected; and if it does not make the withholding or collection, it is jointly liable, unless it proves before the Tax Administration that the taxpayer has paid the tax. If the agent, in compliance with this joint liability, satisfies the tax, it may recover from the taxpayer the amount paid to the Tax Authority. The agent is responsible before the taxpayer for withholdings made without legal or regulatory norms authorizing them; and in such case, the taxpayer may recover from the agent the sums unduly withheld."* According to this norm, the withholding and collection agent has a double responsibility: before the Tax Authority and before the taxpayer. Before the Tax Authority, it is personally and directly liable for the amount it has withheld or collected, and jointly liable if it does not make the withholding or collection, unless it proves before the Tax Administration that the taxpayer has paid the tax; if, on the contrary, the agent pays the tax, it may recover from the taxpayer the amount it has satisfied to the Tax Authority. The withholding and collection agent is also responsible before the taxpayer for those withholdings made without legal basis, i.e., undue withholdings, amounts regarding which, as indicated by the transcribed numeral, the taxpayer has a right of credit in their favor and may exercise the right of recovery (derecho de repetición) against the withholding agent. Thus, it is clear to this Chamber that the party responsible before the Judicial Branch Retirement and Pension Fund for the income tax withholdings made on the interest generated by the invested amounts, given the existence of an express norm establishing the exemption from all types of taxes and fees for operations carried out with resources from said Fund, is, according to the Tax Rules and Procedures Code, Law 4755, in force since May 3, 1971, the withholding and collection agent, a condition that, in this specific case, the Central Bank of Costa Rica holds.

**VI.-** **ON RESOLUTION N° DGT-20-2006 OF AUGUST 28, 2006.** In accordance with numeral 99 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code, the Tax Administration may issue general rules for the correct application of tax laws, within the limits set by the pertinent legal and regulatory provisions. This norm is clear in the sense that the resolutions issued shall be for a correct application of tax laws. From this perspective, the procedures established in those general provisions must be oriented and guided by what is provided in the tax legal regulations. Within a correct legal hermeneutics, procedures that distort what is provided by the tax norms could not be established. Thus, and with regard to Article 24 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code, it is evident and there is no doubt that the legislator expressly established that the withholding and collection agent is responsible before the taxpayer for withholdings made unduly and that the latter has the right to recover those amounts from the withholding agent. So the procedure, requirements, and formalities to proceed with the refund of unduly withheld amounts bind only whoever issues the guidelines and the entities subject to such guidelines, since it is not these provisions that establish the condition of withholding agent and responsible party before the taxpayer, but the law. In this sense, Resolution DGT-20-2006 changed the mechanism or procedure for the refund of amounts unduly withheld by the withholding agent. Particularly, in the case of the Judicial Branch Retirement and Pension Fund, such withholding is undue given its impropriety, as there is an express norm establishing the exemption from all types of taxes for operations carried out with resources from said Fund. Regarding the effective date of the cited resolution and its eventual retroactive application, it lacks interest for the purposes of determining who is responsible for the obligation to refund the unduly withheld amounts, since the indicated resolution is a general provision that comes to regulate the correct application of the law, it does not modify it; therefore, it could not vary what is provided by the Tax Rules and Procedures Code regarding the responsibility of the withholding and collection agent, in this case the Central Bank of Costa Rica, as the party obligated to refund the unduly withheld amounts; being the party responsible for such withholdings according to numeral 24, already so often mentioned, a norm that has been in force since nineteen seventy-one. Consequently, the variations introduced by Resolution DGT-20-2006 refer solely to the mechanisms or procedures to be followed for such undue refunds; on the understanding that the withholding and collection agent is the party responsible before the taxpayer for withholdings made unduly, a condition established in the law (Tax Rules and Procedures Code) and which has not changed to date.

**VII.-** **ON THE REFUND OF AMOUNTS UNDULY WITHHELD FOR INCOME TAX AND INTEREST THEREON.** As has been accredited by the facts that have been taken as proven, the refund of the amounts withheld for income tax as well as the interest thereon have been managed in a timely and permanent manner both by the Financial Accounting Department of the Judicial Branch and by the President of the Supreme Court of Justice; directly to the Treasury Department of the Central Bank of Costa Rica, with said entity initially showing a refusal to make the refund of the sums, indicating that it could not proceed with the reimbursement of sums that had already been deposited in the State coffers and, in that regard, suggesting that the corresponding claim be formulated before the Tax Administration. For its part, the Tax Administration indicates that the procedure for the refund of unduly withheld sums is established in Resolution DGT-20-2006, and that the one who must carry it out is the withholding agent, as established by numeral 24 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code; which is reiterated on more than one occasion by said Administration to the Central Bank of Costa Rica, due to the clarity of the norm that obligates the Bank as withholding and collection agent to respond before the taxpayer for the amounts unduly withheld, and as already indicated in preceding recitals, it is evident that this is an undue withholding insofar as the investments made with money from the Judicial Branch Retirement and Pension Fund are exempt from all kinds of taxes and fees by express legal provision (*Article 241 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch, in the same sense Article 3 subsection a) of the Income Tax Law*). So the reimbursement of what was collected for income tax is a legal obligation to be fulfilled by the party that made the respective withholding, in the present case the withholding agent was the Central Bank of Costa Rica, which mistakenly believed it was making the withholding on a passive subject obligated to pay that tax, when the truth is that it was exempt from such obligation. So it is under the legal obligation to reimburse the taxpayer for the amounts unduly withheld, an obligation not established by the Tax Administration, nor is it an interpretation of what numeral 24 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code establishes, but rather it is what the cited norm provides in a diaphanous, express, and exhaustive manner; it is so clear that it leaves no room to interpret who must make the refund, because the norm expressly indicates it: *"The agent is responsible before the taxpayer for withholdings made without legal or regulatory norms authorizing them; and in such case, the taxpayer may recover from the agent the sums unduly withheld."* Despite the reluctance of the Central Bank of Costa Rica to make the refund, it subsequently accepted to do so, and that is how it made the deposits corresponding to the sums unduly withheld into the account of the Judicial Branch Retirement and Pension Fund, as recorded on folios 103, 104, 138, 144, 145, 149, 181, 182, 183, 184, and 201. However, it refuses to make the refunds of the corresponding interest, arguing that this is not a case of an undue collection of taxes, but rather that what has existed is an operation that has not allowed prior distinction of exempt entities and that, therefore, the payment of interest is not appropriate. In this sense, it must be indicated, as the Director of Collection of the General Directorate of Taxation does, that the manner in which the issuing entity makes the withholding, in this case the Central Bank without making any distinction, is what produces the risk of making withholdings to exempt entities, just as has happened in the case of the Judicial Branch Retirement and Pension Fund. And the responsibility for the mechanism used to make the withholding effective is exclusive to the withholding agent, i.e., the Central Bank of Costa Rica, which uses a highly risky system by not making a distinction regarding the entities from which it deducts the tax, which does not allow establishing when exempt entities are involved. That is why the General Directorate of Taxation points out to the issuing entity that with that withholding system, the Central Bank assumes the risk that some entity from which it makes a deduction is exempt and, therefore, it must later proceed to refund the amounts unduly withheld, as well as the legally corresponding interest, since the circumstance that the issuing entity does not know the identity of the investor is the sole and exclusive responsibility of the Bank itself for establishing that withholding system, which is not only risky but also lacking in transparency, given the possibility of making withholdings to exempt entities, a situation that will only be known by the withholding agent until the moment the investor makes the corresponding claim, thus forcing investors to be making claims each time withholdings are made, when there are taxpayers exempt from paying taxes. So, if the withholding agent is solely responsible before the taxpayer, it is so not only with respect to the refunds of the sums unduly withheld, but also with respect to the interest they generate, regarding the delay in their refund. Thus, numeral 43 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code clearly establishes by stating that: *"... In the case of undue payments, the creditor shall have the right to the recognition of interest equal to that established in Article 58 of this Code. Said interest shall run from the calendar day following the date of the payment made by the taxpayer."* **VIII.-** **ON THE PARTIAL NULLITY OF THE RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN OFFICIAL LETTER TESO-289 OF JUNE 13, 2008 AND RESOLUTIONS DSF-047-2010 AND DSF-556-2010.** The resolution contained in official letter TESO-289 of June 13, 2008, by which the Treasury Department of the Central Bank determines that the payment of interest is not appropriate because, in its view, there has been no undue collection of taxes, is partially revoked by resolution DSF-047-2010 of March 30, 2010, establishing that the recognition of interest is indeed appropriate; however, given that several institutions participate in the process, each one must assume its responsibility.

For its part, resolution DSF-556-2010 issued by the Management of the Central Bank of Costa Rica partially upholds the appeal and declares the payment of interest admissible; however, it maintains that, due to the participation of other entities, such recognition would be limited, in the case of the Central Bank, to the additional days beyond the period required by the Central Bank to make the refund of the withholdings effective, which run from the moment the elements of judgment to request the exemption are effectively available until the date on which the refund of the income tax is made effective. And the Treasury Department is ordered to make a payment of default interest (intereses moratorios) in accordance with Articles 43 and 58 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, based on the exact days, additional to the period reasonably estimated to be required to carry out the various procedures, for the sum of ¢1,205,807.90.

Now, it is clear to this Chamber that the 8% income tax withholding constitutes an undue payment by the Pension and Retirement Fund (Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones), as it is exempt from the payment of that tax; however, it was withheld by the Central Bank of Costa Rica, in its capacity as withholding agent (agente de retención), as established by numeral 24 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios. It is by virtue of the provisions of this norm that said institution is responsible for the refund of those amounts unduly withheld, and if it is responsible for the refund of those undue withholdings, it is also responsible for the interest generated by the delay in the refund. Interest that the taxpayer or investor, in this case, the Pension and Retirement Fund of the Judicial Branch (Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial), has the right to have recognized by the party who, through an undue withholding (Central Bank of Costa Rica acting as withholding agent), made it pay income taxes, while being exempt from such payment; so that the interest that the Pension and Retirement Fund is entitled to collect as creditor shall begin to be computed from the calendar day following the date of the payment made by the taxpayer, as established by Article 43 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios transcribed above. However, attempting to justify the refusal to pay interest on the fact that there are other institutions that participated in the withholding and refund procedure is to disregard what the Ley Tributaria provides, since it is not the refund procedure and those who participate in it that determine the subject responsible for the payment of refunds and their interest, but rather Article 24 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, mentioned so many times, which provides that the withholding agent *"is responsible to the taxpayer for withholdings made without legal or regulatory norms authorizing them; and in such case, the taxpayer may claim from the agent the sums unduly withheld."* In relation to interest, numeral 43 of the same regulatory body provides: *"... In cases of undue payments, the creditor shall have the right to recognition of interest equal to that established in Article 58 of this Code. Said interest shall run from the calendar day following the date of the payment made by the taxpayer."* From the foregoing, it can be inferred, on the one hand, the determination made by the Ley Tributaria of the withholding agent as the party responsible to the taxpayer for undue withholdings, as well as the interest generated by those undue payments. The foregoing is also clear in the sense that no entity can unilaterally establish under what assumptions it is responsible, or in what cases or conditions it is responsible, and to what extent that responsibility reaches. The Central Bank of Costa Rica, as a withholding agent, cannot arrogate powers that the law itself does not grant it; therefore, it is prohibited from determining quotas of responsibility, deadlines for refunds, and for the payment of interest, when legal or regulatory norms establish those parameters. In its capacity as a withholding and collection agent (agente de retención y percepción), it is obliged to comply with the regulations of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios as they are established. Thus, it must be reiterated that regardless of the procedures, mechanisms, or systems used by the withholding agent to make effective the refund of the amounts unduly withheld for income tax, as well as the interest thereon, the fact of the matter is that the party responsible to the taxpayer is exclusively the withholding agent for those sums unduly withheld, as well as their interest. Nor can the issue of the institutions or entities involved in the refund procedure, or who is responsible for carrying out one procedure or another, be raised against the taxpayer, as all of this is irrelevant in the face of the clear and precise determination in the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios of who is responsible to the taxpayer or investor for the undue withholdings, as well as the interest that arises as an obligatory consequence of the delay in refunding those unduly withheld sums. Sums that, like any obligation, generate interest upon delay in payment. Thus, it is evident that the provisions of the resolutions whose partial nullity is petitioned clash with legality by openly contravening the provisions of the tax norms, specifically Articles 24, 43, and 58 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, by decreeing situations contrary to what they establish. All these reasons compel the acceptance of the petitioned partial nullity of the challenged resolutions, in the terms indicated above.

**IX.-** **ON DAMAGES AND LOSSES (DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS):** In accordance with the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that as a consequence of the conduct of the Central Bank of Costa Rica in failing to pay the amounts it is legally obliged to refund for interest, damage has been caused to the assets of the State and, particularly, to the Pension and Retirement Fund of the Judicial Branch, by not having the interest produced from the undue 8% income tax withholding, which has not been paid, and which, as a creditor, it has the right to have recognized, in accordance with numeral 43 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, and which amounts to the sum of one hundred forty-three million ninety thousand two hundred thirty colones with two céntimos (¢143,090,230.02), an amount resulting after subtracting the difference of one million two hundred five thousand eight hundred seven colones with ninety céntimos, the last sum of default interest paid. Said amount must be awarded as material damage (daño material), and by way of losses (perjuicios), interest must be granted, from the date of the undue payment until its effective cancellation. Both amounts must be adjusted for inflation from the date on which the first income tax withholding was made until its effective payment.” These form part of the so-called “tax benefits” (beneficios fiscales), which usually respond to a non-tax purpose, or to the stimulation of certain activities. On many occasions, these benefits are based on the logic of the principle of economic capacity, or on other reasons that motivate the legislator’s decision. In this regard, within tax-law doctrine they are constituted as, and thus must be considered, mechanisms and tools inherent to the tax environment. They constitute avenues that fundamentally seek and allow, through strategic conditions (which may be temporary), the promotion, development, or advancement of a specific economic sector, of certain areas of activity, social contexts, or the equalization of economic conditions to foster a state of equality in the distribution of tax burdens (cargas contributivas), in the short, medium, or long term. On occasion, they simply seek to prevent the tax system from becoming confiscatory. Hence, they become unviable when their purpose is an unjustified benefit, incompatible with their parafiscal purpose or when they depart from reasonable criteria and the system of values inherent to the Political Constitution (Constitución Política). Thus seen, their creation is not incompatible with the principles of equality, generality, and the duty to contribute to public burdens (cargas públicas) that derives from Article 18 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política); rather, they are complementary elements to achieve, in principle, a balance and stability in the country’s fiscal situation in its integral dimension. That is, fundamentally they seek the fulfillment of those postulates, through actions oriented toward establishing a system vested with conditions of equity in terms of economic capacity and development. Therefore, in its new composition, this Chamber considers that, contrary to the criterion held to date in this field, they do not constitute, stricto sensu, exceptions to the duty to contribute, but rather parts of a system that provide for the exemption from tax payment, or other benefits, which integrally considered, seek to improve, in a global sense, the tax system in quantitative and qualitative terms. The foregoing operates through the total or partial exemption from the payment of the tax or the reduction of its calculation base, ergo, they may fall upon the tax obligation (obligación tributaria) in its entirety, or upon the exclusion of some components from that base. Given these particularities, their handling must be careful and cautious, since their arbitrary application may result in breaches of the principles of generality and equality, upsetting their very purpose.

**V.-** **Interpretation of tax rules and exemptions. Purpose.** The hermeneutic task concerning rules governing tax relations must be carried out within the channels of the rules of legal interpretation common to all branches of law, resorting to their various methods, in order to specify the scope and particularities of a given mandate, so that the hypothetical formulation, applied to daily praxis, fulfills its intrinsic mission and the purpose the legislator has assigned to its issuance. In this regard, Article 6 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) establishes: “Tax rules must be interpreted in accordance with all the methods admitted by Common Law. / Analogy is an admissible procedure to fill legal gaps, but by virtue of it, neither taxes nor exemptions (exenciones) may be created.” In this task, in accordance with the constitutional principle of equality, it is clear that the interpreter must weigh the various variables present in each situation, among them, the nature of the provision, ensuring that its use, in the form and scope it establishes, is equal for all similar cases and avoiding a material application that circumvents the very purpose of its content. The exegesis of tax rules cannot be restrictive. A tax is characterized by its coercive nature, insofar as it emanates from the exercise of Public Power, which, through this means, imposes, under the protection of the Constitution, economic levies on passive subjects. But it is also identified by its contributory character, insofar as its purpose is to collaborate with the public burdens (cargas públicas), in order to provide the State with adequate resources to allow it to deploy its functional and service-providing framework for the benefit of the community. This, of course, does not exclude that in certain cases, this type of burden originates with a different objective, such as the criterion of parafiscality (parafiscalidad). From this perspective, tax rules cannot be considered exceptional or restrictive of individual rights, since that character would lead to their application, and therefore their interpretation, being equally restrictive. Nor is this interpretative approach correct within the context of provisions establishing exemptions (exenciones) or tax benefits (beneficios fiscales). This Chamber, until now, had held the thesis that, in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned Code and the legal regime specific to exemptions, their interpretation must be restrictive, because from the context of Articles 5, 6 in relation to the cited Article 62, all of that legal body, the protection of the principle of legality in matters of exemptions is derived, through the impossibility of broadly interpreting the rules referring to them. In this sense, among many, judgment No. 162, at 15 hours 22 minutes of September 25, 1991; No. 93 at 15 hours 30 minutes of August 28, 1996; No. 86 at 15 hours of August 19, 1998; and No. 318 at 9 hours of May 19, 2004. However, with its new composition, and after a profound reflection on the point, it reaches a different criterion from the one previously mentioned. The nature and object of the rules of the aforementioned type, in the terms already set forth, as well as their legal regime, neither imply nor justify that they must be interpreted through a different prism than other tax provisions, that is, with special criteria, because ultimately, it is reiterated, they are all components of the same system that seeks, in its teleological dimension, equity in tax burdens (cargas contributivas). For this, it is necessary, in some cases, to implement rules that fundamentally seek the fulfillment of the various principles with which the constituent power has vested the fiscal system. As has been stated, it is common for tax benefits (beneficios fiscales) to respond to economic capacity, or to non-tax (extrafiscales) criteria, which may equally be present in other components of the tax. A restrictive interpretation in this matter would imply that these types of benefits are exceptional, being applicable only when the law so provides. However, the principle of tax legality to which they are subject cannot constitute a valid conditioning factor justifying a special (restrictive) interpretation; rather, it must be weighed in its correct dimension, that is, only by legal means can they be created, their source of origin must meet the conditions indicated in Article 62 of the cited Code, and they only take effect if the event that has been pre-established for their occurrence takes place. Therefore, tax legality viewed thus is not a justification for a restrictive consideration of tax favors. It should be clarified, however, that rules of this class are those known as mandates with an exclusive factual prerequisite, which, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 6 and 62 mentioned, prevent their analogical application, which is a situation distinct from interpretation itself. In this stance, just as taxes are subject to a principle of legal reservation (reserva legal), so too are exemptions (exenciones) and benefits, in whose source of creation the basic elements that delimit it must be enunciated. Within this approach, then, rules containing regulations of the type referred to must be weighed without being subject to any special or specific criterion. In this task, it must be remembered that the transcribed rule establishes in its final paragraph an objective limit to this exegetical work, that is, the impossibility of creating taxes or exemptions by analogical means, a mechanism that, although useful to fill legal gaps, cannot substitute, in these terms, the role of the legislator by virtue of the principle of legal reservation (reserva legal). Thus viewed, the field of creating tax levies and benefits is prohibited by this means, they being figures that must be created through a formal legislative manifestation, in the terms already explained previously. Now, this last characteristic alluded to implies that tax exemptions (exenciones) and benefits can only be granted if the specific event invoked corresponds to the factual situation of the authorizing rule and its granting is feasible according to the parameter set by the legislator in the source of its creation. Therefore, when the rule clearly and indubitably imposes concrete conditions for the enjoyment or receipt of the benevolent effects of the fiscal regime, in its application these parameters cannot be evaded, as they are an inexorable part of the conditioning event that the legal order has established. Thus viewed, the conditioned effect will occur when those factual prerequisites stipulated in the mandate have been satisfied. In this way, the adjudicator must analyze in each case, with rigorous care, whether the factual situation proposed by the passive subject fits and coincides with the exempt event set forth by the rule providing the benefit, within its material content. In this confrontation, in principle, it is inappropriate to expand the effects of the rule to extremes it does not contemplate, or that do not derive from its content, just as analogical practices in this type of situation are unviable by operation of law, because the risk arises of incorporating into the exempt event situations not contemplated by the law, which would violate the aforementioned principle of legal reservation (reserva legal) prevailing in these fields (…)

**IV.-** **EXEMPTION OF ARTICLE 241 OF THE ORGANIC LAW OF THE JUDICIAL BRANCH (LEY ORGÁNICA DEL PODER JUDICIAL).** In consonance with the analysis conducted by the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia) regarding the principle of tax legality and the exemption regime, it can be affirmed that the exemption (exención) consists of the elimination of the birth of the tax obligation (obligación tributaria). So that for certain cases established by law, the economic legal consequences inherent to the tax rule do not arise, as defined by Article 61 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), it is a legal dispensation from the tax obligation (obligación tributaria). So, in the presence of a tax obligation (obligación tributaria) established by law, it is the same law that can exempt a given situation or a given taxpayer from the collection of the tax. Even though the taxable event occurs, the obligation to pay the tax does not arise for the passive subject. The establishment of exemptions (exenciones) is a matter reserved to law; in this sense, the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch (Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial), in its Article 241, establishes an exemption from taxes and fees for the Judicial Branch Retirement and Pension Fund (Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial), stating: “The operations executed with resources from the Fund shall be exempt from all types of taxes and fees.” This exemption is of a general nature, as it refers to all types of taxes, without distinguishing the nature of the tax; the only condition or restriction the rule establishes for operations to be exempt is that they come from resources of the same Fund. In this sense, it must be clear that the exemption is for all kinds of operations (be they investments in securities, macro-securities with or without coupons), since the law does not provide different treatment based on the nature of the investment; see that the rule establishes “the operations that are executed…” Thus, any withholding made on monies from this Fund proves to be an undue and illegal withholding, as it is done in clear contravention of what the rule in question stipulates. In the same sense, Article 3, subsection a) of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) pronounces itself when excluding the State and other institutions that by special law enjoy such exemption from this tax; such is the case of the Judicial Branch Retirement and Pension Fund (Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial).

**V.-** **ON THE CONDITION OF THE CENTRAL BANK OF COSTA RICA (BANCO CENTRAL DE COSTA RICA) AS A WITHHOLDING AND COLLECTION AGENT. ITS RESPONSIBILITY.** In accordance with Articles 100 and 101 of the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica (Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica): “The Central Bank shall be in charge of the collection of all public revenues under the terms and conditions determined in the contract it shall enter into for this purpose with the Government of the Republic.” In the same sense, Article 23 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) provides that withholding or collection agents are the persons designated by law, who, due to their public functions or by reason of their activity, trade, or profession, intervene in acts or operations in which they must effect the withholding or collection of the corresponding tax. In the case under analysis, it has been duly accredited and is an uncontroverted fact that the Judicial Branch Retirement and Pension Fund (Fondo de Pensiones y Jubilaciones del Poder Judicial) invested in securities issued by the Central Bank and that it was the latter, in its capacity as withholding agent, that withheld the 8% income tax on the interest generated by the invested amounts. A withholding that should not have been made due to the general exemption (from all types of taxes and fees) provided by the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch (Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial) for operations carried out with resources from said Fund. So the 8% withholdings made by the Central Bank of Costa Rica (Banco Central de Costa Rica) as withholding agent on the interest generated by the sums invested by the Judicial Branch Retirement and Pension Fund (Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial) constitute undue payments by virtue of said Fund being exempt from said obligation by express legal rule, and therefore the withholding agent lacks a legal rule authorizing it to perform it. Now, for the purposes of what is discussed in this proceeding, it is of interest to establish what the responsibility of the withholding and collection agent is, and in this sense, Article 24 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) establishes: “Once the withholding or collection of the tax has been effected, the agent is the sole responsible party before the Tax Authorities for the amount withheld or collected; and if it does not effect the withholding or collection, it is jointly and severally liable, unless it proves before the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) that the taxpayer has paid the tax. If the agent, in fulfillment of this joint liability, pays the tax, it may claim from the taxpayer the amount paid to the Tax Authorities. The agent is responsible before the taxpayer for withholdings made without legal or regulatory rules authorizing them; and in such case, the taxpayer may claim from the agent the sums unduly withheld.” According to this rule, the withholding and collection agent has a dual responsibility: before the Tax Authorities and before the taxpayer. Before the Tax Authorities, it is personally and directly liable for the amount it would have withheld or collected, and jointly liable if it does not effect the withholding or collection, unless it proves before the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) that the taxpayer has paid the tax; if, on the contrary, the agent pays the tax, it may claim from the taxpayer the amount it would have paid to the Tax Authorities. Before the taxpayer, the withholding and collection agent is also responsible for those withholdings made without legal basis, that is, undue withholdings, amounts for which, as indicated by the transcribed article, the taxpayer has a credit right in its favor and may exercise the right of recovery against the withholding agent. Thus, it is clear to this Chamber that the party responsible before the Judicial Branch Retirement and Pension Fund (Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial) for the income tax withholdings made on the interest generated by the invested amounts, given the existence of an express rule establishing the exemption from all types of taxes and fees for operations carried out with resources from said Fund, is, according to the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), Law 4755, in force since May 3, 1971, the withholding and collection agent, a condition that in this specific case is held by the Central Bank of Costa Rica (Banco Central de Costa Rica).

**VI.-** **ON RULING (RESOLUCIÓN) No. DGT-20-2006 OF AUGUST 28, 2006.** In accordance with Article 99 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) may issue general rules for the correct application of tax laws, within the limits established by the pertinent legal and regulatory provisions. This rule is clear in the sense that the rulings (resoluciones) issued shall be for a correct application of the tax laws. From this perspective, the procedures established in those general provisions must be oriented and guided by what is provided in the tax legal rules. Within a correct legal hermeneutics, procedures that distort what is provided by the tax rules could not be established. Thus, and regarding Article 24 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), it is evident and leaves no room for doubt that the legislator expressly established that the withholding and collection agent is the party responsible before the taxpayer for withholdings unduly made, and that the latter has the right to recover those amounts from the withholding agent. So the procedure, requirements, and formalities to proceed with the refund of unduly withheld amounts only bind the party issuing the directives and the entities subject to such guidelines, since it is not these provisions that establish the condition of withholding agent and party responsible before the taxpayer, but the law. In this sense, Ruling (Resolución) DGT-20-2006 varied the mechanism or procedure for the refund of amounts unduly withheld by the withholding agent. Particularly, in the case of the Judicial Branch Retirement and Pension Fund (Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial), such withholding is undue given its inappropriateness, as there exists an express rule establishing the exemption from all types of taxes for operations carried out with resources from said Fund. Regarding the effective date of the cited ruling (resolución) and its eventual retroactive application, this is irrelevant for the purposes of determining to whom the obligation to refund the unduly withheld amounts corresponds, since the indicated ruling (resolución) is a general provision that regulates the correct application of the law, it does not modify it; therefore, it could not vary what is provided by the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) regarding the responsibility of the withholding and collection agent, in this case the Central Bank of Costa Rica (Banco Central de Costa Rica), as obligated to refund the unduly withheld amounts, being the party responsible for such withholdings according to Article 24, already mentioned so many times, a rule that has been in force since nineteen seventy-one. Consequently, the variations introduced by Ruling (resolución) DGT-20-2006 refer only to the mechanisms or procedures to follow for such undue refunds; on the understanding that the withholding and collection agent is the party responsible before the taxpayer for withholdings made unduly, a condition established in the law (Code of Tax Rules and Procedures) and that has not changed to date.

**VII.-** **ON THE REFUND OF AMOUNTS UNDULY WITHHELD FOR INCOME TAX AND INTEREST THEREON.** As has been accredited through the facts that have been deemed proven, the refund of the amounts withheld for income tax as well as the interest thereon have been promptly and permanently managed both by the Financial Accounting Department of the Judicial Branch and by the President of the Supreme Court of Justice (Corte Suprema de Justicia); directly before the Treasury Department of the Central Bank of Costa Rica (Banco Central de Costa Rica), said entity showing an initial refusal to refund the sums, indicating that it could not proceed with the reimbursement of sums that had already been deposited in the State coffers and, in that regard, suggests the corresponding claim be formulated before the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria). For its part, the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) indicates that the procedure for the refund of unduly withheld sums is established in Ruling (Resolución) DGT-20-2006, and that the party that must carry it out is the withholding agent, according to what Article 24 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) establishes; which is reiterated on more than one occasion by said Administration to the Central Bank of Costa Rica (Banco Central de Costa Rica), due to the clarity of the rule obligating the Bank as withholding and collection agent to answer before the taxpayer for the amounts unduly withheld, and as already indicated in preceding recitals (considerandos), it is evident that this is an undue withholding, insofar as investments made with monies from the Judicial Branch Retirement and Pension Fund (Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial) are exempt from all kinds of taxes and fees by express legal provision (*Article 241 of the Organic Law of the Judicial Branch (Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial), in the same sense Article 3 subsection a) of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta)*). So the reimbursement of what was collected for income tax is a legal obligation to be fulfilled by the party who made the respective withholding; in the present case, the withholding agent was the Central Bank of Costa Rica (Banco Central de Costa Rica), who mistakenly believed it was making the withholding on a passive subject obligated to pay that tax, when the truth is that it was exempt from such obligation.

Thus, it is under the legal obligation to reimburse the taxpayer for the amounts unduly withheld, an obligation not established by the Tax Administration, nor is it an interpretation of what is set forth in numeral 24 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, but rather it is what the cited norm provides in a clear, express, and exhaustive manner, so clear that it leaves no room to interpret who must make the refund, because the norm expressly indicates: *"The agent is responsible to the taxpayer for withholdings made without legal or regulatory norms authorizing them; and in such case, the taxpayer may recover from the agent the sums unduly withheld."* Despite the reluctance of the Banco Central de Costa Rica to make the refund, it later agrees to do so, and that is how it makes the corresponding deposits of the sums unduly withheld into the account of the Fondo de Pensiones y Jubilaciones del Poder Judicial, as recorded at folios 103, 104, 138, 144, 145, 149, 181, 182, 183, 184, and 201. However, it refuses to make the refunds of the corresponding interest, arguing that this is not an undue collection of taxes, but rather that there has been an operational procedure that has not allowed the exempt entities to be distinguished in advance and that, therefore, the payment of interest is not applicable. In this regard, it must be stated, as does the Director of Collection of the Dirección General de Tributación, that the manner in which the issuing entity withholds, in this case the Banco Central without making any distinction, is what produces the risk of withholding from exempt entities, as has happened in the case of the Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial. And the responsibility for the mechanism used to make the withholding effective is exclusively that of the withholding agent (agente de retención), that is, the Banco Central de Costa Rica, which uses a highly risky system by not distinguishing among the entities from which it deducts the tax, which does not allow establishing when one is in the presence of exempt entities. It is for this reason that the Dirección General de Tributación points out to the issuing entity that with this withholding system, the Banco Central assumes the risk that any entity from which it makes a deduction is exempt and, therefore, it must then proceed to refund the amounts unduly withheld, as well as the legally applicable interest, because the circumstance that the issuing entity does not know the identity of the investor is the sole and exclusive responsibility of the Bank itself in establishing that withholding system, which is not only risky but also not very transparent, given the possibility of making withholdings from exempt entities, a situation that will only become known to the withholding agent (agente de retención) at the time the investor makes the corresponding claim, thus forcing investors to be making claims each time withholdings are made, when there are taxpayers exempt from the payment of taxes. Consequently, if the withholding agent (agente de retención) is solely responsible to the taxpayer, it is responsible not only for the refunds of the sums unduly withheld, but also for the interest these sums generate, due to the delay in their refund. This is clearly established by numeral 43 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios by stating that: *"... In the case of undue payments, the creditor shall be entitled to the recognition of interest equal to that established in Article 58 of this Code. Said interest shall run from the calendar day following the date of the payment made by the taxpayer."* **VIII.-** **ON THE PARTIAL NULLITY OF THE RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN OFFICIAL LETTER TESO-289 OF JUNE 13, 2008, AND RESOLUTIONS DSF-047-2010 AND DSF-556-2010.** The resolution contained in official letter TESO-289 of June 13, 2008, through which the Treasury Department of the Banco Central determined that the payment of interest was not appropriate because, in its opinion, there had been no undue collection of taxes, was partially revoked through resolution DSF-047-2010 of March 30, 2010, establishing that the recognition of interest was appropriate; however, given that several institutions participated in the process, each of them must assume its responsibility. For its part, resolution DSF-556-2010 issued by the Management of the Banco Central de Costa Rica partially granted the appeal and declared the payment of interest appropriate; nevertheless, it maintained that, due to the participation of other entities, such recognition would be circumscribed, in the case of the Banco Central, to the days additional to the period required by the Banco Central to make the refund of the withholdings effective, which run from the moment the elements of judgment to request the exemption are effectively available and the date the refund of the income tax is made effective. And the Treasury Department is ordered to make a payment of default interest (intereses moratorios) in accordance with Articles 43 and 58 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios based on the exact days additional to the period reasonably estimated to be required to carry out the various procedures, for the sum of ¢1,205,807.90.

Now then, it is clear to this Chamber that the 8% withholding of income tax constitutes an undue payment by the Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones, being exempt from the payment of that tax, however, it was withheld by the Banco Central de Costa Rica, in its capacity as withholding agent (agente de retención), as established by numeral 24 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios; it is by reason of what is provided in this norm that said institution is responsible for the refund of those amounts unduly withheld, and if it is responsible for the refund of those undue withholdings, it is also responsible for the interest generated by the delay in the refund. Interest that the taxpayer or investor, in this case, the Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial, has the right to be recognized by whoever, with an undue withholding (Banco Central de Costa Rica acting as withholding agent (agente de retención)), made it pay income taxes while being exempt from such payment; so the interest that the Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones has the right to collect as creditor shall begin to be computed from the calendar day following the date of the payment made by the taxpayer, as established by Article 43 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios transcribed above. Nevertheless, trying to justify the refusal to pay interest based on the fact that there are other institutions that participated in the withholding and refund procedure is to ignore what the Tax Law (Ley Tributaria) provides, because it is not the refund procedure and those who participate in it that determine the responsible party for the payment of refunds and their interest, but rather Article 24, so often mentioned, of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, which provides that the withholding agent (agente de retención) *"is responsible to the taxpayer for withholdings made without legal or regulatory norms authorizing them; and in such case, the taxpayer may recover from the agent the sums unduly withheld."* In relation to interest, numeral 43 of the same normative body provides: *"... In the case of undue payments, the creditor shall be entitled to the recognition of interest equal to that established in Article 58 of this Code. Said interest shall run from the calendar day following the date of the payment made by the taxpayer."* From the foregoing, it is inferred on one hand the determination made by the Tax Law (Ley Tributaria) of the withholding agent (agente de retención) as responsible to the taxpayer for the undue withholdings as well as the interest generated by those undue payments. The foregoing is also clear in the sense that no entity may establish on its own authority under what assumptions it is responsible or in what cases or conditions it is responsible, and how far that responsibility extends. The Banco Central de Costa Rica as withholding agent (agente de retención) cannot assume powers that the law itself does not grant it, so it is forbidden from determining liability quotas, deadlines for refunds, and for the payment of interest, when there are legal or regulatory norms that establish such parameters. In its condition as withholding and collection agent (agente de retención y percepción), it is obliged to comply with the regulations of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios as they are set forth. Such being the case, it must be reiterated that regardless of the procedures, mechanisms, or systems that the withholding agent (agente de retención) uses to make the refund of the amounts unduly withheld for income tax effective, as well as the interest generated, the fact of the matter is that the party responsible to the taxpayer is exclusively the withholding agent (agente de retención) for those sums unduly withheld, as well as the interest generated. Nor can the issue of the institutions or entities that intervene in the refund procedure, or to whom it falls to carry out one procedure or another, be opposed to the taxpayer, because all of this is irrelevant in the face of the clear and precise determination in the Código de Normas y Procedimientos of who is responsible to the taxpayer or investor for the undue withholdings, as well as the interest that arises as an unavoidable consequence of the delay in the refund of those sums unduly withheld. Sums that, like any obligation, generate interest upon delay in payment. Such being the case, it is evident that what is provided in the resolutions whose partial nullity is requested conflicts with legality by openly contravening what is provided in the tax norms, specifically Articles 24, 43, and 58 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, by providing situations contrary to what they establish. All reasons that oblige granting the requested partial nullity of the contested resolutions, in the terms indicated above.

**IX.-** **ON THE DAMAGES AND PREJUDICES (DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS):** In accordance with the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that as a consequence of the conduct of the Banco Central de Costa Rica in not paying the amounts that, by way of interest, it is under the legal obligation to refund, damage has been generated to the patrimony of the State and, particularly, to the Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial, by not having the interest produced from the undue withholding of the 8% of income tax, which has not been paid, and which, as a creditor, it has the right to have recognized, in accordance with numeral 43 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, and which amounts to the sum of one hundred forty-three million ninety thousand two hundred thirty colones with two céntimos (¢143,090,230.02), an amount that results after subtracting the difference of one million two hundred five thousand eight hundred seven colones with ninety céntimos, the last sum of default interest (intereses moratorios) paid. Said amount must be granted as material damage (daño material), and as prejudices (perjuicios), interest must be granted from the date of the undue payment and until its effective cancellation. Both amounts must be indexed from the date the first income tax withholding was made until its effective payment."

“III.- SOBRE EL PRINCIPIO DE LEGALIDAD TRIBUTARIA. LA FINALIDAD DE LAS NORMAS QUE DISPONEN LAS EXENCIONES. LA INTERPRETACIÓN DE LAS NORMAS TRIBUTARIAS EN ESPECIAL LAS DE EXENCIONES.

Sobre el particular, la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en sentencia número 000399-F-2006 de las diez horas cuarenta minutos del veintiocho de junio del dos mil seis, ha considerado:

“…III.- Principio de legalidad tributaria. (…) Los tributos y sus excepciones están cubiertos por el principio de reserva de ley, según el cual, corresponde al legislador, su creación, modificación y extinción. Este principio es denominado como “legalidad tributaria ”. A nivel constitucional, encuentra su fundamento en la letra del numeral 121 inciso 13 de la Carta Magna que asigna a la Asamblea Legislativa la atribución exclusiva de “ establecer los impuestos y contribuciones nacionales, y autorizar las municipales. ” Dicha norma ha sido objeto de desarrollo legal, para establecer con claridad y precisión los alcances y cobertura del citado postulado. Así, en el artículo 5 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios se dispone con claridad: “ En cuestiones tributarias solo la ley puede: a) Crear, modificar o suprimir tributos; definir el hecho generador de la relación tributaria; establecer las tarifas de los tributos y sus bases de cálculo; e indicar el sujeto pasivo; b) Otorgar exenciones, reducciones o beneficios; (...) ” Precepto que encuentra plena armonía con el canon 124 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública, en tanto dispone: “ Los reglamentos, circulares, instrucciones y demás disposiciones administrativas de carácter general no podrán establecer penas ni imponer exacciones, tasas, multas ni otras cargas similares. ” Por su parte, el numeral 4 ibidem define el tributo como las prestaciones en dinero, sean impuestos, tasas o contribuciones especiales, que el Estado, en ejercicio de su poder de imperio, exige con el objeto de obtener recursos para el cumplimiento de sus fines. Las características de cada uno de esos tipos, son desarrollados por ese mismo precepto. Esta Sala, por lo demás, en diversos pronunciamientos, con apoyo en las disposiciones 5 y 6 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, ha sido enfática en respetar el principio de legalidad tributaria. Por tal motivo se ha destacado la imposibilidad de crear tributos o exenciones por vía distinta a la de la ley 2000). Este postulado implica por ende no solo la unidad del sistema tributario en general, sino a la vez, la seguridad y certeza jurídica en materia impositiva, en tanto el contribuyente puede advertir y conocer con la debida antelación y con la precisión suficiente, el alcance y contenido de las obligaciones fiscales, lo que le resulta relevante para conocer el régimen de sujeción, hecho imponible, base de cálculo, tarifa, entre otros elementos del gravamen. Cabe precisar que además infiere un ámbito material, dentro del cual, se establecen los componentes del tributo que necesariamente, deben ser creados por ley expresa. Se trata de los componentes esenciales y determinantes del tributo, los que forzosamente, deben ser establecidos por el legislador. Entre estos elementos, se encuentran, de manera indefectible, el hecho generador, el sujeto pasivo, la base imponible, la tarifa del tributo, así como período de cobro, según sea progresivo o instantáneo. La intervención de la ley por ende, es imperiosa en todos aquellos puntos que afectan los derechos y garantías del particular frente a la Administración Tributaria. Escapan de su rigurosidad los componentes meramente procedimentales, tales como mecanismos de recaudación, tramitación, entre otros. No obstante, en cuanto a la tarifa, el Tribunal Constitucional ha establecido la posibilidad de una delegación legislativa, claro está, mediante una ley que establezca de antemano los límites en que este ejercicio puede realizarse. Es el caso del impuesto selectivo de consumo. De allí que la reserva de ley referida pueda calificarse como “relativa”, según lo ha ratificado en varios de sus pronunciamientos dicha Sala, entre otros en las resoluciones nos. 8271-2001, 8580-2001 y 5504-2002. Dentro de esta concepción, las exenciones y en general los beneficios tributarios, deben ser igualmente creados mediante ley, en la que corresponde incorporar, para claridad aplicativa, el supuesto de hecho o el hecho generador del beneficio fiscal. En esta dirección, el párrafo inicial del ordinal 62 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios dispone: “La ley que contemple exenciones debe especificar las condiciones y los requisitos fijados para otorgarlas, los beneficiarios, las mercancías, los tributos que comprende, si es total o parcial, el plazo de su duración, y si al final o en el transcurso de dicho período se pueden liberar las mercancías o si deben liquidar los impuestos, o bien si se puede autorizar el traspaso a terceros y bajo qué condiciones. ” IV.- Finalidad de las normas que disponen exenciones. La exención tributaria tiene lugar cuando una norma contempla que en determinados supuestos expresamente previstos, no obstante producirse el hecho generador, no surge la obligación del sujeto pasivo de cancelar la obligación tributaria. Forma parte de los denominados “beneficios fiscales”, los que suelen responder a una finalidad extrafiscal, o bien de estímulo a ciertas actividades. En muchas ocasiones, estos beneficios se sustentan en la lógica del principio de capacidad económica, o en otras razones que motivan la decisión del legislador. En este sentido, dentro de la doctrina tributarista se constituyen y así deben considerarse, como mecanismos y herramientas propias del entorno tributario. Constituyen vías que en el fondo pretenden y permiten, mediante condiciones estratégicas (que pueden ser temporales), el fomento, desarrollo o promoción de un determinado sector económico, de ciertas áreas de actividad, contextos sociales, o bien, la equiparación de las condiciones económicas para potenciar un estado de igualdad en la distribución de las cargas contributivas, a corto, mediano o largo plazo. En ocasiones, simplemente buscan evitar que el sistema tributario se torne confiscatorio. De ahí que resulten inviables cuando tengan por fin un beneficio injustificado, incompatible con su finalidad parafiscal o se aparten de criterios razonables y del sistema de valores propio de la Constitución Política. Así visto, su creación no es incompatible con los principios de igualdad, generalidad y el deber de contribuir con las cargas públicas que se desprende del numeral 18 de la Constitución Política, sino que son elementos que se complementan para lograr, en tesis de principio, un equilibrio y estabilidad en la situación fiscal del país en su dimensión integral. Es decir, en el fondo buscan el cumplimiento de esos postulados, mediante acciones que se orientan a constituir un sistema revestido por condiciones de equidad en términos de capacidad económica y desarrollo. Por ende, en su nueva integración, esta Sala considera que contrario al criterio hasta el momento sostenido en este campo, no constituyen estricto sensu, excepciones al deber de contribuir, sino partes de un sistema que disponen la dispensa del pago del impuesto, o bien otros beneficios, que integralmente considerados, buscan mejorar, en sentido global, el sistema impositivo en términos cuantitativos y cualitativos. Lo anterior mediante la dispensa total o parcial del pago del impuesto o la disminución de su base de cálculo, ergo, pueden recaer sobre la obligación tributaria en su plenitud, o bien, sobre la exclusión de aquella base de algunos componentes. Ante estas particularidades, su manejo debe ser cuidadoso y cauteloso, pues su aplicación arbitraria puede hacer incurrir en afectaciones a los principios de generalidad y de igualdad, trastornando su propia finalidad.

V.- Interpretación de las normas tributarias y exenciones. Finalidad. La labor hermenéutica de las normas que regulen las relaciones tributarias, debe realizarse dentro de los cauces de las reglas de la interpretación jurídica, comunes a todas las ramas del derecho acudiendo a sus diversos métodos, a fin de precisar los alcances y particularidades de un determinado mandato, de modo que la formulación hipotética, aplicada a la praxis diaria, cumpla su cometido intrínseco y el fin que ha dispuesto el legislador para su emisión. En este sentido, el numeral 6 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios establece: “ Las normas tributarias se deben interpretar con arreglo a todos los métodos admitidos por el Derecho Común./ La analogía es procedimiento admisible para llenar los vacíos legales pero en virtud de ella no pueden crearse tributos ni exenciones . ” En esta labor, a tono con el principio de igualdad constitucional, es claro que el intérprete debe ponderar las diversas variables que convergen en cada situación, dentro de ellas, la naturaleza de la disposición, procurando que su uso, en la forma y alcances que establezca, sea igual para todos los casos similares y evitar una aplicación material que burle la finalidad misma de su contenido. La exégesis de las normas tributarias no puede ser restrictiva. El tributo se particulariza por su coactividad, en tanto dimana del ejercicio del Poder Público, que mediante esta vía, impone, al amparo de la Constitución, gravámenes económicos a los sujetos pasivos. Pero además, se identifica por su carácter contributivo en tanto su finalidad es colaborar con las cargas públicas, a fin de dotar al Estado de los recursos adecuados que le permitan desplegar su marco funcional y prestacional a favor de la colectividad. Esto desde luego no excluye que en ciertos casos, este tipo de cargas nazcan con un objetivo diferente, como sería el caso del criterio de la parafiscalidad. Desde este plano, las normas tributarias no pueden ser consideradas excepcionales o bien, limitativas de los derechos de los particulares, dado que ese carácter llevaría a que su aplicación y por tanto su interpretación, fuese igualmente restrictivo. Tampoco resulta acertada esa forma interpretativa dentro del contexto de las disposiciones que establezcan exenciones o beneficios fiscales. Esta Sala, hasta la fecha, había sostenido la tesis de que, conforme a lo dispuesto por el Código referido y el régimen jurídico propio de las exenciones, su interpretación debe ser restrictiva, en razón de que del contexto de los numerales 5, 6 en relación al citado ordinal 62, todos de aquel cuerpo legal, se desprende la protección al principio de legalidad en materia de exenciones, mediante la imposibilidad de interpretar ampliativamente las normas a ellas referidas. En este sentido entre muchas, sentencia n o. 162, de las 15 horas 22 minutos del 25 de setiembre de 1991, no. 93 de las 15 horas 30 minutos del 28 de agosto de 1996, no. 86 de las 15 horas del 19 de agosto de 1998 y no. 318 de las 9 horas del 19 de mayo del 2004. No obstante, con su nueva integración, y luego de una profunda reflexión del punto, llega a un criterio distinto al referido. La naturaleza y objeto de las normas del tipo aludido, en los términos ya expuestos, así como su régimen jurídico, no implica ni justifica que deban ser interpretadas con un prisma diferente al de las otras disposiciones tributarias, sea, con criterios especiales, pues a fin de cuentas, se reitera, son todas componentes de un mismo sistema que busca, en su dimensión teleológica, la equidad en las cargas contributivas.Para ello es necesario, en algunos casos, implementar normas que en el fondo, busquen el cumplimiento de los diversos principios con los que el constituyente ha revestido el sistema fiscal. Como se ha dicho, es frecuente que los beneficios fiscales respondan a la capacidad económica, o bien a criterios extrafiscales, los que igualmente pueden estar presentes en otros componentes del tributo. Una interpretación restrictiva en esta materia supondría que ese tipo de beneficios son excepcionales, siendo que solo son aplicables cuando la ley lo disponga. No obstante, el principio de legalidad tributaria al que están sujetos, no puede constituirse en un condicionante válido que justifique una interpretación especial (restrictiva), sino que debe ser ponderado en su correcta dimensión, esto es, solo por vía legal pueden crearse, su fuente de origen debe reunir las condiciones señaladas en el numeral 62 del citado Código y solo surten efectos si ocurre el hecho que ha sido preestablecido para su ocurrencia. Por tanto, la legalidad tributaria así vista, no es justificante de una consideración restrictiva de las gracias fiscales. Conviene aclarar empero, que las normas de esta clase son las que se conocen como mandatos con presupuesto de hecho exclusivo, lo que, a tono con lo dispuesto por los artículos 6 y 62 mencionados, impiden su aplicación analógica, lo que es una situación distinta a la propia interpretación.En esta tesitura, al igual que los tributos se encuentran sujetos a un principio de reserva legal, también lo están las exenciones y beneficios, en cuya fuente de creación, deben enunciarse los elementos básicos que la delimitan. Dentro de este enfoque entonces, las normas que contengan regulaciones del tipo referido, deben ser ponderadas sin sujeción a ningún criterio especial o específico. En esta tarea, debe recordarse que la norma transcrita establece en su párrafo final un límite objetivo a esta labor exegética, tal cual es, la imposibilidad de crear tributos o exenciones vía analógica, mecanismo que si bien es útil para llenar los vacíos legales, no puede suplir en estos términos, el papel del legislador en virtud del principio de reserva legal. Así visto, el campo de la creación de gravámenes y beneficios tributarios está vedado por este medio, siendo por ende figuras que deben crearse por una manifestación legislativa formal, en los términos ya explicitados con antelación. Ahora bien, esta última característica aludida supone que las exenciones y beneficios tributarios solo pueden concederse si el hecho concreto que se invoca, corresponde al supuesto fáctico de la norma autorizante y su otorgamiento es factible acorde al parámetro fijado por el legislador en la fuente de su creación. Por ende, cuando la norma imponga de forma clara e indubitable condiciones concretas para el disfrute o recepción de los efectos benevolentes del régimen fiscal, en su aplicación estos parámetros no podrán ser eludidos en tanto son parte inexorable del hecho condicionante que el ordenamiento ha fijado. Así visto, el efecto condicionado se producirá, cuando esos presupuestos fácticos estipulados en el mandato se hayan satisfecho. De este modo, el juzgador debe analizar en cada caso, con el cuidado de rigor, si el supuesto de hecho propuesto por el sujeto pasivo encuadra y coincide con el hecho exento dispuesto por la norma que prevé el beneficio, dentro de su contenido material. En esta confrontación, en tesis de principio, resulta improcedente ampliar los efectos de la norma a extremos que ella no contempla, ni que deriven de su contenido, como igualmente inviable por imperio de ley lo son las prácticas analógicas en este tipo de situaciones, pues surge el riesgo de incorporar dentro del hecho exento, supuestos que no contempla la ley, lo que atentaría contra el precitado principio de reserva legal que impera en estos campos( …) (lo subrayado no es del original).

IV.- EXENCIÓN DEL ARTÍCULO 241 DE LA LEY ORGÁNICA DEL PODER JUDICIAL.

En consonancia con el análisis efectuado por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia respecto al principio de legalidad tributaria y al régimen de exenciones, se puede afirmar que la exención consiste en la eliminación del nacimiento de la obligación tributaria. De manera que para ciertos casos establecidos por ley, no se producen las consecuencias jurídicas económicas inherentes a la norma impositiva, tal y como lo define el numeral 61 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios se trata de una dispensa legal de la obligación tributaria. De modo que ante la existencia de una obligación tributaria establecida por la ley, es la misma ley la que puede excepcionar una determinada situación a o a un determinado contribuyente del cobro del tributo. Pese a que se realiza el hecho generador del tributo no surge la obligación del pago del tributo por parte del sujeto pasivo. El establecimiento de exenciones es materia reserva de ley, en este sentido la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial, en su artículo 241 establece una exención de impuestos y tasas para el Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial al señalar: "Las operaciones que se ejecuten con recursos provenientes del Fondo estarán exentas de todo tipo de impuestos y tasas". Exención que es de carácter general, pues se refiere a todo tipo de impuestos, sin hacer distingo en la naturaleza del tributo, la única condición o restricción que establece la norma para que las operaciones estén exentas, es que provengan de recursos del mismo Fondo. En este sentido debe tenerse claridad que la exención es para toda clase de operaciones (sean inversiones en títulos, macrotítulos con o sin cupones), ya que la ley no da un tratamiento diferente por la naturaleza de la inversión, véase que la norma establece "las operaciones que se ejecuten..." ., Así las cosas, cualquier retención realizada sobre dineros provenientes de este Fondo resulta ser una retención indebida e ilegal en tanto se hace en clara contravención a lo que dispone la norma en cuestión. En igual sentido se pronuncia el numeral 3 inciso a) de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta al excluir de este impuesto al Estado y demás instituciones que por ley especial gocen de tal exención; tal es el caso del Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial.

V.- SOBRE LA CONDICIÓN DEL BANCO CENTRAL DE COSTA RICA COMO AGENTE DE RETENCIÓN Y PERCEPCIÓN. SU RESPONSABILIDAD.

De conformidad con los numerales 100 y 101 de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica: "El Banco Central se encargará de la recaudación de todas las rentas públicas en los términos y condiciones que determine en el contrato que para tal efecto celebrará con el Gobierno de la República". En el mismo sentido el artículo 23 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios dispone que sean agentes de retención o percepción, las personas designadas por la ley, que por sus funciones públicas o por razón de su actividad, oficio o profesión intervengan en actos u operaciones en los cuales deban efectuar la retención o percepción del tributo correspondiente. En el caso bajo análisis, ha quedado debidamente acreditado y se trata de un hecho no controvertido que el Fondo de Pensiones y Jubilaciones del Poder Judicial invirtió en títulos valores emitidos por el Banco Central y que ha sido éste en su condición de agente retenedor quien retuvo el 8% de impuesto sobre la renta respecto de los intereses generados por los montos invertidos. Retención que no debió realizarse en razón de la exención general (de todo tipo de impuestos y tasas) dispuesta por la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial para las operaciones realizadas con recursos provenientes de dicho Fondo.De manera que las retenciones del 8% realizadas por el Banco Central de Costa Rica como agente retenedor sobre los intereses generados por las sumas invertidas por el Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial, constituyen pagos indebidos en virtud de encontrarse dicho Fondo exento por norma legal expresa de dicha obligación y por ende carece el agente de retención de norma legal que lo autorice a realizarla. Ahora bien, interesa a los efectos de lo que se discute en este proceso, establecer cuál es la responsabilidad del agente de retención y percepción y en este sentido el artículo 24 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios establece: “Efectuada la retención o percepción del tributo, el agente es el único responsable ante el Fisco por el importe retenido o percibido; y si no realiza la retención o percepción, responde solidariamente, salvo que pruebe ante la Administración Tributaria que el contribuyente ha pagado el tributo. Si el agente en cumplimiento de esta solidaridad satisface el tributo, puede repetir del contribuyente el monto pagado al Fisco. El agente es responsable ante el contribuyente por las retenciones efectuadas sin normas legales o reglamentarias que las autoricen; y en tal caso el contribuyente puede repetir del agente las sumas retenidas indebidamente”. Según lo indica esta norma, el agente de retención y percepción posee una doble responsabilidad: ante el Fisco y ante el contribuyente. Ante el Fisco responde en forma personal y directa por el monto que hubiere retenido o percibido y en forma solidaria si no realiza la retención o percepción, excepto que demuestre ante la Administración Tributaria que el contribuyente ha pagado el tributo, si, por el contrario, el agente paga el tributo, puede repetir del contribuyente el monto que hubiere satisfecho al Fisco. Ante el contribuyente también es responsable el agente de retención y percepción, por aquellas retenciones efectuadas sin fundamento legal, sea, retenciones indebidas, montos respecto de los cuales, según lo señala el numeral transcrito, el contribuyente tiene un derecho de crédito a su favor y puede ejercer el derecho de repetición contra el agente de retención. Así las cosas, es claro para esta Cámara que el responsable ante el Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial, por las retenciones del impuesto sobre la renta efectuadas sobre los intereses generados por los montos invertidos, al existir norma expresa que establece la exención de todo tipo de impuestos y tasas, para las operaciones realizadas con recursos provenientes de dicho Fondo, lo es según el Código de Normas y procedimientos Tributarios, Ley 4755, vigente desde el 3 de mayo de 1971, el agente de retención y percepción, condición que en la especie, ostenta el Banco Central de Costa Rica.

VI.- SOBRE LA RESOLUCIÓN N°DGT-20-2006 DE 28 DE AGOSTO DE 2006.

De conformidad con el numeral 99 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, la Administración Tributaria puede dictar normas generales para la correcta aplicación de las leyes tributarias, dentro de los límites fijados por las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias pertinentes. Esta norma es clara en el sentido de que las resoluciones que se dicten lo serán para una correcta aplicación de las leyes tributarias. Desde esta perspectiva, los procedimientos que se establezcan en esas disposiciones generales deben estar orientados y guiados por lo dispuesto en la normativa legal tributaria. Dentro de una correcta hermenéutica legal no podrían establecerse procedimientos que desnaturalicen lo dispuesto por las normas tributarias. Así las cosas, y en lo que respecta al artículo 24 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, es evidente y no hay lugar a dudas que el legislador estableció expresamente que el agente de retención y percepción es el responsable ante el contribuyente por las retenciones efectuadas indebidamente y que éste último tiene el derecho de repetir esos montos del agente de retención. De manera que el procedimiento, los requisitos y formalidades para proceder a la devolución de los montos retenidos indebidamente, vincula únicamente a quien emite las directrices y las entidades sujetas a tales lineamientos, ya que, no son estas disposiciones las que establecen la condición de agente de retención y responsable ante el contribuyente, sino la ley. En este sentido, la Resolución DGT-20-2006, lo que varió fue el mecanismo o procedimiento para la devolución de los montos retenidos indebidamente por el agente de retención. Particularmente, en el caso del Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial, tal retención es indebida dada su improcedencia al existir norma expresa que establece la exención de todo tipo de impuestos para las operaciones efectuadas con recursos provenientes de dicho Fondo. Respecto a la fecha de vigencia de la citada resolución y su eventual aplicación retroactiva, carece de interés a los efectos de determinar a quién corresponde la obligación de devolver los montos retenidos indebidamente, ya que la indicada resolución, es una disposición de carácter general que viene a reglamentar la aplicación correcta de la ley, no la modifica; por lo que no podría variar lo dispuesto por el Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios respecto a la responsabilidad del agente de retención y percepción, en este caso del Banco Central de Costa Rica, como obligado a la devolución de los montos retenidos indebidamente; al ser el responsable de tales retenciones según el numeral 24, ya tantas mencionado, norma que se encuentra vigente desde mil novecientos setenta y uno. En consecuencia, las variaciones introducidas por la resolución DGT-20-2006, se refieren únicamente a los mecanismos o procedimientos a seguir para tales devoluciones indebidas; en el entendido de que el agente de retención y percepción es el responsable ante el contribuyente por las retenciones efectuadas en forma indebida, condición establecida en la ley (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) y que no ha variado a la fecha.

VII.- SOBRE LA DEVOLUCIÓN DE LOS MONTOS RETENIDOS INDEBIDAMENTE POR CONCEPTO DE IMPUESTOS SOBRE LA RENTA Y SUS INTERESES.

Tal y como ha quedado acreditado mediante los hechos que se han tenido por demostrados, la devolución de los montos retenidos por concepto de impuestos sobre la renta así como sus intereses han sido gestionados en forma oportuna y permanente tanto por el Departamento Financiero Contable del Poder Judicial así como por el Presidente de la Corte Suprema de Justicia; directamente ante el Departamento de Tesorería del Banco Central de Costa Rica, mostrando dicha entidad en primera instancia negativa a hacer la devolución de las sumas indicando que no podía proceder con el reintegro de sumas que ya habían sido depositadas en las arcas del Estado y en ese tanto, sugiere se formule el reclamo correspondiente ante la Administración Tributaria. Por su parte la Administración Tributaria hace la indicación que el procedimiento para la devolución de sumas retenidas indebidamente se establece en la Resolución DGT-20-2006, y que quien debe realizarlo es el agente de retención, según lo establece el numeral 24 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios; lo cual es reiterado en más de una ocasión por dicha Administración al Banco Central de Costa Rica, en razón de la claridad de la norma que obliga al Banco como agente de retención y percepción a responder ante el contribuyente por los montos retenidos en forma indebida, y como ya se indicó en considerandos precedentes, es evidente que se está ante una retención indebida en el tanto las inversiones realizadas con dineros provenientes del Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial se encuentran exentas de toda clase de impuestos y tasas por expresa disposición legal (artículo 241 de la Ley Orgánica del Poder Judicial en igual sentido artículo 3 inciso a) de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta). De manera que el reintegro de lo recaudado por concepto de impuesto sobre la renta es una obligación legal a cumplir por parte de quien realizó la respectiva retención, en el presente caso el agente retenedor fue el Banco Central de Costa Rica, quien equivocadamente creyó realizar la retención sobre un sujeto pasivo obligado al pago de ese impuesto, cuando lo cierto es que se encontraba exento de tal obligación. Así que se encuentra en la obligación legal de reintegrale al contribuyente, los montos retenidos en forma indebida, obligación que no la establece la Administración Tributaria, ni es una interpretación de lo que establece el numeral 24 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, sino que es lo que dispone en forma diáfana, expresa y taxativa la citada norma, tan clara es que no deja lugar para interpretar quién debe hacer la devolución, pues la norma lo indica expresamente "El agente es responsable ante el contribuyente por las retenciones efectuadas sin normas legales o reglamentarias que las autoricen; y en tal caso, el contribuyente puede repetir del agente las sumas retenidas indebidamente". No obstante la renuencia del Banco Central de Costa Rica en efectuar la devolución, posteriormente acepta hacerla y es así cómo realiza los depósitos correspondientes a las sumas retenidas indebidamente en la cuenta del Fondo de Pensiones y Jubilaciones del Poder Judicial, según consta a folios 103,104,138,144,145,149181,182183,184 y 201. Sin embargo, se niega a hacer las devoluciones de los intereses correspondientes, aduciendo para ello que no se trata de un cobro indebido de tributos, sino que lo que ha existido es una operativa que no ha permitido distinguir en forma previa a los entes exentos y que, por lo tanto no corrresponde el pago de intereses. En este sentido, debe indicarse al igual que lo hace la Directora de Recaudación de la Dirección General de Tributación que la forma en que realiza la retención el ente emisor, en este caso el Banco Central sin hacer distinción alguna, es lo que produce el riesgo de hacer retenciones a entidades exentas, tal y como ha sucedido en el caso del Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial. Y, la responsabilidad por el mecanismo utilizado para hacer efectiva la retención es exclusiva del agente de retención, sea, el Banco Central de Costa Rica, quien utiliza un sistema altamente riesgoso al no hacer distinción con respecto a los entes a los cuales hace el rebajo del impuesto, lo cual no permite establecer cuándo se está en presencia de entes exentos. Es por ello que la Dirección General de Tributación le hace ver al ente emisor que con ese sistema de retención el Banco Central asume el riesgo de que alguna entidad a la que le hace rebajo se encuentre exenta y por ello, debe proceder luego a la devolución de los montos retenidos en forma indebida, así como los intereses que legalmente correspondan, pues la circunstancia de que el ente emisor no conozca la identidad del inversor, es responsabilidad única y exclusiva del mismo Banco al establecer ese sistema de retención, no solamente riesgoso, sino poco transparente, ante la posibilidad de hacer retenciones a entidades exentas, situación que sólo va a ser conocida por el agente de retención hasta el momento en que el inversor efectúe el reclamo correspondiente, obligando de esta forma a los inversionistas a estar realizando reclamos, cada vez que se realicen retenciones, cuando existan contribuyentes exentos en el pago de impuestos. De manera que si el agente de retención es el único responsable ante el contribuyente, lo es no sólo respecto a las devoluciones de las sumas indebidamente retenidas, sino también respecto a los intereses que generen las mismas, en cuanto al retraso en su devolución. Así lo establece claramente el numeral 43 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios al señalar que: "... En los pagos indebidos, el acreedor tendrá derecho al reconocimiento de un interés igual al establecido en el artículo 58 de este Código. Dicho interés correrá a partir del día natural siguiente a la fecha del pago efectuado por el contribuyente".

VIII.- SOBRE LA NULIDAD PARCIAL DE LAS RESOLUCIONES CONTENIDAS EN OFICIO TESO-289 DE 13 DE JUNIO DE 2008 Y LAS RESOLUCIONES DSF-047-2010 Y DSF-556-2010.

La resolución contenida en el oficio TESO-289 de 13 de junio de 2008, mediante la cual el Departamento de Tesorería del Banco Central determina que no es procedente el pago de intereses por cuanto en su criterio no ha habido un cobro indebido de tributos, es revocada parcialmente mediante la resolución DSF-047-2010 de 30 de marzo de 2010, estableciendo que el reconocimiento de intereses si es procedente, sin embargo, en razón de que en el proceso participan varias instituciones, cada una de ellas debe asumir su responsabilidad. Por su parte, la resolución DSF-556-2010 emitida por la Gerencia del Banco Central de Costa Rica acoge parcialmente el recurso de apelación y declara procedente el pago de los intereses, sin embargo, sostiene que, en razón de la participación de otras entidades, dicho reconocimiento estaría circunscrito en el caso del Banco Central a los días adicionales al plazo que requiere el Banco Central para hacer efectiva la devolución de las retenciones, los cuales corren desde el momento en que efectivamente se tienen los elementos de juicio para solicitar la exención y la fecha en que se hace efectiva la devolución del impuesto sobre la Renta.Y se le ordena al Departamento de Tesorería realizar un pago de intereses moratorios de conformidad con los artículos 43 y 58 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios con fundamento en los días exactos, adicionales al período que se estima razonablemente se requiere para llevar a cabo los distintos trámites, por la suma de ¢1.205.807.90.

Ahora bien, es claro para esta Cámara que la retención del 8% del impuesto sobre la renta constituye un pago indebido por parte del Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones, al estar exento del pago de ese impuesto, sin embargo, le fue retenido por el Banco Central de Costa Rica, en su condición de agente de retención, tal y como lo establece el numeral 24 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, es en razón de lo dispuesto en esta norma que dicha institución es la responsable para la devolución de esos montos indebidamente retenidos, y si es el responsable de la devolución de esas retenciones indebidas también lo es de los intereses que se generen por el atraso en la devolución. Intereses que el contribuyente o inversionista, en este caso, el Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial, tiene derecho a que se le reconozcan por parte de quien con una retención indebida (Banco Central de Costa Rica actuando como agente de retención), lo hizo pagar impuestos sobre la renta, encontrándose exento de tal pago; de manera que los intereses que tiene derecho a cobrar el Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones como acreedor, comenzarán a computarse a partir del día natural siguiente a la fecha del pago efectuado por el contribuyente, tal y como lo establece el artículo 43 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios antes transcrito. No obstante, tratar de justificar la negativa al pago de intereses en el hecho de que existen otras instituciones que participaron en el procedimiento de retención y devolución, es desconocer lo que la Ley Tributaria dispone, pues no es el procedimiento de devolución y quienes participen del mismo lo que determina el sujeto responsable en el pago de las devoluciones y sus intereses, sino el artículo 24 tantas veces mencionado del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, que dispone que el agente de retención "es responsable ante el contribuyente por las retenciones efectuadas sin normas legales o reglamentarias que las autoricen; y en tal caso el contribuyente puede repetir del agente las sumas retenidas indebidamente". En relación con los intereses el numeral 43 del mismo cuerpo normativo dispone: "... En los pagos indebidos, el acreedor tendrá derecho al reconocimiento de un interés igual al establecido en el artículo 58 de este Código. Dicho interés correrá a partir del día natural siguiente a la fecha del pago efectuado por el contribuyente". De lo anterior se colige por un lado la determinación que hace la Ley Tributaria del agente de retención como responsable ante el contribuyente, por las retenciones indebidas así como los intereses que generan esos pagos indebidos. Lo anterior también es claro en el sentido de que no puede ninguna entidad establecer de mutuo propio bajo qué supuestos es responsable o en qué casos o condiciones es responsable, y hasta dónde llega esa responsabilidad. No puede el Banco Central de Costa Rica como agente de retención atribuirse facultades que la misma ley no le concede, por lo que le está vedada la posibilidad de determinar cuotas de responsabilidad, plazos para la devolución y para el pago de intereses, cuando existan normas legales o reglamentarias que establezcan dichos parámetros. En su condición de agente de retención y percepción está obligado al acatamiento de la normativa del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios tal y como está dispuesta. Así las cosas, ha de reiterarse que independientemente de cuáles sean los procedimientos, mecanismos o sistemas que utilice el agente de retención para hacer efectiva la devolución de los montos retenidos indebidamente por concepto del impuesto sobre la renta, así como sus intereses, lo cierto del caso es que el responsable ante el contribuyente es en forma exclusiva el agente de retención por aquellas sumas retenidas indebidamente, así como sus intereses. Tampoco resulta oponible al contribuyente el tema de las instituciones o entidades que intervienen en el procedimiento de devolución, o a quiénes corresponde realizar uno u otro trámite, pues todo ello resulta irrelevante, frente a la determinación clara y precisa, en el Código de Normas y Procedimientos de quién es el responsable ante el contribuyente o inversionista por las retenciones indebidas, así como los intereses que surgen como obligada consecuencia ante el atraso en la devolución de esas sumas retenidas indebidamente. Sumas que como cualquier obligación generan intereses ante el atraso en el pago. Así las cosas, resulta evidente que lo dispuesto en las resoluciones cuya nulidad parcial se peticiona riñe con la legalidad al contravenir abiertamente lo dispuesto en las normas tributarias, específicamente los artículos 24, 43 y 58 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, al disponer situaciones contrarias a lo que ellas establecen. Razones todas que obligan a acoger la nulidad parcial peticionada de las resoluciones impugnadas, en los términos supra indicados.

IX.- SOBRE LOS DAÑOS Y PERJUICIOS :

De conformidad con lo expuesto, estima este Tribunal que como consecuencia de la conducta del Banco Central de Costa Rica al no cancelar los montos que por concepto de intereses se encuentra en la obligación legal de devolver, se ha generado un daño en el patrimonio del Estado y, particularmente del Fondo de Jubilaciones y Pensiones del Poder Judicial, al no contar con los intereses producidos de la retención indebida del 8% del impuesto sobre la renta, los cuales no han sido cancelados, y que, como acreedor tiene derecho a que se le reconozca, de conformidad con el numeral 43 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios y que ascienden a la suma de ciento cuarenta y tres millones noventa mil doscientos treinta colones con dos céntimos (¢143.090.230.02), monto que resulta una vez que se le resta la diferencia de un millón doscientos cinco mil ochocientos siete colones con noventa céntimos, última suma de intereses moratorios cancelados. Dicho monto debe concederse como daño material, y en concepto de perjuicios deben otorgarse los intereses, a partir de la fecha del pago indebido y hasta su efectiva cancelación. Montos ambos que deberán ser indexados desde la fecha en que se efectuó la primera retención del impuesto sobre la renta hasta su efectivo pago.”