Annulment of Tax Assessment for Lack of Reasoning on Taxable Event in Sales TaxAnulación de determinación tributaria por falta de motivación del hecho generador en impuesto de ventas

“VII THE SALES TAX IN NATIONAL REGULATIONS: Upon the Constitutional basis of the duty of nationals and foreigners to contribute to public expenses, Articles 18 and 19 of the Magna Carta rests the Tax authority to establish various taxes, such is the case of the levy on the value in the sale of goods and in the provision of a series of services defined in the first article of Law Number 6826 of November 8, 1982. The taxable event (hecho generador) of this tax arises among several scenarios, as set forth in article three: a) In the sale of goods, at the moment of invoicing or delivery of the same, whichever act occurs first. b) In the imports or internments of goods, at the moment of acceptance of the policy or customs form, as applicable. c) In the provision of services, at the moment of invoicing or of the provision of the service, whichever act occurs first. ch) In the use or consumption of goods by the taxpayers, on the date on which they are withdrawn from the company. d) In consignment sales and layaways of merchandise, at the moment the merchandise is set apart, as the case may be. The tax that must be paid to the Tax Authority is determined by the difference between the tax debit (débito fiscal) and the tax credit (crédito fiscal) that are duly supported by vouchers and recorded in the taxpayers' accounting. The tax debit is fixed by applying the tax rate referred to in Article 10 of the aforementioned law to the total taxable sales of the corresponding month. The tax credit is established by adding the tax actually paid by the taxpayer on the purchases, imports, or internments made during the corresponding month, as well as the tax paid for insurance premiums that protect goods, machinery, and inputs directly incorporated or used directly in the production of the good or the provision of taxable services. The tax credit proceeds in the case of acquisition of goods that are physically incorporated in the elaboration of goods exempt from the payment of this tax, as well as on the machinery and equipment directly destined to produce the indicated goods. Likewise, the tax credit shall be granted on the acquisition of goods that are physically incorporated in the production of goods that are exported, exempt or not from the payment of this tax. (The preceding paragraph thus reformed by Article 15 of Law N° 8114, Ley de Simplificación y Eficiencia Tributaria, of July 4, 2001) When the tax credit is greater than the tax debit, the difference constitutes a tax balance in favor of the taxpayer. The tax credit for local purchases must be supported by invoices or vouchers duly authorized by the Tax Administration. (Its last paragraph thus reformed by Article 25 of the Ley de Justicia Tributaria Nº 7535 of August 1, 1995) It should be noted that this article was reformed by Law N° 9128 of March 20, 2013, but for the purposes of this analysis, the article was applied as it was in force at the time the challenged administrative actions occurred. Returning to the aforementioned provision of law, any goods or merchandise that the taxpayer has acquired for the manufacture of objects they sell or for the provision of services, whether exempt or not, constitutes a tax credit for this tax. This in effect follows from subsection (ordinal) 21 of Reglamento 14082-H, in which a greater detail of these scenarios can be observed, wherein despite the merchandise's sale being exempt, the application of the credit is permitted. On the other hand, it is worth noting that these purchases and acquisitions must have been made in the fiscal period to which the return corresponds, that is, they must correspond to the month declared. Naturally, to this credit resulting from acquisitions must be added the balance from the prior period, as established by the cited canon 14 of the Law. This fiscal benefit applies exclusively to registered taxpayers, as follows from numeral 5 of the governing regulation that regulates Registration as follows: Upon initiating their taxable activities, the persons or entities referred to in the previous article must register in the taxpayer registry that the Tax Administration must maintain. Persons or entities that have not requested registration shall be registered ex officio by that Tax Administration. (Thus reformed by Article 22 of the Ley de Justicia Tributaria No.

7535 of August 1, 1995) Without prejudice to the sanctions that may apply to them, persons who fail to comply with the registration obligations are nonetheless obligated to pay the tax, and shall not have the right to a refund or credit for the tax paid on the inventory of goods they hold at the date of their registration as taxpayers. Thus, on this point, by virtue of the provision, it is necessary to elucidate the moment of applicability of the tax credit (crédito fiscal), a situation analyzed by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which in its time indicated: "Thus seen, although prior registration allows the taxable person (sujeto pasivo) to apply the credits for purchases made, with the aforementioned purpose, this is a right subject to a condition, as its application depends on the start of sales operations. The foregoing because, upon being registered and the taxable event (hecho generador) of the credit occurring, a right is constituted in their favor that they may definitively apply when they begin activities of selling goods or services and file the pertinent declaration, since only at that moment can the compensatory effect already discussed materialize. This is due to the very purpose of the benefit and the tax, which applies only to value added, which is why it is at the sales stage of the good or service that the credit can be applied. The contrary would violate these particularities and prevent this figure from fulfilling its objective within the framework of the relations deriving from the sales tax. All in all, it is at the moment of carrying out the strict determination and declaration that, according to the relevant Legal System, the benefit can produce its obligation-reducing benefits. From the foregoing, it is inferred that in these cases of preliminary registration of companies, the credit is applicable when the subject begins sales operations of goods or services destined for use or consumption in the domestic market." (Resolution 000861-F-2007, eleven hours twenty-five minutes of November twenty-third, two thousand seven). Having made the foregoing considerations, the specific case is reviewed below.

**VIII- ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC CASE:** The plaintiff claims in support of its action as a first argument: that it is not appropriate to charge a sales tax on tax credits (créditos fiscales) since it contravenes the provisions of numerals 1 and 14 of the General Sales Tax Law. On this same point, the State Representation supports the actions taken by the Tax Administration on the thesis that, since the plaintiff company filed the sales tax declarations for the months of April, May, and June of the year two thousand seven, and since registration as a taxpayer was not carried out until July of '07, this situation represents a detriment to the administration by reason of the sales tax left uncollected. Now then, the core point around which this controversy revolves is the fact, taken as proven, that the Plaintiff Company registered as a sales tax taxpayer in July of the year 2007 and had initially recorded December of the year two thousand six as the start date of activities (see folio 18 of the determinative file), subsequently modified this date to April of the year two thousand seven (see folio 16 of the determinative file), leaving periods in which it was conducting activities without fulfilling the duty of registration established in article 5 of the General Sales Tax Law, a situation even accepted by the same Plaintiff Company when requesting the aforementioned retroactive registration. However, in accordance with the provisions of article 140 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures, the burden of proof falls on the Tax Administration regarding the facts constituting the obligation, while it is up to the taxpayer to demonstrate the facts that impede, modify, or extinguish the tax obligation. It should not be overlooked that the determination (determinación) of the tax obligation must always be based on objective criteria that the Administration can point out as constituting the obligation it intends to collect, which is precisely what is missing in the contested determination, which is based on presumptions without faithfully determining the origin of the data that allow it to conclude that the taxable event (hecho generador) has occurred under the terms provided by the norm. It must be remembered that the Administration is called upon to ascertain the truthfulness of the content of the sworn declarations, using for this purpose the legal means and procedures of analysis and investigation it deems appropriate, it being in no way admissible for it to reverse the burden of proof by stating that the taxpayer failed in a formal duty, which is to demonstrate that its only activity is to carry out the activity related to the production of official telephone directories, according to the contract signed with RACSA S.A. Thus, it is a negative fact that the taxpayer is required to prove, which contravenes the referenced regulatory provision cited above. On this aspect, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, through judgment 00795 of sixteen hours fifteen minutes of July thirty, two thousand nine, has stated the following: "According to articles 124 and 125 of the Tax Code, the Administration can determine the tax in those cases where the taxpayer does not do so or when, having done so, it is objected to. In this second scenario, of interest for this matter, the general rule is the use of the certain basis method, that is, 'taking into account the elements that allow knowing directly the taxable events (hechos generadores) of the tax obligation' (numeral 125 subsection a) of the cited normative body). It consists of a detailed review of the taxpayer's accounting (both the accounting books, the supporting vouchers, among others), in order to determine the truthfulness of the self-assessment (autoliquidación) presented in the form of a sworn declaration. Alternatively, the tax regulations establish an alternate and supplementary mechanism for those cases where it is not possible to follow the previous procedure, due to the presence of some of the circumstances established in subsection b) of precept 116 of the Tax Code, namely, the absence of books and records, of documents, or when, in the judgment of the competent authority, these are insufficient or contradictory. In this case, the determination will be presumptive, based on objective parameters (such as those indicated in the cited numeral), considering, of course, the particularities of the company's line of business and the conditions of the economic sector in which it operates. The difference between both mechanisms lies in the elements available to the Tax Authority in order to fix the taxpayer's tax, therefore, to determine when one is in the presence of one or the other, the factors that were analyzed to verify (or fix, as the case may be) the taxpayer's self-assessment must be assessed. (…)" In accordance with the scope of the aforementioned Tax Code norm, and according to the evidence in the administrative file, in the present matter, the Tax Administration conducted a tax audit process of the plaintiff company, reaching the conviction that the amounts of the credits for purchases declared in the months of April, May, and June of the year 2007 constitute in themselves the debit of the sales tax left unpaid, for which reason it simply transferred the described amounts from one column to another without any justification. On this point, the plaintiff is correct when alleging that the taxable event (hecho generador) of the general sales tax law that is intended to be collected does not emerge from the contested conduct, which translates ultimately into a lack of reasoning (motivación) for these acts. According to the foregoing, it is concluded that in the file under study, the Tax Administration neglects the task it has in the exercise of its Supervisory power to carry out all actions and resort to the necessary evidentiary means for the fulfillment of its purposes and to lawfully establish the origin and backing of the tax burden it intends to attribute to the Plaintiff Company. Rather, it starts from a presumption that the taxpayer, upon registering, declared that it provided advertising services as indicated in resolution SF-DT-01-V-1717-8, which reads as follows: "*Neither is the claimant's appreciation receivable, in the sense that, given the activity it carries out, the services it provides are not taxed with the sales tax, since its registration declaration (folio 26 of the determinative file) declared its economic activity is 'Advertising Services' and according to article 1 of the General Sales Tax Law, such service is indeed taxed with the cited tax.*" (see folio 31 of the determinative file) reasoning endorsed by the Administrative Tax Tribunal in resolution TFA-230-2012 (see folio 67 of the determinative file). If the Tax Administration considered that the differences in credits actually came from the General Sales Tax Law on other advertising services that were not declared, it should have demonstrated it and indicated to the taxpayer clearly its origin, but not simply transferred the amounts from one column to another, without further explanation. Having it clear that it was the administration that had the legal obligation to demonstrate the taxable events (hechos generadores) of the obligation in the tax relationship under discussion and the lack of reasoning in that sense, it is appropriate to annul the determination made to the taxpayer in the transfer of charge number 2752000018984, which liquidates against the Plaintiff Company the increases for the sums of 1,014,510.00 (one million fourteen thousand five hundred ten colones exactly) in April, 32,492,746.00 (thirty-two million four hundred ninety-two thousand seven hundred forty-six colones exactly) in May, and 95,890,797.00 (ninety-five million eight hundred ninety thousand seven hundred ninety-seven colones exactly) in June, all of 2007, for a total of 129,398,053.00 (one hundred twenty-nine million three hundred ninety-eight thousand fifty-three colones exactly) for general sales tax in relation to what was declared. Also annulled are the Tax Administration resolution SF-DT-01-V-1717-8 and the resolution of the Administrative Tax Tribunal TFA-230-2012 […].” The tax credit for local purchases must be supported by invoices or receipts duly authorized by the Tax Administration. (Last paragraph thus amended by Article 25 of the Tax Justice Law No. 7535 of August 1, 1995) It should be noted that this article was amended by Law No. 9128 of March 20, 2013, but for the purposes of this analysis, the article was applied as it was in force at the time the challenged administrative actions occurred. Returning to the aforementioned legal provision, any merchandise or goods that the taxpayer has acquired for the manufacture of objects that it sells or for the provision of services, whether exempt or not, constitutes a tax credit for this tax. This indeed follows from Article 21 of Regulation 14082-H, in which greater detail of these scenarios can be observed, where, despite the merchandise being sold being exempt, the application of the credit is allowed. On the other hand, it is worth noting that those purchases and acquisitions must have been made in the tax period to which the return corresponds, that is, they must correspond to the month declared. Of course, to that credit arising from acquisitions must be added the balance from the previous period, as established by the aforementioned Article 14 of the Law. This tax benefit applies exclusively to registered taxpayers, as follows from Article 5 of the procedural regulation that regulates Registration as follows: Upon commencing their taxable activities, the persons or entities referred to in the preceding article must register in the taxpayer registry that the Tax Administration must maintain. Persons or entities that have not requested registration will be registered ex officio by that Tax Administration. (Thus amended by Article 22 of the Tax Justice Law No. 7535 of August 1, 1995) Notwithstanding any sanctions that may apply, persons who fail to comply with the obligation to register remain obligated, in any event, to pay the tax, and will not be entitled to a refund or credit for the tax paid on the stock of goods held in inventory on the date of their registration as taxpayers.

Thus, at this point, by virtue of the provisions, it is necessary to elucidate the moment of applicability of the tax credit, a situation analyzed by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which in its turn stated: "Thus viewed, although prior registration allows the taxable person to apply the credits for purchases made, for the purpose already alluded to, this is a right subject to a condition, insofar as its application depends on the commencement of sales operations. The foregoing is because, upon being registered and the taxable event of the credit occurring, a right is constituted in their favor that they may ultimately apply when they begin activities selling goods or services and file the pertinent return, since it is only at that moment that the compensatory effect already discussed can materialize. This is due to the very purpose of the benefit and of the tax, which applies only to the value added, so it is at the stage of selling the good or service that the credit can be applied. The contrary would undermine these particularities and would prevent that figure from fulfilling its objective within the framework of the relationships deriving from the sales tax. All in all, it is at the moment of performing the rigorous determination and declaration that, in accordance with the pertinent legal order, the benefit can produce its obligation-reducing virtues. It follows from the above that in these cases of preliminary company registration, the credit is applicable when the person begins sales operations of goods or services intended for use or consumption in the national market." (Resolution 000861-F-2007, eleven hours twenty-five minutes of the twenty-third of November, two thousand seven.)

Having made the foregoing considerations, the specific case is reviewed below.

**VIII- ANALYSIS OF THE SPECIFIC CASE:** The plaintiff argues in support of its action as a first argument: that it is improper to charge a sales tax on tax credits since it contravenes the provisions of Articles 1 and 14 of the General Sales Tax Law. On this same point, the State Representation supports the actions of the Tax Administration on the thesis that, since the plaintiff company filed the sales tax returns for the months of April, May, and June of two thousand seven, and given that registration as a taxpayer was not completed until July of two thousand seven, this situation represents a detriment to the administration by reason of the sales tax foregone. Now, the core point around which this controversy revolves is the fact proven that the Plaintiff Company registered as a sales tax taxpayer in July of 2007 and had initially recorded December of two thousand six as the date of commencement of activities (see folio 18 of the determining case file), subsequently it modified this date to April of two thousand seven (see folio 16 of the determining case file), leaving periods in which it was carrying out activities without fulfilling the registration duty established in Article 5 of the general sales tax law, a situation even accepted by the Plaintiff Company itself when requesting the aforementioned retroactive registration. However, in accordance with the provisions of Article 140 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures, the burden of proof falls on the Tax Administration regarding the constitutive facts of the obligation, whereas the taxpayer is responsible for providing evidence regarding the facts that prevent, modify, or extinguish the tax obligation. It should not be lost sight of that the determination of the tax obligation must always be supported by objective criteria that the Administration can point to as constitutive of the obligation it seeks to collect, which is precisely what is lacking in the challenged determination act, which relies on presumptions without faithfully determining the origin of the data that allow it to reach the conclusion that the taxable event has occurred under the terms established by the norm. It must be remembered that the Administration is the one called upon to ascertain the veracity of the content of the sworn returns, using for this purpose the legal means and procedures of analysis and investigation it deems convenient, and it is in no way admissible for it to reverse the burden of proof by asserting that the taxpayer failed a formal duty, which is to demonstrate that its sole activity is carrying out the activity related to the making of the official telephone directories, according to the contract signed with RACSA S.A. Thus, it is a negative fact that is imposed upon the taxpayer to prove, which contravenes the regulatory provision referenced in lines above. On this aspect, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, through judgment 00795 of sixteen hours and fifteen minutes of the thirtieth of July of two thousand nine, has stated the following: "In accordance with Articles 124 and 125 of the Tax Code, the Administration may determine the tax in those cases where the taxpayer does not do so or when, having done so, it is challenged. In this second scenario, of interest for the present matter, the general rule is the use of the direct evidence (base cierta) method, that is, 'taking into account the elements that permit direct knowledge of the taxable events of the tax obligation' (subsection a) of numeral 125 of the cited regulatory body). It consists of a detailed review of the taxpayer's accounting (both the accounting books, the supporting vouchers, among others), for the purpose of determining the veracity of the self-assessment filed in the form of a sworn return. Subsidiarily, the tax regulations establish an alternate and supplementary mechanism for those cases where it is not possible to follow the previous procedure, due to the occurrence of some of the circumstances established in subsection b) of Article 116 of the Tax Code, namely, the absence of books and records, documents, or when, in the judgment of the competent authority, these are insufficient or contradictory. In this case, the determination will be presumptive, based on objective parameters (such as those indicated in the cited numeral), considering, of course, the particularities of the company's line of business and the conditions of the sector of the economy in which it operates. The difference between both mechanisms lies in the elements available to the Tax Authority in order to fix the taxpayer's tax, so, to determine when one or the other is applicable, the factors analyzed to verify (or fix, as the case may be) the taxpayer's self-assessment must be assessed. (…)" In accordance with the scope of the aforementioned Tax Code norm, and according to the evidentiary elements present in the administrative case file, in the present matter, the Tax Administration carried out a tax audit process on the plaintiff company, arriving at the conviction that the amounts of credits for purchases declared in the months of April, May, and June of 2007 themselves constitute the debit of the sales tax foregone, so it simply transferred the described amounts from one column to another without any justification. On this point, the plaintiff is correct when it alleges that the taxable event of the general sales tax law that is sought to be collected cannot be deduced from the challenged conducts, which translates into a lack of reasoning, ultimately, of those acts. In accordance with the foregoing, it is concluded that in the case file under study, the Tax Administration disregards the task it has in the exercise of its Audit power to perform all actions and resort to the necessary evidentiary means for the fulfillment of its purposes and to lawfully establish the origin and support of the tax burden it seeks to attribute to the Plaintiff Company. Rather, it starts from a presumption that the taxpayer, when it registered, declared that it performed advertising services, as indicated in resolution SF-DT-01-V-1717-8, which reads as follows: "*Neither is the claimant's assessment acceptable, to the effect that, given the activity it carries out, the services it provides are not taxed with the sales tax, because its registration declaration (folio 26 of the determining case file) declared its economic activity is 'Advertising Services' and according to Article 1 of the General Sales Tax Law, such service is indeed taxed with the cited tax.*" (see folio 31 of the determining case file), reasoning endorsed by the Administrative Tax Tribunal in resolution TFA-230-2012 (see folio 67 of the determining case file). If the Tax Administration considered that the differences from credits actually arose from the General Sales Tax Law on other advertising services that were not declared, it should have demonstrated it and clearly indicated their origin to the taxpayer, but not simply transferred the amounts from one column to another, without further explanation. Having it clear that it was the administration that had the legal obligation to demonstrate the taxable events of the obligation in the tax relationship under discussion and the lack of reasoning in that regard, it is proper to annul the determination made against the taxpayer in the transfer of charge number 2752000018984, which liquidates against the Plaintiff Company the increases for the sums of 1,014,510.00 (one million fourteen thousand five hundred ten exact colones) in April, 32,492,746.00 (thirty-two million four hundred ninety-two thousand seven hundred forty-six exact colones) in May, and 95,890,797.00 (ninety-five million eight hundred ninety thousand seven hundred ninety-seven exact colones) in June, all of 2007, for a total of 129,398,053.00 (one hundred twenty-nine million three hundred ninety-eight thousand fifty-three exact colones) for general sales tax in relation to what was declared. The Tax Administration resolution SF-DT-01-V-1717-8 and the Administrative Tax Tribunal resolution TFA-230-2012 are also annulled […]."

“VII EL IMPUESTO SOBRE LAS VENTAS EN LA NORMATIVA NACIONAL: Sobre la base Constitucional del deber de nacionales y extranjeros de contribuir con los gastos Públicos artículos 18 y 19 de la Carta Magna descansa la potestad Tributaria de establecer un distintos tributos, tal es el caso del gravamen sobre el valor en la venta de mercancías y en la prestación de una serie de servicios que se definen en el artículo primero de la Ley número 6826 del 8 de noviembre de 1982. El hecho generador de este tributo surge entre varios supuestos, así dispuestos en el artículo tercero: a) En la venta de mercancías, en el momento de la facturación o entrega de ellas, en el acto que se realice primero. b) En las importaciones o internaciones de mercancías en el momento de la aceptación de la póliza o del formulario aduanero, según corresponda. c) En la prestación de servicios, en el momento de la facturación o de la prestación del servicio, en el acto que se realice primero. ch) En el uso o consumo de mercancías por parte de los contribuyentes, en la fecha en que aquellas se retiren de la empresa. d) En las ventas en consignación y los apartados de mercaderías, en el momento en que la mercadería queda apartada, según sea el caso. El impuesto que debe pagarse al Fisco se determina por la diferencia entre el débito y el crédito fiscales que estén debidamente respaldados por comprobantes y registrados en la contabilidad de los contribuyentes. El débito fiscal se fija aplicando la tarifa de impuesto a que se refiere el artículo 10 de la ley mencionada al total de ventas gravadas del mes correspondiente. El crédito fiscal se establece sumando el impuesto realmente pagado por el contribuyente sobre las compras, importaciones o internaciones que realice durante el mes correspondiente, así como el impuesto pagado por concepto de primas de seguro que protegen bienes, maquinaria e insumos directamente incorporados o utilizados en forma directa en la producción del bien o la prestación de servicios gravados. El crédito fiscal procede en el caso de adquisición de mercancías que se incorporen físicamente en la elaboración de bienes exentos del pago de este impuesto, así como sobre la maquinaria y equipo que se destinen directamente para producir los bienes indicados. Asimismo, el crédito fiscal se otorgará sobre la adquisición de mercancías que se incorporen físicamente en la producción de bienes que se exporten exentas o no del pago de este impuesto. (Así reformado el párrafo anterior por el artículo 15 de la Ley N° 8114, Ley de Simplificación y Eficiencia Tributaria, de 4 de julio del 2001) Cuando el crédito fiscal sea mayor que el débito, la diferencia constituye un saldo del impuesto a favor del contribuyente. El crédito fiscal por compras locales debe estar respaldado por facturas o comprobantes debidamente autorizados por la Administración Tributaria.(Así reformado su último párrafo por el artículo 25 de la Ley de Justicia Tributaria Nº 7535 de 1º de agosto de 1995) Cabe señalar que este artículo fue reformado por la ley N° 9128 del 20 de marzo de 2013, pero para efectos de este análisis se aplicó el artículo tal y como estaba vigente al momento en que se producen las actuaciones administrativas impugnadas. Retomando la disposición de ley antes mencionada, constituye crédito fiscal de este tributo, toda aquella mercancía o bien que haya adquirido el contribuyente para la fabricación de objetos que venda o prestación de servicios, sean estos exentos o no. Así en efecto se desprende del ordinal 21 del Reglamento 14082-H en la que se puede observar un mayor detalle de estos supuestos en los que pese a tratarse de mercadería cuya venta está exenta, se permite la aplicación del crédito. Por otro lado, conviene señalar que esas compras y adquisiciones deben haber sido realizadas en el período fiscal al que corresponda la declaración, es decir, deben corresponder al mes declarado. Desde luego que a ese crédito producto de las adquisiciones, debe adicionarse el saldo del período anterior, según lo establece el citado canon 14 de la Ley. Ese beneficio fiscal aplica con exclusividad a los contribuyentes inscritos, según se desprende del numeral 5 de la norma de rito que regula la Inscripción de la siguiente forma: Al iniciar sus actividades gravadas, las personas o las entidades a las que se refiere el artículo anterior deben inscribirse en el registro de contribuyentes que deberá llevar la Administración Tributaria. Las personas o las entidades que no hayan solicitado la inscripción serán inscritas de oficio por esa Administración Tributaria. ( Así reformado por el artículo 22 de la Ley de Justicia Tributaria No. 7535 de 1º de agosto de 1995 ) Sin perjuicio de las sanciones que pudieran corresponderles, las personas que no cumplan con las obligaciones de inscribirse quedan obligadas, de todas maneras, al pago del impuesto, y no tendrán derecho a devolución o crédito por el impuesto pagado sobre la existencia de mercancías que mantengan en inventario a la fecha de su inscripción como contribuyentes. Así, en ese punto, en virtud de lo dispuesto resulta necesario dilucidar el momento de aplicabilidad del crédito fiscal situación analizada por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia que en su oportunidad indicó: " Así visto, si bien la inscripción previa permite al sujeto pasivo aplicar los créditos por las compras realizadas, con el objeto ya aludido, se está frente a un derecho sujeto a condición, en tanto su aplicación pende del inicio de operaciones de venta. Lo anterior debido a que al encontrarse registrado y producirse el hecho generador del crédito, se constituye a su favor un derecho que en definitiva podrá aplicarlo, cuando inicie actividades de venta de bienes o servicios y realice la declaración pertinente ya que hasta ese momento se puede materializar el efecto compensatorio ya comentado. Esto obedece a la finalidad misma del beneficio y del impuesto, que aplica solo sobre el valor agregado, por lo que es en la etapa de venta del bien o servicio que puede aplicarse el crédito. Lo contrario atentaría contra estas particularidades e impedirían que esa figura cumpla con su objetivo en el marco de las relaciones que derivan del impuesto de ventas. Con todo, es en el momento de efectuar la determinación y declaración de rigor, que conforme al Ordenamiento pertinente, el beneficio puede producir sus bondades reductoras de la obligación. De lo anterior se colige que en estos supuestos de inscripción preliminar de empresas, el crédito es aplicable cuando el sujeto inicia operaciones de ventas de bienes o servicios destinados al uso o consumo del mercado nacional". (Resolución 000861-F-2007 once horas veinticinco minutos del veintitrés de noviembre de dos mil siete) Realizadas las consideraciones anteriores se revisa de seguido el caso concreto.

VIII- ANÁLISIS DEL CASO CONCRETO:

Alega la parte actora en sustento de su acción como primer argumento : que no procede cobrar un impuesto de ventas sobre créditos fiscales ya que contraviene lo dispuesto por los numerales 1 y 14 de la ley del Impuesto General sobre las Ventas.Sobre este mismo punto la Representación Estatal apoya la actuado por la Administración Tributaria sobre la tesis de que al presentar la sociedad actora las declaraciones del impuesto sobre las ventas de los meses de abril, mayo y junio del año dos mil 2007 y siendo que la inscripción como contribuyente se realizó hasta julio del siete esta situación representa un perjuicio para la administración en razón del impuesto de las ventas dejado de percibir. Ahora bien el punto medular en torno al cual gravita esta controversia es el hecho que se tiene como probado de que la Sociedad Actora se inscribió como contribuyente del impuesto sobre las ventas en julio del año 2007 y en principio había consignado como fecha de inicio de actividades diciembre del año dos mil seis ( ver folio 18 del expediente determinativo), posteriormente modificó esta fecha a abril del año dos mil siete ( ver folio 16 del expediente determinativo ) quedando períodos en los cuales estaba realizando actividades sin que cumpliera el deber de inscripción establecida en el articulo 5 de la ley general del impuesto sobre las ventas, situación incluso aceptada por la misma Sociedad Actora al solicitar la inscripción retroactiva antes mencionada. Sin embargo, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 140 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, la carga de la prueba le incumbe a la Administración Tributaria respecto de los hechos constitutivos de la obligación, mientras que al contribuyente le corresponde la acreditación respecto de los hechos impeditivos, modificativos o extintivos de la obligación tributaria. No debe perderse de vista que la determinación de la obligación tributaria siempre debe encontrarse amparada a criterios objetivos que la Administración pueda señalar como constitutivos de la obligación que pretende cobrar, que es justamente lo que se extraña en el acto de determinación impugnado, mismo que parte de presunciones sin determinar fielmente el origen de los datos que le permiten a ésta arribar a la conclusión que se ha producido el hecho generador en los términos previstos por la norma. Debe recordarse que la Administración es la llamada a cerciorarse de la veracidad del contenido de las declaraciones juradas, utilizando para ello los medios y procedimientos de análisis e investigación legales que estime convenientes, no siendo de forma alguna admisible que invierta la carga de la prueba al exponer que el contribuyente faltó a un deber formal, cual es demostrar que su única actividad es la de realizar la actividad relacionada con la confección de las guías telefónicas oficiales, según el contrato suscrito con RACSA S.A. Es así, que un hecho negativo es el que se le impone acreditar el contribuyente, lo cual contraviene la disposición normativa en referencia citada líneas atrás. Sobre este aspecto, la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, mediante sentencia 00795 de las dieciséis horas con quince minutos del treinta de julio del año dos mil nueve ha dicho lo siguiente: " De acuerdo con los artículos 124 y 125 del Código Tributario, la Administración puede determinar el tributo en aquellos casos donde el contribuyente no lo realice o cuando habiéndolo hecho, se le objeta. En este segundo escenario, de interés para el presente asunto, la regla general es la utilización del método de base cierta, esto es, “tomando en cuenta los elementos que permitan conocer en forma directa los hechos generadores de la obligación tributaria” (numeral 125 inciso a) del cuerpo normativo citado). Consiste en una revisión detallada de la contabilidad del contribuyente (tanto de los libros contables, los comprobantes que le dan sustento, entre otros), a efectos de determinar la veracidad de la autoliquidación presentada bajo la forma de declaración jurada. De manera subsidiaria, la normativa tributaria establece un mecanismo alterno y supletorio para aquellos supuestos en que no resulte posible seguir el anterior procedimiento, por presentarse algunas de las circunstancias establecidas en el inciso b) del precepto 116 del Código Tributario, a saber, la ausencia de libros y registros, de documentos o bien, cuando a juicio de la autoridad competente, estos fueran insuficientes o contradictorios. En este caso, la determinación será presuntiva, con base en parámetros objetivos (tales como los indicados en el citado numeral), considerando, claro está, las particularidades del giro de la empresa y las condiciones del sector de la economía en que se desarrolla. La diferencia entre ambos mecanismos se encuentra en los elementos que tiene a su disposición el Fisco a fin de realizar la fijación del impuesto del contribuyente, por lo que, para determinar cuando se está en presencia de uno u otro, se deben apreciar los factores que se analizaron a efectos de comprobar (o fijar, según el caso) la autoliquidación del contribuyente. (…)” En concordancia con los alcances de la supra mencionada norma del Código Tributario, y de acuerdo a los elementos de juicio actuantes en el expediente administrativo, en el presente asunto, la Administración Tributaria realizó un proceso de auditoría fiscal a la empresa actora, llegando al convencimiento que los montos de los créditos por las compras declarados en los meses de abril, mayo y junio del año 2007 constituyen en sí el débito del impuesto sobre las ventas dejados de pagar, por lo que sencillamente trasladó los montos descritos de una columna a otra sin ninguna justificación.En este punto, lleva razón el actor cuando alega que no se desprende de las conductas impugnadas cual es el hecho generador de la ley general del impuesto sobre las ventas que se pretende cobrar, lo que se traduce en la falta de motivación a fin de cuentas de esos actos. Conforme lo expuesto, se concluye que en el tiene en el ejercicio de su potestad de Fiscalización para realizar todas las acciones y acudir a los medios probatorios necesarios, para el cumplimiento de sus fines y establecer lícitamente el origen y respaldo de la carga tributaria que pretende endilgar a la Sociedad Actora. Más bien parte de una presunción que el contribuyente cuando se inscribió declaró que realizaba servicios publicitarios tal y como indicó en la resolución SF-DT-01-V-1717-8 que reza así: "Tampoco es de recibo la apreciación de la reclamante, en el sentido de que, dada la actividad que desarrolla, los servicios que presta no están gravados con el impuesto de ventas, por cuanto su declaración de inscripción ( folio 26 de expediente determinativo ) declaró su actividad económica es "Servicios Publicitarios" y según el artículo 1 de la Ley del Impuesto general sobre las ventas, tal servicio si está gravado con el tributo de cita". (ver folio 31 del en la resolución TFA-230-2012 ( ver folio 67 del expediente determiniativo). Si la Administración Tributaria estimaba que las diferencias por créditos provenián en realidad de la Ley General del Impuesto sobre las Ventas que sobre otros servicios publicitarios, no se declararon debió demostrarlo e indicarle a la contribuyente claramente su origen, más no simplemente trasladar los montos de una columna o otra, sin mayor explicación. Teniendo claro que era la administración la que tenía la obligación legal de demostrar los hechos generadores de la obligación en la relación tributaria que se discute y la falta de motivación en ese sentido, lo procedente es anular la determinación efectuada al contribuyente en el traslado de cargo número 2752000018984, que liquida a cargo de la Sociedad Actora los aumentos por las sumas de 1.014.510,00 (un millón catorce mil quinientos diez mil colones exactos) en abril, 32.492.746,00 ( treinta y dos millones cuatrocientos noventa y dos mil setecientos cuarenta y seis colones exactos) en mayo y 95.890.797,00 (noventa y cinco millones ochocientos noventa mil setecientos noventa y siete colones exactos) en junio todos del 2007, para un total de 129.398.053,00 (ciento veintinueve millones trescientos noventa y ocho mil cincuenta y tres colones exactos) por concepto de impuesto general sobre las ventas en relación con lo declarado. Se anulan también la resolución de la administración Tributaria SF-DT-01-V-1717-8 y la resolución del Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo TFA-230-2012 […].”