Quarry tax inapplicable to Cemex for ore extractionImprocedencia del impuesto de canteras a Cemex por extracción de mena

VI.- Regarding the first objection, the Court stated by way of introduction that the company carries out the extraction of materials for the production of different types of cement, and therefore is not subject to the tax. In its view, former Article 36 and current Article 40 of the Código de Minería coincide in the imprecise description of the taxable event (hecho generador), which is the extraction activity by a quarry concessionaire, destined for direct sale in the first norm, destined for direct sale or industrial purposes in the second. It considered that, by virtue of the principle of relative legal reserve (which allows elements of the tax obligation to be described and regulated by regulatory means) and in accordance with mandate 5 of the CNPT, that taxable event (hecho generador) must be interpreted, specified, and clarified according to the definitions of precept 4 of Decreto Ejecutivo no. 29300. That norm, it said, provides that a quarry is the place of exploitation or extraction of aggregate-type materials whose destination is construction, agriculture, and industry; aggregates are rocks that due to their mineral content are not ore; ore is a natural aggregate of one or more solid minerals that can be mined or from which minerals can be extracted with economic profit or benefit. Then, it concluded, aggregates have low mineral content and a lesser economic benefit. In quarries, aggregates are extracted; in mines, ore-type materials. It reiterated, the repealed canon 36 and current 40 have as their taxable event (hecho generador) the extraction of aggregates, in the first for direct sale, in the second, additionally for industrial purposes. The reform also changed the rate, which will depend on the destination of the material, and repealed the lack of payment as tax fraud. It maintains, Cemex extracts ore-type materials, as confirmed by technical studies. It asserted, the study “EVALUACIÓN DEL TÉRMINO CANTERA EN LA EXTRACCIÓN A CIELO ABIERTO DE CALIZA EN CEMPA S.A.” prepared in 1999 by geologist Luis Malavassi Rojas, and which served as support for the transfer containing charges, “considers that if the extraction carried out by the plaintiff is of the ore type, the tax could not be charged (…)”, and deemed the “extraction as a quarry”. However, the Court appreciated that said report is prior to the Reglamento to the Código de Minería and to the reform of the Código de Minería, former mandate 36, now 40, which operated in 2002, for which reason it has a conceptual bias. For its part, the expert opinion “Interpretación técnica del tipo de explotación minera del Cemex en Colorado de Abangares, Guanacaste, Costa Rica” of February 2006, signed by geologist Allan Astorga Gattens and mining engineer Néstor Chamorro, concludes that the material extracted by Cemex is of the ore type, not aggregate. This conclusion, they highlight, is based on current legislation, with an analysis of the pointed-out regulatory changes (Código de Minería, its Reglamento and their technical implications). It notes, although it was prepared for payment by the plaintiff company and contributed by it, this is not sufficient reason to detract from its scientific and technical validity; for this, a technical study discrediting it would have been required, and the Municipalidad did not provide “updated geological technical proof that (…) CEMEX, (sic) carries out an extraction of materials that are exclusively aggregates, according to the definition contained in Article 4 of the Reglamento to the Código de Minería, and therefore performs exploitation of a quarry”. Likewise, it added, the judicial expert report of geologist Manuel Gómez Bonilla took into account current legislation and its technical implications, and is forceful in pointing out that: a) the Código de Minería differentiates between quarry and mine; from the former, aggregates are extracted, from the latter, ore-type material; b) it distinguishes the concepts of aggregate and ore, from whose definition it concludes that Cemex “extracts limestone with calcium carbonate content and clay with aluminosilicate content, which means it has a percentage content of non-metallic minerals that constitute them as ore”. It adds, in the study of geologist Malavassi, it is referred that years before the geologists of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad considered the extraction was of ores, since there was an anomalous enrichment of calcium carbonate. In summary, it concluded, Cemex “extracts ore-type material (limestone=calcium carbonate and clays=aluminosilicates), whose chemical properties allow them to be raw material for the production of cements”, for which reason “it is not subject to the quarry tax regulated in numeral 36, now 40, of the Código de Minería”.

VII.- Article 36 of the Código de Minería, until before the reform operated by means of Ley 8246 of April 24, 2002, read “Article 36.- Quarries shall be considered an integral part of the land where they are located. They may be the object of an exploitation concession application, by natural or legal persons who offer the security that their products will be used industrially, or by holders of a mine concession, when the quarry product is to be used within the concession itself, in the construction works of the mine and its dependencies. (…) [.-] Quarry concessionaires shall pay to the municipalidades corresponding to the location thereof the equivalent of ten percent of the market value, per cubic meter extracted of sand, stone, ballast (lastre) and derivatives thereof. [.-] The rates shall be paid in favor of the treasury of the municipal corporation, in the place and in the manner it determines. [.-] The failure to pay this tax shall be considered as tax fraud, subject to the penalties established in the Código Fiscal. In addition, whoever incurs this fault must pay a fine, in favor of the corresponding municipalidad, equivalent to ten times the value of the defrauded sum” (emphasis added). With the indicated reform, said norm was varied, both in content and in numbering. It currently corresponds to precept 40, which reads: “Quarries shall be considered an integral part of the land where they are located. They may be the object of an exploitation concession application, by natural or legal persons who offer the security that their products will be used industrially, or by holders of a mine concession, when the quarry product is to be used within the concession itself, in the construction works of the mine and its dependencies. (…) [.-] Quarry concessionaires shall pay to the municipalidad corresponding according to the location of the extraction site, the equivalent of thirty percent (30%) of the total amount paid monthly for sales tax, generated by the sale of cubic meters of sand, stone, ballast (lastre) and derivatives thereof. In the event that no sale occurs because the extracted material forms part of materials destined for industrial purposes of the same concessionaire, an amount of forty colones (¢40.00) per cubic meter extracted shall be paid, an amount that shall be updated annually based on the consumer price index, calculated by the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. The rates shall be paid in favor of the treasury of the municipal corporation, in the place and in the manner it determines. [.-] The lack of payment within the legally established period shall cause a financing interest charge, from the moment the tax should have been paid based on the interest rate set by Article 57, and default interest equal to Articles 80 and 80 bis, all of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios; the foregoing in accordance with Article 69 of the Código Municipal, as applicable, to Title XVII of this Code” (emphasis added). From the preceding transcriptions, it is understood that the previous Article 36 established the extraction of sand, stone, ballast (lastre) and derivatives as the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax. The current canon 40 provides for two taxable events (hechos generadores). First, the sale of the sand, stone, ballast (lastre) and derivatives that had been extracted by the concessionaire. Second, the use of that same extracted material for industrial purposes of the concessionaire itself. Both actions clearly presuppose that of extraction. In both norms (36 and 40), the passive subject (sujeto pasivo) of the tax obligation, in the capacity of taxpayer, is the quarry concessionaire. In sum, said actions – these that are subject to the tax – can only be carried out by a person holding a quarry concession. Thus, it must be understood that the taxable event (hecho generador) was the extraction of that material (sand, stone, ballast (lastre) and derivatives) from a quarry (previous wording of Article 36), now it consists of the sale or the industrial use of that material extracted from a quarry (current precept 40).

VIII.- It is true that upon creating the tax, the legislator used the term quarry and thus defined the passive subject (sujeto pasivo) of the obligation, but with that it in turn determined the place where the taxed activity is carried out; so that this concept also draws or traces limits to the conduct subject to the tax. Now then, in accordance with the Reglamento to the Código de Minería, Decreto Ejecutivo no. 29300, a quarry is the “natural place where exploitation is carried out for the production of aggregates (áridos) destined for construction, agriculture, or industry” (canon 4). Note that the concept of “aggregate (árido)” is “rock that due to its mineral content is not considered ore (mena)”; and “ore (mena)” is that “natural aggregate of one or more solid minerals which can be mined, or from which one or more mineral products can be extracted, with an economic benefit or profit”. In this order, from the regulatory definitions it must be concluded that the quarry is a place where material is extracted, which is processed to generate products qualified as “aggregates (áridos)” for construction, agriculture, or industry, that is, it is the place where rocks are extracted from which particular or specific minerals are not in turn extracted, but rather they are processed for use in construction, agriculture, or industry. From what has been said up to this point, with respect to the tax contemplated in the current canon 40 of the Código de Minería and former 36, it is understood that the taxable event (hecho generador) is defined both by the action and by the material that is extracted from the concessioned quarry. It is reiterated then, the extraction from a quarry of sand, stone, ballast (lastre) or derivatives was taxed under the previous wording of norm 36 of the Código de Minería. Currently, the sale or industrial use of that material extracted from a quarry is subject to taxation. In all three scenarios (the previous taxable event (hecho generador) and in the two current ones) it is indifferent whether the material extracted from the quarry is finally qualified as aggregate (árido) or as ore (mena), or whether from that extracted material an aggregate (árido) is subsequently produced or ore (mena) and gangue (rock or mineral that accompanies the ore (mena) and lacks commercial value according to subsection 28 of Article 4 of Decreto no. 29300) are extracted. It is insisted, the legislator contemplated sand, stone, ballast (lastre) or derivatives as the object of the taxed actions, without the classification of that material being determinative for it. Consequently, this Chamber – with the current composition – considers that the exercise of integrating the regulatory definitions into the concept of the taxable event (hecho generador) leads nowhere, especially when it was specified both in the previous norm and in the current one.

IX.- Moreover, it is worth highlighting that the bill to reform the Código de Minería approved by the Asamblea Legislativa, Ley no. 8246, which varied the tax in question in the terms pointed out, was presented by deputies Virgilia Aguiluz Barboza and Elberth Gómez Céspedes. In the legislative procedure, after the decision on each of the multiple motions that were presented to said bill, on February 27, 2002, the Comisión Permanente de Asuntos Agropecuarios y de Recursos Naturales issued an affirmative majority opinion, in which it expressed having considered “the need that, both quarry concessionaires, and concessionaires in public domain watercourses, pay to the municipalidades where they carry out the activity, fifteen percent (15%) of the total amount they pay monthly for sales tax, generated by the sale of cubic meters of sand, stone, ballast (lastre) and their derivatives, thus fostering due economic remuneration to the communities” (folios 1065 and 1066). Subsequently, already in the Plenary, in session 138 of April 2, 2002, the bill was discussed in the first debate. There, deputy Aguiluz Barboza was the one who introduced it. In what is of interest to this matter, she stated “(…) with the bill, quarry concessionaires are obliged to pay a percentage in favor of the municipalidades and it must be clear that quarries include both aggregate quarries and non-metallic mineral quarries, this because, for example, cement plants and limestone pits, due to a question of interpretation, could be left aside, so it is very important that it is clear that also, at all times, it was considered here that quarries of course include cement plants and limestone pits, as has always been the intention in this bill. [.-] It is important to make clear that the tax in favor of the municipalidades is for all quarries operating in the country, thus including limestone quarries. I reiterate this to avoid any confusion. [.-] I also want to state that the other day it was mentioned here that in cases where materials are used to build roads, where they are used perhaps within a bidding process or so, the tax could not be charged: for that I want to refer to what is established here in Article 39, where it says “concessionaires, both natural and legal persons referred to in this Title V shall pay to the municipalidad corresponding by location of the extraction site, the equivalent of thirty percent (30%) of the total amount paid monthly for sales tax, generated by the sale of cubic meters of sand, stone, ballast (lastre) and derivatives thereof –and here comes what I believe must be clear– and in the event that no sale occurs because the extracted material forms part of materials destined for industrial purposes of the same concessionaire, an amount of one hundred colones per cubic meter extracted shall be paid”. [.-] Here we must understand that people who build roads of course industrialize the materials with asphalt and other things, those materials are of course subject to industrialization, therefore road construction is also an industry that processes this type of materials, and of course, must pay for this amount established here in Article 39. [.-] The same could be said in the case of Article 36 which is included in Article 3 of the bill, where it says: “… quarry concessionaires shall pay to the municipalidades corresponding to the location of the extraction site the equivalent of 30% of the total amount paid monthly for sales tax, generated by the sale of cubic meters of sand, stone, ballast (lastre) and derivatives thereof and in the event that no sale occurs, because the extracted material forms part of materials destined for industrial purposes of the same concessionaire. An amount of forty colones per cubic meter extracted shall be paid”. [.-] A differentiation was made here considering that exploitation in quarries is much more costly than exploitation in public domain watercourses. So I want this to be very clear so that when it is used for road construction, they also have to pay these amounts that are also indicated in this Article 36, these are things that are important, because there has been talk here and some doubt has been sown in this regard and it is very important that it is clear that the bill contemplates these situations (…)” (folios 1543 to 1544, both bold and underlining are added).

X.- Thus, in addition to the fact that both the previous wording of the norm (36) and the one approved at that time (40) allow concluding that this concrete activity in limestone quarries (extraction of limestone) for cement production was taxed; the truth is that in the transcribed opportunity, the legislator expressly stated that will to also tax the industrial use of the extracted material, particularly in cement production, precisely in order to avoid interpretations that would tend to exclude that activity from subjection. In the same line, it is worth highlighting the intervention of deputy Guevara Guth in the same Plenary session, who expressed certain concerns, among them “for those who may make somewhat cheerful calculations regarding the collection by the municipalities through this tax. It has to do with something that deputy Núñez mentioned about the sale price of the material. Here there are two processes that, normally, the Dirección de Geología confuses. One is the extraction process and for that, in theory, the one who has the concession is responsible, because those resources belong to the State, and that is what the Dirección de Geología y Minas must oversee and another thing is the industrialization process of that material which has to do with processing, screening of the material, the crusher and everything else. [.-] That is already the competence of the Ministerio de Economía y Comercio, where the respective operating permits for crushers, etc., are obtained. They are two separate processes and many times the Dirección de Geología wants to get involved in the whole package. [.-] What someone does with the material they extract from a quarry is something that concerns that concessionaire. The State has no reason to get involved in whether they crush it or not, etc. So, here there is going to be the risk of setting a very high tax, there is an incentive to disaggregate processes. You can have a company that handles the extraction and that sells the extracted cubic meter to the company that processes and markets it at a price of one hundred colones (¢100.00) per meter. And then, one hundred colones (¢100.00) per meter and fifteen percent (15%) are fifteen colones (¢15.00), and thirty percent (30%) of fifteen colones (¢15.00) are four colones fifty (¢4.50) [.-] That is a real possibility, it is a real possibility because they are two totally separate processes. Of course, you have to file two separate income tax returns, you have to get a license, for on one hand, the exploitation of the quarry and on the other hand for the processing and marketing. I just mention it because it may be that some people feel that the municipalidades are going to receive millions of millions and here the law made the trap, there exists a totally legal and transparent way to split the process, one thing is the extraction and another is the industrialization and eventual commercialization. [.-] Therefore, it is very likely that we will see this type of scheme functioning in the future so that the tax is lower if there are concessionaires who feel that that thirty percent of the fifteen percent sales tax is very high [.-] I leave those concerns stated, Mr. President. I have some of the motions I presented were incorporated into the bill, in my opinion they improved it, however, I always have apprehension regarding the tax issue, and therefore I announce my negative vote. I do not intend to reiterate any further motion” (1548 to 1549, the underline is not from the original). Indeed, as highlighted by legislator Guevara Guth, the extraction activity is different from the sale of the extracted material. Just as it is also diverse – it is warned – from the industrial use of it. However, that norm 40, as it was approved, provides for those two conducts or activities of the quarry concessionaire subject, which occur after extraction, as taxable events (hechos generadores). In other words, with the current wording, regardless of which of the two destinations is given to the sand, stone, ballast (lastre) or derivatives that they extract, the concessionaire is subject to the tax; the sale or industrial use is relevant but for the purpose of the stipulated rate and taxable base (base imponible), of course.

XI.- Now then, despite the fact that the appellant municipalidad is correct regarding the interpretation of former canon 36, now 40 of the Código de Minería, the judgment cannot be overturned for the reasons that will be stated. Even in the event that – continuing with the analysis of the grievance – one were to conclude that Cemex extracts limestone from the quarry that it destines to the cement industry and that such activity falls within the taxable event (hecho generador), the truth is that on the date of issuance of this resolution, upon hearing and resolving the claims and defenses on the merits (and on the cause of action), it is evident to this Chamber that the agreement of the Concejo Municipal no. 19-97 of August 22, 1997 maintains efficacy, in which that body decided that with respect to Cemex the factual assumptions of the tax provided for in mandate 36 of the then Código de Minería are not produced, for which reason the company is not a passive subject (sujeto pasivo) of that tax. This act, although it was not incorporated within the proven facts of the sentencing Court in this matter, was enunciated as the second factual element in the complaint and on this the plaintiff party contributed the document it listed as first (folios 108 to 110, the respective legal arguments at folios 162 and 171). It was also referred to by the defendant in its answer (folios 208, 212 and 226 to 230). Moreover, within the special tax proceeding no. 04-000112-0161-CA, also filed by Cemex against the same Corporation, in judgment no. 887-F-SI-2011 of July 28, 2011, this Chamber declared without merit the cassation appeal filed against judgment no. 11-2010 of January 29, 2010 and its addendum no. 11-2010-Bis of March 10 following. In that ruling, the eighth section of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo annulled the agreement of the Concejo Municipal adopted in the first article, chapter IV of session no. 6-2004 of February 10, 2004, which declared the absolute nullity of agreement no. 19-97 of August 22, 1997 – among others. In this order, as that agreement no. 19-97 exists and maintains its efficacy, the Municipalidad de Abangares could not initiate and conclude a procedure determining the tax contemplated in former precept 36, now 40 of the Código de Minería, for the 2001 to 2005 periods, nor could it affect in that way the legal situation of Cemex recognized by that act, since that contravenes the principle of intangibility of one's own acts (intangibilidad de los actos propios) that derives from Article 34 of the Constitución Política. This – it is worth clarifying – does not mean that the Municipalidad is unable to modify its criterion on the subjection of Cemex's activity to the indicated tax, but rather that doing so requires carrying it out through the channels provided for by the legal system. But it does determine that the conducts challenged in the present matter are contrary to the legal system and their invalidity must be decreed, just as the Court ordered. Consequently, the grievance must be declared without merit in order to preserve that operative part (extremo dispositivo) of the appealed judgment.” It held, by virtue of the principle of relative legal reserve (which permits elements of the tax obligation to be described and regulated by regulation) and in accordance with mandate 5 of the CNPT, that this taxable event (hecho generador) must be interpreted, specified, and clarified according to the definitions of precept 4 of Decreto Ejecutivo no. 29300. That regulation, it stated, provides that a quarry (cantera) is the place of exploitation or extraction of aggregate-type materials whose destination is construction, agriculture, and industry; aggregates (áridos) are rocks that, due to their mineral content, are not ore (mena); ore (mena) is a natural aggregate of one or more solid minerals that can be mined or from which minerals can be extracted with profit or economic benefit. Therefore, it concluded, aggregates have low mineral content and a lesser economic benefit. In quarries, aggregates are extracted; in a mine, ore-type materials. It reiterated, the repealed canon 36 and the current 40 have as their taxable event the extraction of aggregates, in the former for direct sale, in the latter, also for industrial purposes. The reform also changed the rate, which will depend on the destination of the material, and repealed the classification of non-payment as tax fraud. It maintains that Cemex extracts ore-type materials, as confirmed by technical studies. It asserted that the study “EVALUACIÓN DEL TÉRMINO CANTERA EN LA EXTRACCIÓN A CIELO ABIERTO DE CALIZA EN CEMPA S.A.” prepared in 1999 by geologist Luis Malavassi Rojas, and which served as support for the statement of charges, “considers that if the extraction carried out by the plaintiff is of the ore type, the tax could not be charged (…)”, and deemed the “extraction to be a quarry.” Nevertheless, the Tribunal found that said report predates the Reglamento al Código de Minería and the reform of the Código de Minería, former mandate 36, now 40, which took effect in 2002, and therefore has a conceptual bias. In turn, the expert opinion “Interpretación técnica del tipo de explotación minera del Cemex en Colorado de Abangares, Guanacaste, Costa Rica” of February 2006, signed by geologist Allan Astorga Gattens and mining engineer Néstor Chamorro, concludes that the material extracted by Cemex is of the ore type, not aggregate. This conclusion, they emphasized, is based on current legislation, with an analysis of the noted regulatory changes (Código de Minería, its Reglamento, and their technical implications). It notes that although it was prepared upon payment by the plaintiff company and provided by it, this is not sufficient reason to detract from its scientific and technical validity; to do so would have required a technical study discrediting it, and the Municipality did not provide “updated geological technical proof that (…) CEMEX, (sic) carries out an extraction of materials that are exclusively aggregates, according to the definition contained in article 4 of the Reglamento al Código de Minería, and therefore carries out exploitation of a quarry.” Likewise, it added, the judicial expert opinion of geologist Manuel Gómez Bonilla took into account current legislation and its technical implications, and is categorical in stating that: a) the Código de Minería differentiates between a quarry and a mine; from the former aggregates are extracted, from the latter, ore-type material; b) it distinguishes the concepts of aggregate and ore, from whose definition it concludes that Cemex “extracts limestone with calcium carbonate content and clay with aluminosilicate content, which means it has a percentage content of non-metallic minerals that constitute them as ore.” It adds, the study by geologist Malavassi refers to the fact that years earlier the geologists of the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad considered the extraction to be of ores, since an anomalous enrichment of calcium carbonate existed. In summary, it concluded, Cemex “extracts ore-type material (limestone=calcium carbonate and clays=aluminosilicates), whose chemical properties allow them to be raw material for cement production,” and therefore “it is not subject to the quarry tax regulated in [the] numeral 36, now 40, of the Código de Minería.” **VII.-** Article 36 of the Código de Minería, prior to the reform enacted through Ley 8246 of April 24, 2002, read: “*Artículo 36.- Quarries shall be considered an integral part of the land where they are located. They may be subject to a concession application for exploitation, by individuals or legal entities that offer assurance that their products will be used industrially, or by holders of a mine concession, when the quarry product is to be used within the concession itself, in the construction work of the mine and its dependencies.* (…) [.-] *Quarry concessionaires shall pay* to the municipalities corresponding to their location the equivalent of ten percent of the market value, *per cubic meter extracted of sand, stone, ballast, and derivatives thereof.* [.-] *The fees shall be paid in favor of the treasury of the municipal corporation, at the place and in the manner it determines.* [.-] *Failure to pay this tax shall be considered tax fraud, subject to the penalties established in the Código Fiscal. Furthermore, whoever incurs this failure must pay a fine, in favor of the corresponding municipality, equivalent to ten times the value of the defrauded sum*” (emphasis added). With the indicated reform, this regulation was changed, both in content and numbering. It currently corresponds to precept 40, which reads: “*Quarries shall be considered an integral part of the land where they are located. They may be subject to a concession application for exploitation, by individuals or legal entities that offer assurance that their products will be used industrially, or by holders of a mine concession, when the quarry product is to be used within the concession itself, in the construction work of the mine and its dependencies.* (…) [.-] *Quarry concessionaires shall pay* to the corresponding municipality according to the location of the extraction site, the equivalent of thirty percent (30%) of the total amount paid monthly for sales tax, generated *by the sale of cubic meters of sand, stone, ballast, and derivatives thereof*. In the event that *no sale occurs because the extracted material forms part of materials destined for industrial purposes of the same concessionaire,* an amount of forty colones (¢40.00) per cubic meter extracted shall be paid, an amount that shall be updated annually based on the consumer price index, calculated by the Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. The fees shall be paid in favor of the treasury of the municipal corporation, at the place and in the manner it determines.* [.-] *Failure to pay within the legally established period shall cause a financing interest charge from the moment the tax should have been paid, based on the interest rate set by article 57, and late payment interest equal to articles 80 and 80 bis, all of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios; the foregoing in accordance with article 69 of the Código Municipal, as applicable, to title XVII of this Code*” (emphasis added). From the foregoing transcriptions, it is evident that the previous article 36 established as the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax the extraction of sand, stone, ballast, and derivatives. The current canon 40 provides two taxable events. First, the sale of the sand, stone, ballast, and derivatives that have been extracted by the concessionaire. Second, the use of that same extracted material for industrial purposes by the same concessionaire. Both actions clearly presuppose extraction. In both regulations (36 and 40), the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) of the tax obligation, as the contributor, is the quarry concessionaire. In sum, said actions—those subject to the tax—can only be carried out by a person holding a quarry concession. Thus, it must be understood that *the taxable event was the extraction of that material (sand, stone, ballast, and derivatives) from a quarry* (previous wording of article 36), *now it consists of the sale or industrial use of that material extracted from a quarry* (current precept 40).

**VIII.-** It is true that in creating the tax, the legislator used the term quarry and thus defined the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) of the obligation, but in doing so, it also determined the place where the taxed activity is carried out; such that this concept also draws or sets limits on the conduct subject to the tax. Now, in accordance with the Reglamento al Código de Minería, Decreto Ejecutivo no. 29300, a quarry is the “*natural place where exploitation is carried out for the production of aggregates destined for construction, agriculture, or industry*” (canon 4). Note that the concept of “*aggregate*” is “*rock that due to its mineral content is not considered ore*”; and “*ore*” is that “*natural aggregate of one or more solid minerals which can be mined, or from which one or more mineral products can be extracted, with an economic benefit or profit*”. In this order, from the regulatory definitions, it must be concluded that a quarry is a place where material is extracted, which is processed to generate products classified as “*aggregates*” for construction, agriculture, or industry; that is, it is the place where rocks are extracted from which particular or specific minerals are not in turn extracted, but rather are processed for use in construction, agriculture, or industry. From what has been stated up to this point, regarding the tax contemplated in the current canon 40 of the Código de Minería and former 36, the taxable event is defined both by the action and by the material extracted from the concessioned quarry. It is reiterated then, the extraction from a quarry of sand, stone, ballast, or derivatives was taxed under the previous wording of regulation 36 of the Código de Minería. Currently, the sale or industrial use of that material extracted from a quarry is subject to taxation. In all three situations (the previous taxable event and the two current ones), it is irrelevant whether the material extracted from the quarry is ultimately classified as aggregate or as ore, or whether from that extracted material an aggregate is later produced or ore and gangue (rock or mineral accompanying the ore and lacking commercial value according to subsection 28 of article 4 of Decreto no. 29300) are extracted. It is insisted, the legislator contemplated **sand, stone, ballast, or derivatives** as the object of the taxed actions, without the classification of that material being determinative. Consequently, this Chamber—with its current composition—finds that the exercise of integrating the regulatory definitions into the concept of the taxable event leads nowhere, especially when the event was indeed specified in both the previous and the current regulation.

**IX.-** Furthermore, it is worth noting that the draft reform to the Código de Minería approved by the Asamblea Legislativa, Ley no. 8246, which changed the tax in question in the terms indicated, was presented by Deputies Virgilia Aguiluz Barboza and Elberth Gómez Céspedes. In the legislative process, after deciding on each of the multiple motions presented to said draft, on February 27, 2002, the Comisión Permanente de Asuntos Agropecuarios y de Recursos Naturales issued an affirmative majority opinion, in which it stated it had considered “*the need for both quarry concessionaires and concessionaires in public domain watercourses to pay to the municipalities where they carry out the activity, a fifteen percent (15%) of the total amount they pay monthly for sales tax, generated by the sale of cubic meters of sand, stone, ballast, and their derivatives, thus promoting due economic compensation to the communities*” (folios 1065 and 1066). Subsequently, in the Plenary session, at session 138 of April 2, 2002, the draft was discussed in the first debate. There, Deputy Aguiluz Barboza was the one who introduced it. Regarding what is relevant to this matter, she stated “(…) *with the draft **all quarry concessionaires are obliged** to pay a percentage in favor of the municipalities and it must be clear that **both aggregate quarries and non-metallic mineral quarries are included within quarries**, this because for example **cement companies and limestone quarries, as a matter of interpretation, could be left aside, so it is very important that it be clear that also, at all times, it was considered here that quarries of course include cement companies and limestone quarries**, as has always been the intention in this draft law.* [.-] *It is important to make it clear that the **tax in favor of the municipalities is for all quarries operating in the country, thus including limestone quarries. I reiterate this to avoid any confusion**.* [.-] *I also want to state that the other day it was mentioned here that in cases where materials are used to build roads, where they are used perhaps within a public tender or such, the tax could not be charged: for that I want to refer to what is established here in article 39, where it says “the concessionaires, both individuals and legal entities referred to in this Title V shall pay (sic) to the municipality corresponding by location of the extraction site, the equivalent of thirty percent (30%) of the total amount paid monthly for sales tax, generated by the sale of cubic meters of sand, stone, ballast, and derivatives thereof –and here comes what I believe must be clear– and in the event that no sale occurs because the extracted material forms part of materials destined for industrial purposes of the same concessionaire, an amount of one hundred colones per cubic meter extracted shall be paid”.* [.-] *Here we must understand that **people who build roads of course industrialize the materials** with asphalt and other things, **those materials are of course subject to industrialization**, therefore road construction is also an industry that processes this type of materials, and of course, **must pay** the amount established here in article 39.* [.-] ***We could say the same in the case of article 36** which is included in article 3 of the draft, where it says: “… quarry concessionaires shall pay to the municipalities corresponding to the location of the extraction site the equivalent of 30% of the total amount paid monthly for sales tax, generated by the sale of cubic meters of sand, stone, ballast, and derivatives thereof and in the event that no sale occurs because the extracted material forms part of materials destined for industrial purposes of the same concessionaire. An amount of forty colones per cubic meter extracted shall be paid”.* [.-] *A differentiation was made here considering that quarry exploitation is much more costly than exploitation in public domain watercourses. So I want this to be very clear so that **when it is used for road construction, they also have to pay these amounts** indicated also in this article 36, these are important things, because there has been talk here and some doubt has been raised about it and it is very important that it be clear that the draft contemplates these situations* (…)” (folios 1543 a 1544, both bold and underlining added).

**X.-** Thus, in addition to the fact that both the previous wording of the regulation (36) and the one approved at that time (40) allow the conclusion that this specific activity in limestone quarries (extraction of limestone) for cement production was taxed; the truth is that in the transcribed opportunity, the legislator expressly made this **intent to also tax the industrial use of the extracted material, particularly in cement production**, with the aim of precisely avoiding interpretations tending to exclude that activity from taxation. In the same vein, it is worth highlighting the intervention of Deputy Guevara Guth in the same Plenary session, who expressed certain concerns, among them “*for those who might make somewhat fanciful calculations regarding the municipalities' revenue through this tax. It has to do with something Deputy Núñez mentioned about the sale price of the material. There are two processes here that the Dirección de Geología normally confuses. **One is the extraction process** and for that in theory one has the concession, because those resources belong to the State, and that is what the Dirección de Geología y Minas must oversee and **another thing is the industrialization process of that material which involves the processing, screening of the material, the crusher, and everything else**.* [.-] *That is already the purview of the Ministerio de Economía y Comercio, where the respective operating permits for crushing, etc., are obtained. They are two separate processes and many times the Dirección de Geología wants to get involved in the whole package.* [.-] *What someone does with the material extracted from a quarry, is something that falls to that concessionaire. The State has no reason to get involved in whether it is crushed or not crushed, etc. So, here there will be the risk of setting a very high tax, there is an incentive to disaggregate processes. You could have one company in charge of extraction selling the extracted cubic meter to the company that processes and markets it at a price of one hundred colones (¢100.00) per meter. And then, one hundred colones (¢100.00) per meter and fifteen percent (15%) is fifteen colones (¢15.00), and thirty percent (30%) of fifteen colones (15.00) is four colones fifty (¢4.50)* [.-] *That is a real possibility, it is a real possibility because they are two totally separate processes. Of course, you have to file two separate income tax returns, you have to get a business license, for, on one hand, the quarry exploitation and on the other hand for the processing and marketing. I only mention it because some people might feel that the municipalities are going to receive millions upon millions and here, once the law is made, the trap is made, there is a totally legal and transparent way to split the process, **one thing is extraction and another is industrialization and eventual marketing**.* [.-] *Therefore, it is very likely we will see this type of scheme operating in the future so that the tax is lower if there are concessionaires who feel that thirty percent of the fifteen percent sales tax is too high* [.-] *I leave those concerns expressed, Mr. President. I have some motions I presented that were incorporated into the draft and in my opinion improved it, however, I always have apprehension regarding the tax issue, and therefore I announce my negative vote. I do not intend to reiterate any more motions*” (1548 a 1549, underlining is not in the original). Indeed, as legislator Guevara Guth emphasized, the extraction activity is different from the sale of the extracted material. It is also diverse—it is noted—from the industrial use thereof. However, that regulation 40, as approved, provides as taxable events those two conducts or activities of the quarry concessionaire, which occur after extraction. In other words, with the current wording, regardless of which of the two destinations it gives to the sand, stone, ballast, or derivatives it extracts, the concessionaire is subject to the tax; the sale or industrial use is relevant but for the purpose of the stipulated rate and tax base, of course.

**XI.-** However, even though the appellant municipality is correct regarding the interpretation of former canon 36, now 40 of the Código de Minería, the judgment cannot be overturned for the reasons that will be stated. Even in the event that—continuing with the analysis of the grievance—it were concluded that Cemex extracts from the quarry limestone destined for the cement industry and that such activity fits within the taxable event (hecho generador), the truth is that on the date this decision is issued, upon hearing and resolving the merits of the claims and defenses (and the cause of action), it is evident to this Chamber that the agreement of the Concejo Municipal no. 19-97 of August 22, 1997, remains effective, in which that body determined that regarding Cemex the factual prerequisites of the tax provided in mandate 36 of the then Código de Minería do not occur, and therefore the company is not a taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) of that tax. This act, although it was not incorporated among the proven facts by the Court rendering judgment in this matter, was indeed stated as the second factual element in the complaint and regarding it the plaintiff provided the document listed as first (folios 108 a 110, the respective legal arguments at folios 162 and 171). It was also referenced by the defendant in its response (pages 208, 212, and 226 a 230). Furthermore, within the special tax proceeding no. 04-000112-0161-CA, also initiated by Cemex against the same Corporation, in judgment no. 887-F-SI-2011 of July 28, 2011, this Sala declared without merit the cassation appeal filed against judgment no. 11-2010 of January 29, 2010, and its addendum no. 11-2010-Bis of March 10 following. In that ruling, the eighth section of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo annulled the agreement of the Concejo Municipal adopted in the first article, chapter IV of session no. 6-2004 of February 10, 2004, which declared the absolute nullity of agreement no. 19-97 of August 22, 1997—among others. In this order, as said agreement no. 19-97 exists and maintains its effectiveness, the Municipalidad de Abangares could not initiate and conclude a procedure to determine the tax contemplated in former precept 36, now 40 of the Código de Minería, for the periods 2001 a 2005, nor could it affect in that way the legal situation of Cemex recognized by that act, as this contravenes the principle of intangibility of one's own acts derived from article 34 of the Constitución Política. This—it is worth clarifying—does not mean that the Municipality is prevented from modifying its criteria on the subjection of Cemex's activity to the indicated tax, but rather that this must be done through the channels provided by the legal system. But it does determine that the conducts challenged in the present matter are contrary to the legal system and their invalidity must be decreed, as ordered by the Tribunal.

Consequently, the objection must be dismissed in order to preserve that operative portion of the appealed judgment.” You can have a company that handles the extraction and sells the extracted cubic meter to the company that processes and markets it at a price of one hundred colones (¢100.00) per meter. And then, one hundred colones (¢100.00) per meter and fifteen percent (15%) is fifteen colones (¢15.00), and thirty percent (30%) of fifteen colones (¢15.00) is four colones fifty (¢4.50) [.-] That is a real possibility, it is a real possibility because they are two totally separate processes. Of course, you have to file two separate income tax returns, you have to obtain a license, for, on one hand, the exploitation of the quarry (cantera) and on the other hand for the processing and marketing. I only mention it because it may be that some people feel that the municipalities are going to receive millions upon millions and here (sic) law made the trap, there exists a totally legal and transparent way to split the process, extraction is one thing and industrialization and eventual marketing is another. [.-] Therefore, it is very likely that we will see this type of scheme operating in the future so that the tax is lower if there are concessionaires (concesionarios) who feel that that thirty percent of the fifteen percent sales tax is too high [.-] I leave those concerns expressed, Mr. President. I have some of the motions I presented that were incorporated into the bill which in my opinion improved it, however, I always have apprehension regarding the tax issue, and therefore I announce my negative vote. I do not intend to reiterate any further motions” (1548 a 1549, the underline is not from the original). Indeed, as legislator Guevara Guth highlighted, the extraction activity is different from the sale of the extracted material. Just as it is also different – it is noted – from the industrial use thereof. However, that rule 40, as approved, provides as taxable events (hechos generadores) those two conducts or activities of the quarry concessionaire subject, which occur after extraction. In other words, with the current wording, regardless of which of the two destinations he gives to the sand, stone, ballast (lastre) or derivatives he extracts, the concessionaire is subject to the tax; the sale or industrial use are relevant but for the purpose of the stipulated rate and taxable base (base imponible), of course.

**XI.-** Now then, even though the appellant municipality is correct regarding the interpretation of the former canon 36, now 40 of the Mining Code (Código de Minería), the judgment cannot be overturned for the reasons that will be stated. Even in the event that – continuing with the analysis of the grievance – it were to be concluded that Cemex extracts limestone (piedra caliza) from the quarry that it destines to the cement industry and that such activity falls within the taxable event, the truth is that as of the date of issuance of this resolution, upon hearing and resolving the claims and exceptions on the merits (and on the cause of action), it is evident to this Chamber that the Municipal Council (Concejo Municipal) agreement no. 19-97 of August 22, 1997, remains effective, in which that body determined that regarding Cemex the factual prerequisites of the tax provided in mandate 36 of the then Mining Code do not occur, so the company is not a taxable person (sujeto pasivo) of that tax. This act, although it was not incorporated within the proven facts of the sentencing Tribunal of this matter, was stated as the second factual element in the complaint and on this the plaintiff party provided the document listed as first (folios 108 a 110, the respective legal arguments at folios 162 and 171). It was also referred to by the defendant in its answer (folios 208, 212 and 226 a 230). Moreover, within the special tax proceeding (proceso especial tributario) no. 04-000112-0161-CA, also filed by Cemex against the same Corporation, in judgment no. 887-F-SI-2011 of July 28, 2011, this Chamber dismissed the cassation appeal (recurso de casación) filed against judgment no. 11-2010 of January 29, 2010 and its addendum no. 11-2010-Bis of the following March 10. In that ruling, the eighth section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo) annulled the Municipal Council agreement adopted in the first article, chapter IV of session no. 6-2004 of February 10, 2004, which declared the absolute nullity of agreement no. 19-97 of August 22, 1997 – among others. In this regard, since that agreement no. 19-97 exists and maintains its effectiveness, the Municipality of Abangares could not initiate and conclude a determinative procedure for the tax contemplated in the former precept 36, now 40 of the Mining Code, periods 2001 a 2005, nor could it affect in that manner the legal situation of Cemex recognized by that act, because that contravenes the principle of intangibility of one’s own acts (principio de intangibilidad de los actos propios) derived from Article 34 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política). This – it is worth clarifying – does not mean that the Municipality is prevented from modifying its criterion on the subjection of Cemex's activity to the indicated tax, but rather that doing so requires carrying it out through the channels provided for by the legal system. But it does determine that the conducts challenged in the present matter are contrary to the legal system and their invalidity must be decreed, as ordered by the Tribunal. Consequently, the claim shall be declared without merit in order to preserve that operative part of the appealed judgment.”

“VI.- En lo tocante al primer reparo, de forma introductoria señaló el Tribunal que la empresa ejerce la extracción de materiales para la producción de distintos tipos de cemento, por lo cual no está sujeta al tributo. En su parecer, el anterior artículo 36 y el actual 40 del Código de Minería coinciden en la descripción poco precisa del hecho generador, cual es la actividad de extracción por parte de un concesionario de cantera, destinando a la venta directa en la primera norma, destinado a la venta directa o a fines industriales la segunda. Estimó, en virtud del principio de reserva de ley relativa (que permite que elementos de la obligación tributaria se describan y regulen por la vía reglamentaria) y con arreglo al mandato 5 del CNPT, ese hecho generador debe interpretarse, precisarse y aclararse según las definiciones del precepto 4 del Decreto Ejecutivo no. 29300. Esa norma, dijo, dispone que una cantera es el lugar de explotación o extracción de materiales tipo áridos cuyo destino es la construcción, la agricultura y la industria; los áridos son rocas que por su contenido mineral no son mena; mena es un agregado natural de uno o más minerales sólidos que pueden ser minados o de los cuales se pueden extraer minerales con provecho o beneficio económico. Luego, concluyó, los áridos tienen bajo contenido mineral y un beneficio económico menor. En las canteras se extraen áridos; en la mina, materiales tipo mena. Reiteró, el derogado canon 36 y el actual 40 tienen por hecho generador la extracción de áridos, en el primero para la venta directa , en el segundo, además para fines industriales. La reforma además varió la tarifa, la que dependerá del destino del material, y derogó la falta de pago como defraudación fiscal. Sostiene, Cemex extrae materiales tipo mena, según confirman los estudios técnicos. Aseveró, el estudio “EVALUACIÓN DEL TÉRMINO CANTERA EN LA EXTRACCIÓN A CIELO ABIERTO DE CALIZA EN CEMPA S.A.” elaborado en 1999 por el geólogo Luis Malavassi Rojas, y que sirvió como sustento al traslado contentivo de cargos, “considera que si la extracción que realiza la actora es de tipo mena, el tributo no se podría cobrar (…)”, y estimó la “extracción como una cantera”. No obstante, apreció el Tribunal, dicho informe es anterior al Reglamento al Código de Minería y a la reforma del Código de Minería, anterior mandato 36, hoy 40, que operó en el 2002, por lo cual tiene un sesgo conceptual. Por su parte, el dictamen “Interpretación técnica del tipo de explotación minera del Cemex en Colorado de Abangares, Guanacaste, Costa Rica” de febrero de 2006, suscrito por el geólogo Allan Astorga Gattens y el ingeniero en minas Néstor Chamorro, concluye que el material extraído por Cemex es de tipo mena, no árido. Dicha conclusión, destacan, la basan en la legislación vigente, con un análisis de los cambios normativos apuntados (Código de Minería, su Reglamento y sus implicaciones técnicas). Acota, si bien fue elaborado por pago de la empresa actora y aportado por ella, esto no es motivo suficiente para restarle validez científica y técnica; para ello se habría requerido de un estudio técnico que lo desacreditara, y la Municipalidad no aportó “prueba técnica geológica actualizada de que (…) CEMEX, (sic) realice una extracción de materiales que sean exclusivamente áridos, según la definición contenida en el artículo 4 del Reglamento al Código de Minería, y por ello efectúe explotación de una cantera”. Asimismo, agregó, el peritaje judicial del geólogo Manuel Gómez Bonilla tomó en cuenta la legislación actual y sus implicaciones técnicas, y es contundente al señalar que: a) el Código de Minería diferencia entre cantera y mina; de la primera se extraen áridos, de la segunda, material tipo mena; b) distingue los conceptos de árido y mena, de cuya definición concluye que Cemex “extrae piedra caliza con contenido de carbonato de calcio y arcilla con contenido en aluminosilicatos, lo que significa que tiene un contenido porcentual de minerales no metálicos que los constituyen como mena”. Añade, en el estudio del geólogo Malavassi se refiere que años antes los geólogos del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad consideraban la extracción era de menas, pues existía un enriquecimiento anómalo de carbonato del calcio. En síntesis, finalizó, Cemex “extrae material tipo mena (piedra caliza=carbonato de calcio y arcillas=aluminosilicatos), cuyas propiedades químicas permiten que sean materia prima para la producción de cementos”, por lo cual “ no se encuentra sujeta al impuesto de canteras regulado en [el] numeral 36, hoy 40, del Código de Minería ”.

VII.- El artículo 36 del Código de Minería hasta antes de la reforma operada mediante Ley 8246 del 24 de abril de 2002, versaba “Artículo 36.- Las canteras se considerarán parte integrante del terreno en donde se encuentren. Podrán ser objeto de solicitud de concesión para explotar, por parte de personas físicas o jurídicas que ofrezcan la seguridad de que sus productos van a ser utilizados industrialmente, o de titulares de concesión de una mina, cuando el producto de la cantera vaya a ser usado dentro de la concesión misma, en los trabajos de construcción de la mina y sus dependencias. (…) [.-] Los concesionarios de canteras pagarán a las municipalidades que correspondan a la ubicación de éstas el equivalente a un diez por ciento del valor en el mercado, por metro cúbico extraído de arena, piedra, lastre y derivados de éstos . [.-] Las tasas serán canceladas a favor de la tesorería de la corporación municipal, en el lugar y en la forma que ésta lo determine. [.-] La falta de pago de este impuesto se considerará como defraudación fiscal, sujeta a las penas establecidas en el Código Fiscal. Además, quien incurra en esta falta deberá pagar una multa, a favor de la municipalidad correspondiente, equivalente a diez veces el valor de la suma defraudada” (el subrayado se agrega). Con la reforma indicada, dicha norma fue variada, tanto en contenido como en numeración. Actualmente corresponde al precepto 40, el cual se lee: “Las canteras se considerarán parte integrante del terreno donde se encuentren. Podrán ser objeto de solicitud de concesión para explotar, por parte de personas físicas o jurídicas que ofrezcan la seguridad de que sus productos serán usados industrialmente, o de titulares de concesión de una mina, cuando el producto de la cantera vaya a ser utilizado dentro de la concesión misma, en los trabajos de construcción de la mina y sus dependencias. (…) [.-] Los concesionarios de canteras pagarán a la municipalidad correspondiente según la ubicación del sitio de extracción, el equivalente a un treinta por ciento (30%) del monto total que se paga mensualmente por concepto de impuesto de ventas, generado por la venta de metros cúbicos de arena, piedra, lastre y derivados de estos. En caso de que no se produzca venta debido a que el material extraído forma parte de materiales destinados a fines industriales del mismo concesionario, se pagará un monto de cuarenta colones (¢40,00) por metro cúbico extraído, monto que será actualizado anualmente con base en el índice de precios al consumidor, calculado por el Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. Las tasas serán canceladas en favor de la tesorería de la corporación municipal, en el lugar y la forma que esta determine. [.-] La falta de pago dentro del plazo legalmente establecido, causará un cobro de interés de financiamiento, desde el momento en que el impuesto debió ser pagado con base en la tasa de interés fijada por el artículo 57, y de interés por mora igual a los artículos 80 y 80 bis, todos del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios; lo anterior conforme al artículo 69 del Código Municipal, en lo que corresponda, al título XVII del presente Código” (el subrayado se añade) . De las anteriores trascripciones, se tiene que el previo artículo 36 establecía como hecho generador del tributo la extracción de arena, piedra, lastre y derivados. El vigente canon 40 dispone dos hechos generadores. Primero, la venta de la arena, piedra, lastre y derivados que hubiesen sido extraídos por el concesionario. Segundo, el uso de ese mismo material extraído en fines industriales del mismo concesionario. Ambas acciones suponen claramente la de extracción. En sendas normas (36 y 40), el sujeto pasivo de la obligación tributaria, en calidad de contribuyente, es el concesionario de cantera. En suma, dichas acciones –estas que están sujetas al impuesto- únicamente pueden ser realizadas por una persona concesionaria de una cantera. Así las cosas, ha de comprenderse que el hecho generador era la extracción de ese material (arena, piedra, lastre y derivados) de una cantera (anterior redacción del artículo 36), ahora consiste en la venta o en el uso industrial de ese material extraído de una cantera (actual precepto 40).

VIII.- Es cierto que al crear el tributo, el legislador empleó el término cantera y definió así el sujeto pasivo de la obligación, pero con ello a su vez determinó el lugar donde se realiza la actividad gravada; de manera que ese concepto también dibuja o traza límites a la conducta sujeta al impuesto. Ahora bien, de conformidad con el Reglamento al Código de Minería, Decreto Ejecutivo no. 29300, una cantera es el “ lugar natural donde se realiza la agricultura o la industria” (canon 4). Véase que el concepto de “ árido” es “roca que por su contenido mineral no se considera mena”; y “ mena” es aquel “agregado natural de uno o más minerales sólidos los cuales pueden ser minados, o de los cuales uno o más productos minerales pueden ser extraídos, con un beneficio o provecho económico”. En este orden, de las definiciones reglamentarias ha de concluirse que la cantera es un lugar donde se extrae material, el cual se procesa para generar productos calificados como “áridos” para la construcción, la agricultura o la industria, es decir, es el lugar donde se extraen rocas de las cuales no se extraen a su vez minerales particulares o específicos, sino que se procesan para utilizarse en la construcción, la agricultura o la industria. De lo dicho hasta este punto, con relación al impuesto contemplado en el actual canon 40 del Código de Minería y anterior 36, se tiene que el hecho generador está definido tanto por la acción así como por el material que se extrae de la cantera concesionada. Se reitera entonces, la extracción de una cantera de arena, piedra, lastre o derivados estaba gravada con la anterior redacción de la norma 36 del Código de Minería. Actualmente es objeto de imposición la venta o uso industrial de ese material extraído de una cantera. En los tres supuestos (el hecho generador previo y en los dos vigentes) resulta indiferente si el material extraído de la cantera se califica finalmente como árido o como mena, o si de ese material extraído luego se produce un árido o se extrae mena y ganga (roca o mineral que acompaña la mena y que carece de valor comercial según el inciso 28 del artículo 4 del Decreto no. 29300). Se insiste, el legislador contempló como objeto de las acciones gravadas la arena, piedra, lastre o derivados, sin que le resultara determinante la clasificación de ese material. Por consiguiente, esta Cámara –con la actual integración- estima que a nada conduce el ejercicio de integración de las definiciones reglamentarias en el concepto del hecho generador, máxime cuando éste sí fue especificado tanto en la norma anterior como en la vigente.

IX.- Por demás, conviene destacar que el proyecto de reforma al Código de Minería aprobado por la Asamblea Legislativa, Ley no. 8246, que varió el impuesto de marras en los términos apuntados, fue presentado por los diputados Virgilia Aguiluz Barboza y Elberth Gómez Céspedes. En el procedimiento legislativo, luego de la decisión sobre cada una de las múltiples mociones que fueron presentadas a dicho proyecto, el 27 de febrero de 2002, la Comisión Permanente de Asuntos Agropecuarios y de Recursos Naturales emitió dictamen afirmativo de mayoría, en el cual expresó haber considerado “la necesidad de que, tanto los concesionarios de canteras, como los concesionarios en cauces de dominio público, paguen a las municipalidades donde desarrollan la actividad, un quince por ciento (15%) de monto total que pagan mensualmente por concepto de impuesto de ventas, generado por la venta de metros cúbicos de arena, piedra, lastre y sus derivados, propiciando así la debida retribución económicas a las comunidades” (folios 1065 y 1066). Posteriormente, ya en el Plenario, en la sesión 138 del 2 de abril de 2002, se discutió en primer debate el proyecto. Allí, la diputada Aguiluz Barboza fue quien lo introdujo. En lo que a este asunto interesa, manifestó “(…) con el proyecto se obliga a los concesionarios de cantera a pagar un porcentaje a favor de las municipalidades y que debe quedar claro que dentro de las canteras se incluyen tanto las de agregados como las canteras de minerales no metálicos, esto porque por ejemplo las cementeras y los tajos de calizas, por una cuestión de interpretación, podrían quedar aparte, entonces es muy importante que quede claro que también, en todo momento, se consideró aquí que las canteras incluyen desde luego a las cementeras y los tajos de caliza, como siempre ha sido la intención en este proyecto de ley. [.-] Es importante dejar claro que el impuesto a favor de las municipalidades es para todas las canteras que operan en el país, así incluyendo las canteras de caliza. Reitero esto para evitar cualquier confusión. [.-] También quiero manifestar que el otro día se habló aquí de que en los casos que se usen materiales para construir carreteras, donde se utilicen tal vez dentro de una licitación o así, no se podría cobrar el impuesto: para eso quiero referirme a lo que se establece aquí en el artículo 39, donde dice “los concesionarios, tanto físicos como jurídicos a que se refiere este este Título V pagará (sic) a la municipalidad que corresponda por ubicación del sitio de extracción, el equivalente al treinta por ciento (30%) del monto toral que se paga mensualmente por concepto de impuesto de ventas, generado por la venta de metros cúbicos de arena, piedra, lastre y derivados de esto –y aquí viene lo que creo que tiene que quedar claro- y en el caso de que no se de venta debido a que el material extraído forma parte de materiales destinados a fines industriales del mismo concesionario, se pagarán un monto de cien colones por metro cúbico extraído”. [.-] Aquí tenemos que entender que las personas que construyen carreteras desde luego que industrializan los materiales con el asfalto y otras cosas, esos materiales son sujetos desde luego a industrialización, por lo tanto la construcción de carreteras también es una industria que procesa este tipo de materiales, y desde luego, que debe pagar por este monto que se establece aquí en el artículo 39. [.-] Lo mismo podríamos hablar en el caso del artículo 36 que está incluido en el artículo 3 del proyecto, donde dice: “… los concesionarios de canteras pagarán a las municipalidades que corresponda la ubicación del sitio de extracción el equivalente al 30% del monto total que se paga mensualmente por concepto de impuesta venta, generado por la venta de metros cúbicos de arena, piedra, lastre y derivados de estos y en el caso de que no se dé venta, debido a que el material extraído forma parte de materiales destinados a fines industriales del mismo concesionario. Se pagará un monto de cuarenta colones por metro cúbico extraído”. [.-] Se hizo una diferenciación aquí considerando que la explotación en canteras es mucho más costosa que la explotación en cauces de dominio público. Entonces quiero que quede esto bien claro para que cuando se utiliza para la construcción de carreteras, también tengan que pagar estos montos que se señalan también en este artículo 36, son cosas que son importantes, porque aquí se ha hablado y se ha sembrado cierta duda al respecto y es muy importante que quede claro que el proyecto contempla estas situaciones (…)” (folios 1543 a 1544, tanto la negrita como el subrayado se agregan).

X.- Así las cosas, además de que tanto la anterior redacción de la norma (36) como la que en aquel momento se aprobó (40) permiten concluir que esa concreta actividad en las canteras de calizas (extracción de piedra caliza) para la producción de cemento estaba gravada; lo cierto es que en la oportunidad transcrita, la legisladora hizo expresa esa voluntad de gravar también la utilización industrial del material extraído, en particular en la producción de cemento, con el fin de evitar precisamente interpretaciones que tendiesen a excluir esa actividad de la sujeción. En la misma línea, conviene destacar la intervención del diputado Guevara Guth en la misma sesión del Plenario, quien manifestó ciertas inquietudes, entre ellas “para los que puedan hacer cálculos un poco alegres en relación con la recaudación de los municipios por medio de este impuesto. Tiene que ver con algo que mencionaba el diputado Núñez del precio de venta del material. Aquí hay dos procesos que, normalmente, la Dirección de Geología confunde. Uno es el proceso de extracción y para eso en teoría ese que se tiene la concesión, porque esos recursos son del Estado, y eso es lo que debe fiscalizar la Dirección de Geología y Minas y otra cosa es el proceso de industrialización de ese material que tiene que ver con el procesamiento, el cribado del material, el triturador y todo lo demás. [.-] Eso ya es competencia del Ministerio de Economía y Comercio, donde se consiguen los permisos del funcionamiento respectivo para los triturados, etc. Son dos procesos separados y muchas veces la Dirección de Geología quiere meterse en todo el paquete. [.-] Lo que haga alguien con el material que extraiga de una cantera, es algo que le compete a ese concesionario. No tiene por qué meterse el Estado en que si lo tritura o no lo tritura, etc. Entonces, aquí se va a dar el riesgo de poner un impuesto muy alto, hay un incentivo para desagregar procesos. Usted puede tener una compañía que se encargue de la extracción y que le venda el metro cúbico extraído a la compañía que procesa y comercializa a un precio de cien colones (¢100.00) el metro. Y entonces, cien colones (¢100.00) el metro y quince por ciento (15%) son quince collones (¢100.00), y el treinta por ciento (30%) de quince colones (15.00) son cuatro colones con cincuenta (¢4.50) [.-] Esa es una posibilidad real, es una posibilidad real porque son dos procesos totalmente separados. Claro, tiene que presentar dos declaraciones de impuesto de renta separado, tiene que conseguir patente, para por un lado, la explotación de la cantera y por otro lado para el procesamiento y comercialización. Nada más lo menciono porque puede ser que algunas personas sientan que van las municipalidades a recibir millones de millones y aquí echa (sic) ley hecha la trampa, existe una forma totalmente legal y transparente de partir el proceso, una cosa es la extracción y otra es la industrialización y eventual comercialización. [.-] Por lo tanto, es muy probable que veamos a un futuro este tipo de esquema funcionando para que el impuesto sea menor si hay concesionarios que sienten que ese treinta por ciento del quince por ciento de impuesto de ventas es muy alto [.-] Dejo externadas esas inquietudes, señor Presidente. Tengo algunas de las mociones que presenté fueron incorporadas al proyecto a mi juicio lo mejoraron, sin embargo, tengo siempre la aprehensión en relación con el tema del impuesto, y por lo tanto anuncio el voto negativo de mi parte. No pienso reiterar ninguna moción más” (1548 a 1549, el subrayado no es del original). En efecto, tal y como destacó el legislador Guevara Guth, la actividad de extracción es distinta a la de venta del material extraído. Así como también es diversa –se advierte- a la del uso industrial de éste. Sin embargo, esa norma 40, tal y como fue aprobada, prevé como hechos generadores esas dos conductas o actividades del sujeto concesionario de cantera, que ocurren luego de la extracción. En otras palabras, con la redacción actual, independientemente de cuál de los dos destinos dé a la arena, piedra, lastre o derivados que extraiga, el concesionario está sometido al tributo; la venta o el uso industrial resultan relevantes pero para efecto de la tarifa y la base imponible estipuladas, claro está.

XI.- Ahora bien, pese a que lleva razón la municipalidad recurrente en cuanto a la interpretación del anterior canon 36, hoy 40 del Código de Minería, la sentencia no puede ser casada por las razones que se dirán. Aún en el evento de que –continuando con el análisis del agravio- se llegase a concluir que Cemex extrae de la cantera piedra caliza que destina a la industria del cemento y que tal actividad se enmarca en el hecho generador, lo cierto es que a la fecha de emisión de esta resolución, al conocer y resolver por el fondo las pretensiones y excepciones (y sobre la causa de pedir), resulta evidente a esta Cámara que mantiene eficacia el acuerdo del Concejo Municipal no. 19-97 del 22 de agosto de 1997, en el cual ese órgano dispuso que respecto de Cemex no se producen los presupuestos de hecho del impuesto previsto en el mandato 36 del entonces Código de Minería, por lo que la empresa no es sujeto pasivo de ese tributo. Este acto, aunque no fue incorporado dentro de los hechos probados del Tribunal sentenciador de este asunto, sí fue enunciado como elemento fáctico segundo en la demanda y sobre este aportó la parte actora el documento que enumeró como primero (folios 108 a 110, los argumentos de derecho respectivos a folios 162 y 171). Fue asimismo referido por la demandada en su contestación (pliegos 208, 212 y 226 a 230). Por demás, dentro del proceso especial tributario no. 04-000112-0161-CA, incoado también por Cemex contra la misma Corporación, en la sentencia no. 887-F-SI-2011 del 28 de julio de 2011, esta Sala declaró sin lugar el recurso de casación presentado contra la sentencia no. 11-2010 del 29 de enero de 2010 y su adición no. 11-2010-Bis del 10 de marzo siguiente. En aquel fallo, la sección octava del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo anuló el acuerdo del Concejo Municipal adoptado en el artículo primero, capítulo IV de la sesión no. 6-2004 del 10 de febrero de 2004, el cual declaraba la nulidad absoluta del acuerdo no. 19-97 del 22 de agosto de 1997 –entre otros-. En este orden, al existir y mantener su eficacia ese acuerdo no. 19-97, la Municipalidad de Abangares no podía iniciar y concluir un procedimiento determinativo del tributo contemplado en el antes precepto 36, hoy 40 del Código de Minería, períodos 2001 a 2005, ni podía afectar de esa manera la situación jurídica de Cemex reconocida por ese acto, pues ello contraviene el principio de intangibilidad de los actos propios que se desprende del artículo 34 de la Constitución Política. Esto –valga aclarar- no significa que la Municipalidad esté imposibilitada de modificar su criterio sobre la sujeción de la actividad de Cemex al tributo indicado, sino que ello requiere efectuarlo mediante los cauces que prevé el ordenamiento jurídico. Pero sí determina que las conductas impugnadas en el presente asunto son contrarias al ordenamiento jurídico y deba decretarse su invalidez, tal y como dispuso el Tribunal. En consecuencia, el cargo habrá de declararse sin lugar con el fin de conservar ese extremo dispositivo de la sentencia recurrida.”