Scope of the tax exemption for mutual savings and loan associationsAlcances de la exención tributaria de las asociaciones mutualistas

III.ON THE SCOPE OF THE EXEMPTION IN ARTICLES 69 AND 74 OF LAW 7052, THE FINANCIAL SYSTEM FOR HOUSING LAW.- The legal hypothesis put forward by the representation of Grupo Mutual in its lawsuit is structured on the basis that the exemption provided in the Financial System for Housing Law is exclusively subjective in nature and, consequently, is intended to cover any tax on any type of activity undertaken by the organization; an exemption which is furthermore immutable, as it would be related to present and future taxes. Alternatively, it argues that, in any case, income from secondary activities, as in the present case, constitutes a sort of ancillary resources subject, in any event, to the main purpose of the Mutual Association, which is the provision of affordable housing. From the outset, this Court would like to point out that exemptions, just like taxes, correspond to a fiscal policy that is ultimately aimed at satisfying the public needs to which the Costa Rican State is bound. Every exemption, by its nature as an incentive or promotional instrument, seeks to achieve extra-fiscal goals (promotion and discouragement of activities and redistribution of wealth), through the promotion of public activities or private activities of public relevance, as in this case, the provision of housing, through a specific type of private legal entity: the mutual association. However, and unlike what is maintained by the plaintiff, for the reason already indicated, every current exemption is subject to review and modification by the legislature (principle of legal reserve in tax matters –Art. 121.13 of the Political Constitution, 5 and 61 of the Tax Code and Regulations– and mutability of the legal system); it is not a universal, perpetual, and immutable benefit as has been argued. Having made this brief introduction, we proceed to the analysis of the rules involved in this matter. Law number 7052, the National Financial System for Housing Law, entered into force on November 27, 1986, and in its articles 69 and 74, it established an exemption for Mutual Associations in the following terms: “…Article 69.- Mutual associations shall be organized and operate in accordance with the provisions in this law and in the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica. For the better fulfillment of their purposes, mutual associations shall enjoy exemption from taxes of all kinds, present and future. [...] Article 74.- Mutual associations shall have their own legal personality, which must be registered in the Persons Section of the Public Registry, based on the public deed of their incorporation. Consequently, they shall be legally capable of acquiring rights, contracting obligations, and intervening in lawsuits and proceedings of any nature, judicial and administrative. They shall enjoy exemption from posting cost bonds and making deposits to guarantee pre-judgment attachments, as well as from the payment of all types of present and future taxes. To avail itself of this latter exemption, the entity must, in each case, have the prior approval of the Bank….” Now, to properly understand the scope of this exemption in the specific case, firstly, it is necessary to specify the nature of mutual associations. In this way, and in general, mutual associations, or simply mutual associations, correspond to organizations of persons that, under a principle of solidarity and from an individual contribution or payment –in this case, from savings– seek the satisfaction of needs or interests common to the members, through the provision of different services for their benefit. In the Costa Rican legal system, these types of organizations have been regulated specifically through the National Financial System for Housing Law, which, in article 163, restricts the names "savings and loan association" and "mutual association," solely to those entities that have been so authorized by the Housing Mortgage Bank (hereinafter Banhvi), for the provision of financial services established under that legal framework. We can then affirm that mutual associations or savings and loan mutual associations correspond to entities forming part of the national financial system for housing, conceived as non-bank financial entities of a private and associative nature, which share with the system the main purpose of “…promoting national and foreign savings and investment, in order to collect financial resources to seek a solution to the existing housing problem in the country…” (Articles 1 to 3, 68, 69, 74 and 75 Law No. 7052). They achieve this purpose through the provision of financial services, under the mutualism scheme, that is, using savings and loans as a mechanism for contribution and provision of services for their members, with the fundamental difference that mutual associations in Costa Rica, by forming part of the financial system for housing, additionally serve as an instrument for the channeling, allocation, and final disbursement of the resources coming from that system, specifically, from the National Housing Fund or FONAVI (articles 41 to 45) and the Housing Subsidy Fund or FOSUVI (articles 46 to 65), according to the rules set for each of these programs (Articles 3 and 4 of Executive Decree number 25788-MP-MIVAH “Regulations for the Organization of the National Financial System for Housing”). The provision of other services, under this legal framework, therefore corresponds to an ancillary or subsidiary activity, which, although it could be freely provided by the mutual association in its capacity as a private entity and therefore governed by the constitutional principle of freedom of contract (Art. 28 of the Political Constitution), can only be subject to the benefits of the system, insofar as they are authorized by the Banhvi, as we shall see below. Executive Decree number 25788-MP-MIVAH “Regulations for the Organization of the National Financial System for Housing” establishes in its article 11 a definition of mutual associations, precisely in the sense that was outlined above: “Article 11.—Definitions: Mutual associations are associations under private law, of indefinite duration, non-profit, and with administrative autonomy, that perform functions of public interest and are subject to the provisions of the System Law, the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica, and other related legislation. In accordance with article 75, subsection f) of the law, the Bank may authorize mutual associations to diversify operations by carrying out activities different from their normal line of business, provided they are necessary for their strengthening and the achievement of their primary objectives, and that they constitute a secondary and not a primary activity.” (Emphasis is not from the original). From the foregoing, we can begin to extract the following. Firstly, it must be noted that the linkage to the provisions of the Organic Law of the Central Bank (Law No. 7558), also in accordance with article 69 of Law No. 7052, is due to the fact that the main activity carried out by mutual associations resides precisely in the provision of financial intermediation services, hence articles 115 to 117 and 150 of Law No. 7558 subject their activities of this category to the control and supervision of the General Superintendency of Financial Entities. This further reinforces the conception we have arrived at, of Mutual Associations as financial entities within the financial system for housing, since their primary scope of activity is limited, precisely, to the financial intermediation carried out there. In this context, the “functions” or economic activities of the Mutual Associations, referred to in number 75 of Law 7052, are framed: Savings accounts (subsection a), credits for lots and housing (subsection b), assignment of mortgage credits (subsection c), issuance of securities (subsection ch), trusts (subsection d), specific activities of the financial system for housing (subsection e), and any others provided for or not in the law previously authorized by the Banhvi (subsection f). Secondly, and this is directly related to the argument put forward by the plaintiff, regarding the type of exemption contained in articles 69 and 74 of Law No. 7052, for this Chamber, one cannot infer from the cited rules an exemption with the characteristics attributed to it by the plaintiff. As we saw in the judgment of this Section No. 010-2014-VI, we can indeed classify exemptions as subjective or objective, depending on where the legal waiver of the tax obligation falls, so that if it is referred to one or more specific taxable persons, we can affirm that it is a subjective exemption; whereas if it refers to the hypothesis of the taxable event, it is called objective, without both types being mutually exclusive or even with respect to other categorizations, as we shall see below. The article 62 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures establishes: “Article 62.-Conditions and requirements demanded. The law that contemplates exemptions must specify the conditions and requirements set for granting them, the beneficiaries, the goods, the taxes it comprises, whether it is total or partial, the duration period, and if at the end of or during said period the goods can be released or if the taxes must be settled, or if the transfer to third parties can be authorized and under what conditions.” (Emphasis is not from the original). Now, in the case under analysis, as it is the same exemption regulated in two articles (69 and 74 Law 7052), it is possible to synthesize it for analysis purposes, as follows: Mutual associations “…shall enjoy exemption, from taxes of all kinds, present and future…”, “…For the better fulfillment of their purposes,…” for which they must “…have the prior approval of the…” Housing Mortgage Bank “…in each case…”. This reformulation we have made is also consistent with the provisions of article 6 of Executive Decree number 20574-VAH-H of July 8, 1991, called: “Regulations on Tax Exemptions and Other Benefits of the National Financial System for Housing Law,” which establishes the following: “…article 6º.- Exemptions of mutual associations: In accordance with articles 69, 71 and 74 of the System Law, for the better fulfillment of their purposes, mutual associations are exempt from all kinds of taxes. Said exemption covers direct and indirect, national and municipal taxes, including those for sealed paper, fiscal stamps, stamps and other charges of professional associations, and registry fees. To avail themselves of the right of exemption, mutual associations shall need prior authorization from the Bank, in accordance with article 74 of the System Law. This authorization shall not be required in cases referring to the normal and repetitive activities of mutual associations, such as: purchase of office equipment and materials (except computing equipment and vehicles), transfer of properties awarded in judicial auctions or dación en pago (dación en pago), formalization of other notarial acts, and other similar activities at the Bank's discretion.” (Emphasis is not from the original). From the conditions and requirements of the exemption under analysis, both in accordance with the rule just transcribed, and with articles 69 and 74 Law 7052, firstly, the reference to future taxes must be excluded, since this cannot take effect, in attention to the stipulations of numbers 63 and 64 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures: “Article 63.- Limit of application. Even if the tax law expressly provides otherwise, the exemption does not extend to taxes established after its creation. Article 64.- Validity. The exemption, even when it was granted based on certain factual conditions, can be repealed or modified by a subsequent law, without liability for the State.” (Emphasis is not from the original). As a consequence, a discussion maintained in the administrative process regarding the temporal element of the tax obligation is rendered moot and unnecessary, since the fact that Law 7052 provides that the exemption is for both current and future taxes is improper, because it cannot cover taxes enacted subsequently, and we must remember that in that sense, Law 7092 has been in force since 1988, while Law 7052 is from 1986, without this being affected by number 2.ñ of Law No. 7293 of 1992, the Regulatory Law of all Current Exemptions, their Repeal and their Exceptions. That said, we must return to the central thread of the discussion: What type of exemption is contained in articles 69 and 74 of Law 7052? What is its scope? The plaintiff bases its argument that it is solely subjective; the Administrations point out that it is also objective, as in their reasoning they set forth the thesis that it is subject to the fulfillment of its purposes. This Court, in view of what has been developed up to this point and considering the various arguments of the parties, leans towards considering that, indeed, it is simultaneously a subjective and objective exemption, and moreover, one based on general interests of a social nature (judgment of this Section No. 010-2014-VI, cited above). The exemption is thus granted to a specific subcategory of taxpayers: mutual associations, but furthermore, it is conditioned on “…the better fulfillment of their purposes…”, which should be understood to encompass activities aimed at satisfying the purpose for which the Mutual Associations were established, which is none other than that of the national financial system for housing, the legal framework under which they have been regulated in our country: “…promoting national and foreign savings and investment, in order to collect financial resources to seek a solution to the existing housing problem in the country…” (Articles 1 to 3, 68, 69, 74 and 75 Law No. 7052). In the consideration of this Court, this general interest of a social nature is verified by operation of law in the case of the activities or ‘functions’ listed in article 75 of the National Financial System for Housing Law, as they are linked to said interest, so much so that they are expressly and directly provided for by the legislature. A different case is that of secondary activities, in particular, the one that was subject to withholding at source and that has given rise to this matter, which, in the opinion of the plaintiff Mutual Association, is ancillary to the primary objective of the institution and which leads one to consider the resources coming from this activity as covered by the exemption to the same extent as the financial intermediation functions for housing. This criterion, while deserving the respect of this Chamber, is not shared by it, since it is a truncated or incomplete argument, as it omits to justify the reason for that assertion. Specifically, the party forgets to take into account that when the exemption is objectively linked to the accreditation of the fulfillment of the purposes, it implies the necessary verification of the causal relationship between the results of the secondary activity and the achievement of the main purpose of the Mutual Associations, and this causal link is achieved through a fundamental element that the parties have not mentioned in this matter, despite the relevance granted to it by the cited regulatory instruments: the authorization of the Housing Mortgage Bank. Thus, articles 74 and 75 of Law 7052: “Article 74.- The mutual associations […] Shall enjoy the exemption from […] the payment of all types of taxes […] To avail itself of this latter exemption, the entity must, in each case, have the prior approval of the Bank. Article 75.- The mutual associations shall have the following functions: […] f) In general, to carry out all the operations provided for in this law and its regulations, or that, in accordance with them, are authorized by the Bank…” (Emphasis is not from the original). Likewise, art. 11 of the Organization Regulations of the National Financial System for Housing: “…In accordance with article 75, subsection f) of the law, the Bank may authorize mutual associations to diversify operations by carrying out activities different from those of their normal line of business, provided they are necessary for their strengthening and the achievement of their primary objectives, and that they constitute a secondary and not a primary activity…” (Emphasis is not from the original). Article 6 of the Regulations on Tax Exemptions and Other Benefits of the National Financial System for Housing Law: “…To avail themselves of the right of exemption, mutual associations shall need prior authorization from the Bank, in accordance with article 74 of the System Law. This authorization shall not be required in cases referring to the normal and repetitive activities of mutual associations, such as: purchase of office equipment and materials (except computing equipment and vehicles), transfer of properties awarded in judicial auctions or dación en pago (dación en pago), formalization of other notarial acts, and other similar activities at the Bank’s discretion.” (Emphasis is not from the original). This means that, even beyond the evidentiary effort that a mutual association might deploy to prove that the secondary activity is carried out to generate the financial resources necessary to undertake or strengthen the primary activities of those entities, in any case, it will always need that causal relationship to be accredited by the Housing Mortgage Bank, if it wishes to extend the effects of the legal waiver of the exemption under analysis to these activities. This is so, because in accordance with article 185 of the Tax Code and Regulations, the burden of proof “…falls upon the taxpayer regarding facts that impede, modify, or extinguish the tax obligation. In that sense, it is incumbent upon the latter, as the case may be, to demonstrate the facts or acts that constitute their costs, expenses, liabilities, tax credits, exemptions, non-subjections, deductions, and, in general, the tax benefits they claim exist in their favor…” (Emphasis is not from the original). All of which the plaintiff entity has failed to demonstrate, not only in the administrative process, but also before this Court, as can be observed in the list of unproven facts in this judgment. It is worth saying that the authorization of the Housing Mortgage Bank makes a lot of sense within the control and supervision scheme that has been implemented in the Organic Law of the Central Bank and in the Financial System for Housing Law itself, since, in that sense, said regulation granted the Banhvi a competence of auxiliary supervision over mutual associations. Art. 90 Law 7052 states: “Article 90.- The Bank shall act as an auxiliary supervisory entity of the General Superintendency of Financial Entities, in relation to the oversight of authorized entities, for the purpose of guaranteeing compliance with the provisions of this law; in accordance with the regulations to be issued by the Superintendency, after consulting the Housing Mortgage Bank. In accordance with the above, the Bank shall maintain broad and permanent oversight of the mutual associations. For these purposes, it may, at any time, examine the books, documents, files, and contracts executed. The mutual associations are also obliged to provide the Bank with all the information it requests, and the Bank must maintain that information in a confidential manner.” (Emphasis is not from the original). Thus, as we stated at the beginning of this Considering, insofar as the Mutual Associations intend to participate in the national financial system for housing, or to obtain the benefits thereof – such as the exemption under study –, the Banhvi shall possess the indispensable and suitable control and supervision powers to verify that the secondary activities that the mutual associations undertake in accordance with article 75.f) of Law 7052 are directly related to the generation of resources that allow them to fulfill the primary objectives thereof, and thus achieve the extra-fiscal goals that justified their creation. This is also reinforced by the provisions in other numbers of Law 7052, such as, for example, article 148: “…Article 148.- All acts and contracts that, with respect to System operations, are carried out by the Bank and the authorized entities among themselves or with other natural or legal persons, shall be exempted from the payment of all types of taxes. This exemption shall apply only to taxes payable by the Bank or by the respective authorized entity. Likewise, the transfer of land –whether gratuitous or for valuable consideration– from public institutions to authorized entities, for the development of housing projects, shall be exempt from the payment of notarial fees…” (Emphasis is not from the original). Again, we observe how the exemptions provided in said Law are necessarily linked to an objective element: the fulfillment of the purposes of the financial system for housing. Now, it is insisted that this causal relationship must be verified by the Mutual Associations and it is the Banhvi, the competent administrative authority to accredit it. Article 174 Law 7052 states: “Article 174.- The powers conferred in this law to the Housing Mortgage Bank, regarding the functioning of the authorized entities, only pertain to the financing of housing they provide. Consequently, the other functions for which the authorized entities have authority remain outside the competence and control of the Bank.” (Emphasis is not from the original). As we pointed out earlier, once it has come into legal existence, a mutual association, as a private entity and therefore governed by the constitutional principle of freedom of contract (Art. 28 of the Political Constitution), may freely provide services of a different nature; however, insofar as these are framed within, obey, or serve the purposes and activities of the national financial system for housing, or seek to obtain the benefits, fiscal or otherwise, granted by Law 7052 to the authorized entities, the Mutual Associations shall inevitably be subject to the oversight powers of the Banhvi. This is also established in articles 6 to 9 of Executive Decree number 25788-MP-MIVAH, “Regulations for the Organization of the National Financial System for Housing”, but particularly in numbers 6 and 7: “Article 6°—Scope of the declaration of Authorized Entity: The status of Authorized Entity of the System applies to the respective institutions, with respect to those programs, plans, projects, and operations they execute within the System's regulations. These provisions shall not apply to activities carried out by those institutions that do not meet the above requirements, and therefore they may not invoke them in any way to support or justify their actions. Article 7°— Other operations of the Authorized Entities: Regarding entities that carry out activities outside the System, the Bank shall be authorized to make observations and recommendations to them when they are affecting or could harm the housing programs they execute within it. Said observations or recommendations may also be made to the supervisory authorities of those entities.” (Emphasis is not from the original). This last article negatively reflects the indispensability of the prior authorization of the Banhvi, since, precisely, the performance of secondary activities without supervision or control could instead jeopardize the achievement of the primary purposes of the Mutual Associations, as authorized entities within the financial system for housing; hence, if tax exemptions justified by the extra-fiscal purposes of that system are to be generated on these activities, it would not make sense –at least for this Court– to accept a thesis in which mutual associations could benefit from them, without there being a prior verification by the Banhvi of the necessary link between the income obtained from these secondary activities and the fulfillment of the primary objective of solving the “existing housing problem in the country”, through a special system of financial intermediation. Thus, having been determined by this Chamber that the tax exemption contained in articles 69 and 74 of Law No. 7052, being of a subjective and objective order at the same time, in addition to being justified by the satisfaction of general interests of a social nature, requires, in order to legally operate, the prior verification of the link between the generation of income and the achievement of the purposes of the national financial system for housing, by the Housing Mortgage Bank, especially in the case of the assumptions of the secondary activities that these may carry out under number 75.f) ibidem. Thus, in the specific case, this Court considers that the generation of gross income (commissions) by Grupo Mutual Alajuela La Vivienda, as economic consideration deriving from a contractual relationship with the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, constitutes a secondary activity of the former that is not covered by the exemption in question, since, as has been stated, the prior authorization of the Banhvi is required for it to apply; which, however, has not been proved, neither before this Court, nor in the administrative process.

For this reason, the respondent Administrations are correct in considering the income obtained by Grupo Mutual through the business of collecting vehicle circulation fees that it provides to INS as not exempt, which, consequently, is indeed subject to the payment of income tax, especially when the tax consultation carried out at the time (proven fact number 7) has not been challenged [...].” Now, it is insisted that this causal relationship must be verified by the Mutuales and that the Banhvi is the competent administrative authority to certify it. Article 174 of Ley 7052 states: “*Article 174.- The powers conferred in this law upon the Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda, regarding the operation of the authorized entities, shall only correspond to the housing financing granted by them. Consequently, the other functions for which the authorized entities have authority fall outside the competence and control of the Bank.* ” (Emphasis not in original) As we noted previously, once born into legal existence, a mutualist association, as a private entity and therefore governed by the constitutional principle of autonomy of will (Art. 28 CPOL), may freely provide services of a different nature; however, insofar as those services fall within, obey, or address the purposes and activities of the national financial system for housing, or seek to avail themselves of the benefits, fiscal or otherwise, that Ley 7052 grants to authorized entities, the Mutuales will inevitably be subject to the oversight powers of the Banhvi. This is also established in articles 6 to 9 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 25788-MP-MIVAH, “Reglamento Organización del Sistema Financiero Nacional para Vivienda,” but particularly in numerals 6 and 7: “*Article 6—Scope of the Authorized Entity declaration: The status of Authorized Entity of the System governs the respective institutions, with regard to those programs, plans, projects, and operations that they execute within the System’s regulations. These provisions shall not apply to activities that those institutions execute and that do not meet the previous requirements, and therefore they may not invoke them in any way to support or justify their actions. Article 7— Other operations of the Authorized Entities: With regard to entities that execute activities outside the System, the Bank shall be authorized to formulate observations and recommendations when they are affecting or could harm the housing programs that they execute within it. Said observations or recommendations may also be formulated to the supervisory authorities of those entities.*” (Emphasis not in original) This last article negatively reflects the indispensability of the prior authorization of the Banhvi, since precisely the performance of secondary activities without supervision or control could rather endanger the achievement of the primary purposes of the Mutuales, as authorized entities within the financial system for housing; hence, if tax exemptions are to be generated on them, justified by the extra-fiscal (extrafiscales) purposes of that system, it would make no sense—at least for this Court—to accept a thesis in which mutualist associations could benefit from them, without a prior verification by the Banhvi of the necessary link between the income obtained from these secondary activities and the fulfillment of the primary objective of solving the “*existing housing problem in the country*,” through a special system of financial intermediation. Thus, this Chamber having determined that the tax exemption contained in articles 69 and 74 of Ley N° 7052, being both subjective and objective in nature, in addition to being justified by the satisfaction of general interests of a social nature, requires, in order to operate legally, the prior verification of the link between the generation of income and the achievement of the purposes of the national financial system for housing by the Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda, especially in the case of the secondary activities that they may carry out according to numeral 75.f) *ibidem*. Therefore, in the specific case, this Court considers that the generation of gross income (commissions) by Grupo Mutual Alajuela La Vivienda, as economic consideration arising from a contractual relationship with the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, constitutes a secondary activity thereof that is not covered by the exemption in question, since, as stated, the prior authorization of the Banhvi is required for it to operate; which, however, has not been accredited, neither before this Court nor in the administrative venue. For this reason, the defendant Administrations are correct in considering the income obtained by Grupo Mutual through the vehicle circulation fee collection business provided to the INS as not exempt, which, consequently, is indeed subject to income tax payment, especially when the tax consultation made at the time (proven fact number 7) has not been challenged […].” Thus, and in general, mutualist associations or simply mutuals are organizations of persons that, under a principle of solidarity and through an individual contribution or input – in this case, through savings – seek to satisfy common needs or interests of their members by providing various services for their benefit. In the Costa Rican legal system, this type of organization has been regulated precisely through the National Financial System for Housing Law (Ley del Sistema Financiero Nacional para la Vivienda), which in Article 163 restricts the designations "savings and loan association" and "mutual" exclusively to those entities that have been so authorized by the Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda (hereinafter Banhvi) for the provision of the financial services established under that legal framework. We can therefore affirm that mutualist associations or mutual savings and loan associations are entities forming part of the national financial system for housing, conceived as non-bank financial entities of a private and associative nature, which share with the system the principal purpose of “*…promoting domestic and foreign savings and investment, in order to raise financial resources to seek a solution to the existing housing problem in the country…*” (Articles 1 to 3, 68, 69, 74 and 75 of Law No. 7052). They achieve this purpose through the provision of financial services, under the scheme of mutualism, that is, using savings and loans as a mechanism of contribution and service provision for their members, with the fundamental difference that mutuals in Costa Rica, by forming part of the financial system for housing, additionally serve as an instrument for the channeling, allocation, and final disbursement of resources from that system, specifically, from the National Housing Fund or FONAVI (Articles 41 to 45) and the Housing Subsidy Fund or FOSUVI (Articles 46 to 65), according to the rules established for each of these programs (Articles 3 and 4 of Executive Decree No. 25788-MP-MIVAH, “Regulations for the Organization of the National Financial System for Housing”). The provision of other services, within this legal framework, constitutes an accessory or subsidiary activity, which, although it could be freely provided by the mutual in its capacity as a private entity and, therefore, governed by the constitutional principle of autonomy of will (Art. 28 of the Political Constitution, CPOL), would only be affected by the system’s benefits insofar as it is authorized by the Banhvi, as we shall see later. Executive Decree No. 25788-MP-MIVAH, “Regulations for the Organization of the National Financial System for Housing,” in its Article 11 establishes a definition of mutualist associations precisely in the sense outlined above: “*Article 11.—Definitions: Mutuals are associations under private law, of indefinite duration, non-profit, and with administrative autonomy, which perform functions of public interest and are subject to the provisions of the System Law, the Organic Law of the Central Bank of Costa Rica (Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica), and other related legislation. In accordance with Article 75, subsection f) of the law, the Bank may authorize mutuals to diversify operations by carrying out activities other than their normal line of business, provided they are necessary for their strengthening and the achievement of their primary objectives, and constitute a secondary and not a principal activity.*” (Emphasis not from the original). From the foregoing, we can begin to extract the following. First, it should be noted that the link to the provisions of the Organic Law of the Central Bank (Law No. 7558), also in accordance with Article 69 of Law No. 7052, is because the principal activity performed by mutuals resides precisely in the provision of financial intermediation services; hence, Articles 115 to 117 and 150 of Law No. 7558 subject their activities of this category to the control and supervision of the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras. This reinforces once again the conception we have arrived at, of Mutuals as a financial entity within the financial system for housing, since their main scope of activity is limited precisely to the financial intermediation they carry out there. It is within this context that the “functions” or economic activities of Mutuals referred to in Section 75 of Law 7052 are framed: Savings accounts (subsection a), loans for land and housing (subsection b), assignment of mortgage loans (subsection c), issuance of securities (subsection ch), trusts (subsection d), specific activities of the financial system for housing (subsection e), and any other activities, whether or not provided for in the law, previously authorized by the Banhvi (subsection f). Second, and this is directly related to the argument put forward by the plaintiff regarding the type of tax exemption (exención) contained in Articles 69 and 74 of Law No. 7052, for this Chamber it cannot be inferred from the cited provisions that an exoneration with the characteristics attributed to it by the plaintiff exists. As we saw in the judgment of this Section No. 010-2014-VI, we can indeed classify exemptions as subjective or objective, depending on where the legal dispensation from the tax obligation falls, so that if it refers to one or more specific passive subjects, we can affirm that it is a subjective exemption; whereas if it refers to the circumstances of the taxable event, it is called objective, without both types being mutually exclusive or even exclusive with respect to other categorizations, as we shall see next. Article 62 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) establishes: “*Article 62.-Conditions and requirements demanded. The law providing for exemptions must specify the conditions and requirements established for granting them, the beneficiaries, the goods, the taxes covered, whether it is total or partial, the term of its duration, and whether at the end or during said period the goods may be released or whether the taxes must be settled, or whether transfer to third parties may be authorized and under what conditions.*” (Emphasis not from the original). Now, in the case under analysis, as it concerns the same exemption regulated in two articles (69 and 74 of Law 7052), it is possible to summarize it for analysis purposes as follows: Mutualist associations “…*shall enjoy exemption from all classes of taxes, present and future…*”, “…*For the better fulfillment of their purposes*…”, for which they must “…*have the prior approval of the Banco*…” Hipotecario de la Vivienda “…*in each case…*”. This reformulation we have made is also consistent with the provisions of Article 6 of Executive Decree No. 20574-VAH-H of July 8, 1991, entitled: “Regulations on Tax Exemptions and Other Benefits of the National Financial System for Housing Law” (Reglamento de Exenciones Fiscales y otros beneficios de la Ley del Sistema Financiero Nacional para la Vivienda), which establishes the following: “…*Article 6.- Exemptions for mutuals: In accordance with Articles 69, 71 and 74 of the System Law, for the better fulfillment of their purposes, mutuals are exempt from all classes of taxes. Said exemption covers direct and indirect, national and municipal taxes, including those on stamped paper, fiscal stamps, stamps and other charges of professional associations and registration fees (derechos registrales). In order to avail themselves of the right to exemption, mutuals shall require prior authorization from the Bank, in accordance with Article 74 of the System Law. This authorization shall not be required in cases referring to the normal and repetitive activities of the mutuals, such as: purchase of office equipment and materials (except computers and vehicles), transfer of foreclosed properties in judicial auctions or dación en pago (deed in lieu of foreclosure), formalization of other notarial acts and other similar activities at the discretion of the Bank.*” (Emphasis not from the original). From the conditions and requirements of the exemption under analysis, both in accordance with the rule just transcribed and with Articles 69 and 74 of Law 7052, first, the reference to future taxes must be excluded, as this cannot have effect, pursuant to the stipulations of Sections 63 and 64 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures: “*Article 63.- Limit of application. Even if there is an express provision in the tax law, the exemption does not extend to taxes established after its creation. Article 64.- Validity. The exemption, even if granted based on certain factual conditions, may be repealed or modified by subsequent law, without liability to the State.*” (Emphasis not from the original). Consequently, a discussion sustained in the administrative proceedings regarding the temporal element of the tax obligation is rendered pointless and unnecessary, since the fact that Law 7052 provides that the exemption is for both current and future taxes is improper, as it cannot cover taxes enacted subsequently, and let us recall that Law 7092 has been in force since 1988, while Law 7052 is from 1986, without this being affected by Section 2.ñ of Law No. 7293 of 1992, the Regulatory Law of All Existing Exonerations, Their Repeal and Their Exceptions (Ley Reguladora de todas las Exoneraciones Vigentes, su Derogatoria y sus Excepciones). Having said that, we must return to the core of the discussion: What type of exemption is the one contained in Articles 69 and 74 of Law 7052? What are its scopes? The plaintiff argues that it is solely subjective; the Administrations indicate that it is also objective, since in their reasoning they present the thesis that it is subject to the fulfillment of the purposes. This Tribunal, in view of what has been developed thus far and considering the various arguments of the parties, leans towards considering that, indeed, it is simultaneously a subjective and objective exemption, and furthermore, one based on general social interests (judgment of this Section No. 010-2014-VI, cited above). The exemption is thus granted to a concrete subcategory of taxpayers: mutualist associations, but it is also conditioned upon “…*the better fulfillment of their purposes*…”, which should be understood to encompass the activities aimed at satisfying the purpose for which the Mutuals were established, which is none other than that of the national financial system for housing, the legal framework under which they have been regulated in our country: “…*promoting domestic and foreign savings and investment, in order to raise financial resources to seek a solution to the existing housing problem in the country…*” (Articles 1 to 3, 68, 69, 74 and 75 of Law No. 7052). In the opinion of this Tribunal, this general social interest is verified by operation of law in the case of the activities or ‘functions’ listed in Article 75 of the National Financial System for Housing Law, as they are linked to said interest, so much so that they are expressly and directly provided for by the legislator. A different case is that of secondary activities, particularly the one that was subject to withholding at the source and that has given rise to this matter, which in the opinion of the plaintiff Mutual is accessory to the primary objective of the institution and leads to considering the resources from this activity as covered by the exemption just as the financial intermediation functions for housing are. This criterion, while deserving the respect of this Chamber, is not shared by it, as it constitutes a truncated or incomplete argument, since it omits justifying the reason for that assertion. Specifically, the party forgot to take into account that, by objectively linking the exemption to the accreditation of the fulfillment of the purposes, it entails the necessary verification of the causal relationship between the results of the secondary activity and the achievement of the main purpose of the Mutuals, and this causal nexus is reached through a fundamental element that the parties have not mentioned in this matter, despite the relevance granted to it by the cited regulatory instruments: the authorization of the Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda. Thus, Articles 74 and 75 of Law 7052: “*Article 74.- The mutuals* […] *Shall enjoy the exemption from* […] *the payment of all types of taxes* […] *In order to avail themselves of this latter exemption, the entity must, in each case, have the prior approval of the Bank*. *Article 75.- The mutuals shall have the following functions:* […] *f) In general, carry out all the operations provided for in this law and its regulations, or that, in accordance with them, are authorized by the Bank*…” (Emphasis not from the original). Likewise, Article 11 of the Regulations for the Organization of the National Financial System for Housing: “…*In accordance with Article 75, subsection f) of the law, the Bank may authorize mutuals to diversify operations by carrying out activities other than their normal line of business, provided they are necessary for their strengthening and the achievement of their primary objectives, and constitute a secondary and not a principal activity.*…” (Emphasis not from the original). Article 6 of the Regulations on Tax Exemptions and Other Benefits of the National Financial System for Housing Law: “…*In order to avail themselves of the right to exemption, mutuals shall require prior authorization from the Bank, in accordance with Article 74 of the System Law. This authorization shall not be required in cases referring to the normal and repetitive activities of the mutuals, such as: purchase of office equipment and materials (except computers and vehicles), transfer of foreclosed properties in judicial auctions or dación en pago (deed in lieu of foreclosure), formalization of other notarial acts and other similar activities at the discretion of the Bank.*” (Emphasis not from the original). This means that, even beyond the evidentiary work that a mutualist association may undertake to demonstrate that the secondary activity is performed to generate the financial resources necessary to undertake or strengthen the primary activities of those entities, in any case, it will always need that causal relationship to be certified by the Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda, if it wishes to extend the effects of the legal dispensation of the exemption under analysis to these activities. This is so, since in accordance with Article 185 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (CNPT), the burden of proof “…*lies with the taxpayer regarding facts that impede, modify, or extinguish the tax obligation. In that sense, it is up to the latter, as the case may be, to prove the facts or acts that constitute their costs, expenses, liabilities, tax credits, exemptions, non-subjections, deductions and, in general, the tax benefits they claim exist in their favor*…” (Emphasis not from the original). All of which the plaintiff entity has failed to demonstrate, not only in the administrative proceedings but also before this Tribunal, as can be seen in the list of unproven facts in this judgment. It is worth saying that the authorization of the Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda makes a great deal of sense within the control and supervision scheme implemented in the Organic Law of the Central Bank and in the Financial System for Housing Law itself, since in that regard said regulations granted the Banhvi an auxiliary supervisory competence over mutuals. Article 90 of Law 7052 states: “*Article 90.- The Bank shall act as an auxiliary supervisory body of the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras, in relation to the oversight of authorized entities, in order to ensure compliance with the provisions of this law; in accordance with the regulations to be issued by the Superintendency, after consultation with the Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda. In accordance with the above, the Bank shall maintain broad and permanent oversight of the mutuals. For these purposes, it may, at any time, examine the books, documents, files, and contracts made. The mutuals are also obliged to provide the Bank with all the information it requests from them, and the Bank must keep that information confidentially.*” (Emphasis not from the original). Thus, as we stated at the beginning of this Considerando, insofar as Mutuals intend to participate in the national financial system for housing, or obtain its benefits – such as the exemption under study – the Banvhi shall possess the indispensable and suitable control and supervisory powers to verify that the secondary activities that the mutualist associations undertake in accordance with Article 75.f) of Law 7052, are directly related to the generation of resources that allow them to fulfill their primary objectives, and thereby achieve the extra-tax goals that justified their creation. This is also reinforced by what is provided in other sections of Law 7052, such as, for example, Article 148: “…*Article 148.- All acts and contracts that, regarding System operations, are carried out by the Bank and the authorized entities among themselves or with other natural or legal persons, shall be exempted from the payment of all types of taxes. This exemption shall apply only with respect to taxes payable by the Bank or by the respective authorized entity. Likewise, the transfer of land – free of charge or for consideration – from public institutions to authorized entities, for the development of housing projects, shall be exempt from the payment of notarial fees…*” (Emphasis not from the original). Again, we observe how the exemptions provided in said Law are necessarily linked to an objective element: the fulfillment of the purposes of the financial system for housing. Now, it is reiterated that this causal relationship must be proved by the Mutuals, and the Banhvi is the competent administrative authority to certify it. Article 174 of Law 7052 states: “*Article 174.- The powers conferred in this law on the Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda, regarding the operation of authorized entities, only correspond to the financing of housing granted by them. Consequently, the other functions for which the authorized entities are empowered remain outside the competence and control of the Bank.*” (Emphasis not from the original). As we pointed out previously, once it has come into legal existence, a mutualist association, as a private entity and, therefore, governed by the constitutional principle of autonomy of will (Art. 28 CPOL), may freely provide services of a different nature; however, insofar and to the extent that these services fall within the scope of, are consistent with, or serve the purposes and activities of the national financial system for housing, or seek to obtain the benefits, fiscal or otherwise, granted by Law 7052 to authorized entities, the Mutuals will inevitably be subject to the oversight powers of the Banhvi. This is also established in Articles 6 to 9 of Executive Decree No. 25788-MP-MIVAH, “Regulations for the Organization of the National Financial System for Housing,” but particularly in Sections 6 and 7: “*Article 6°—Scope of the declaration as Authorized Entity: The condition of Authorized Entity of the System applies to the respective institutions, with respect to those programs, plans, projects, and operations they execute within the System's regulations. These provisions shall not apply to activities executed by those institutions that do not meet the aforementioned requirements, and consequently, they may not invoke them in any way to support or justify their actions. Article 7°— Other operations of Authorized Entities: With respect to entities that carry out activities outside the System, the Bank shall be authorized to formulate observations and recommendations to them when they are affecting or could harm the housing programs they execute within it. Said observations or recommendations may also be formulated to the supervisory authorities of those entities.*” (Emphasis not from the original). This last article reflects, in a negative manner, the indispensability of the prior authorization of the Banhvi, since precisely the performance of secondary activities without supervision or control could instead jeopardize the achievement of the primary purposes of the Mutuals, as authorized entities within the financial system for housing; therefore, if tax exemptions justified by the extra-tax purposes of that system are to be generated on these activities, it would make no sense – at least to this Tribunal – to accept a thesis whereby mutualist associations could benefit from the same, without a prior verification by the Banhvi of the necessary link between the income obtained from these secondary activities and the fulfillment of the primary objective of solving the “*existing housing problem in the country*,” through a special system of financial intermediation. Thus, this Chamber having determined that the tax exemption contained in Articles 69 and 74 of Law No. 7052, being of both a subjective and objective nature, in addition to being justified by the satisfaction of general social interests, requires, to operate legally, the prior verification of the link between the generation of income and the achievement of the purposes of the national financial system for housing, by the Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda, especially in the case of secondary activities that these may carry out according to Section 75.f) of the same law. Consequently, in the specific case, this Tribunal considers that the generation of gross income (commissions) by Grupo Mutual Alajuela La Vivienda, as economic consideration from a contractual relationship with the Instituto Nacional de Seguros, constitutes a secondary activity of the former that is not covered by the exemption in question, since as has been stated, the prior authorization of the Banhvi is required for it to operate; which, however, has not been accredited, neither before this Tribunal nor in the administrative venue. For this reason, the defendant Administrations are correct in considering the income obtained by Grupo Mutual through the vehicle registration fee collection business it provides to the INS as not exempted, and which, consequently, is subject to the payment of income tax, all the more so when the tax consultation made at the time (proven fact number 7) has not been challenged […].

“III. SOBRE LOS ALCANCES DE LA EXENCIÓN DE LOS ARTÍCULOS 69 Y 74 DE LA LEY 7052, LEY DEL SISTEMA FINANCIERO PARA LA VIVIENDA.- La hipótesis legal planteada por la representación de Grupo Mutual en su demanda, se estructura a partir de que la exoneración dispuesta en la Ley del Sistema Financiero para la Vivienda es exclusivamente de orden subjetivo y por consiguiente, está dispuesta para abarcar cualquier tributo respecto de cualquier tipo actividad que emprenda la organización; exoneración además inmutable pues se encontraría relacionada a impuestos presentes y futuros. Subsidiariamente, aduce que en todo caso, los ingresos por actividades secundarias, como en el presente caso, constituyen una suerte de recursos accesorios sujetos en todo caso a la finalidad principal de la Asociación Mutualista, de dotación de vivienda popular. De entrada, este Tribunal quisiera apuntar que las exoneraciones al igual que los tributos, se corresponden a una política fiscal que va dirigida en última instancia a la satisfacción de las necesidades públicas a las que se debe el Estado costarricense. Toda exención por su naturaleza de incentivo o instrumento de fomento, busca alcanzar metas de orden extra fiscal (promoción y disuasión de actividades y redistribución de riqueza), mediante la promoción de actividades públicas o particulares de relevancia pública, como en este caso, la dotación de vivienda, a través de un tipo específico de persona jurídica privada: la asociación mutualista. Sin embargo, y a diferencia de lo sostenido por la demandante, por la razón ya indicada, toda exoneración vigente está sujeta a revisión y modificación por parte del legislador (principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria –Art. 121.13 CPOL, 5 y 61 CNPT- y mutabilidad del ordenamiento jurídico), no se trata de un beneficio universal, perenne e inmutable como se ha venido a aducir. Hecha esta breve introducción, procedemos al análisis de las normas involucradas en este asunto. La Ley número 7052, Ley del Sistema Financiero Nacional para la Vivienda, entró en vigencia el 27 de noviembre de 1986 y en sus artículos 69 y 74, estableció una exoneración a las Asociaciones Mutualistas en los siguientes términos: “…Artículo 69.- Las mutuales deberán organizarse y funcionar de acuerdo con lo establecido en esta ley y en la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica. Para la mejor realización de sus fines, las mutuales gozarán de exención, de tributos de toda clase, presentes y futuros. […] Artículo 74.- Las mutuales tendrán personalidad jurídica propia, que deberá inscribirse en la Sección de Personas del Registro Público, sobre la base de la escritura de su constitución. En consecuencia, serán legalmente capaces para adquirir derechos, contraer obligaciones e intervenir en juicios y diligencias de cualquier índole, judicial y administrativa. Gozarán de la exención de rendir fianzas de costas y de hacer depósitos para garantizar embargos preventivos, así como del pago de todo tipo de impuestos presentes y futuros. Para acogerse a esta última exención, la entidad, en cada caso, deberá contar con la aprobación previa del Banco….” Ahora bien, para comprender adecuadamente los alcances de esta exoneración en el caso concreto, primeramente, es necesario precisar la figura de las mutuales. De esta manera y en general, las asociaciones mutualistas o simplemente mutuales, corresponden a organizaciones de personas que bajo un principio de solidaridad y a partir de una contribución o aporte individual –en este caso, a partir del ahorro- buscan la satisfacción de necesidades o intereses comunes a los asociados, mediante la prestación de distintos servicios en beneficio de éstos. En el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense, este tipo de organizaciones se han regulado precisamente a través de la Ley del Sistema Financiero Nacional para la Vivienda, que en el artículo 163, restringe las denominaciones "asociación de ahorro y préstamo" y "mutual", únicamente para aquellas entidades que hayan sido así autorizadas por el Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda (en adelante Banhvi), para la prestación de los servicios financieros establecidos bajo ese marco legal. Podemos afirmar entonces, que las asociaciones mutualistas o mutuales de ahorro y préstamo, corresponden a entidades integrantes del sistema financiero nacional para la vivienda, concebidas como entidades financieras no bancarias de naturaleza privada y asociativa, que comparte con el sistema la finalidad principal de “…fomentar el ahorro y la inversión nacional y extranjera, con el fin de recaudar recursos financieros para procurar la solución del problema habitacional existente en el país…” (Artículos 1 a 3, 68, 69, 74 y 75 Ley N° 7052) Esta finalidad la consiguen a través de la prestación de servicios financieros, bajo el esquema del mutualismo, esto es, utilizando el ahorro y préstamo, como mecanismo de contribución y prestación de servicios para sus asociados, con la diferencia fundamental de que las mutuales en Costa Rica, al formar parte del sistema financiero para la vivienda, sirven adicionalmente como un instrumento para la canalización, asignación y el giro final de los recursos provenientes de ese sistema, en concreto, del Fondo Nacional para Vivienda o FONAVI (artículos 41 a 45) y del Fondo de Subsidios para Vivienda o FOSUVI (artículos 46 a 65), según las reglas fijadas para cada uno de estos programas (Artículos 3 y 4 del decreto ejecutivo número 25788-MP-MIVAH “Reglamento Organización del Sistema Financiero Nacional para Vivienda”). La prestación de otros servicios, en este marco legal, corresponde entonces a una actividad accesoria o subsidiaria, que si bien podrían llegar a ser prestada libremente por la mutual en su condición de entidad privada y por tanto, regida por el principio constitucional de autonomía de la voluntad (Art. 28 CPOL), sólo podría estar afecta a los beneficios del sistema, en tanto se hallen autorizadas por el Banhvi, según veremos más adelante. El decreto ejecutivo número 25788-MP-MIVAH “Reglamento Organización del Sistema Financiero Nacional para Vivienda” establece en su artículo 11 una definición de las asociaciones mutualistas, justamente en el sentido que fue delimitado anteriormente: “Artículo 11.—Definiciones: Las mutuales son asociaciones de derecho privado, de duración indefinida, sin fines de lucro y con autonomía administrativa, que cumplen funciones de interés público y están sometidas a las disposiciones de la Ley del Sistema, Ley Orgánica del Banco Central de Costa Rica y demás legislación conexa. De conformidad con el artículo 75, inciso f) de la ley, el Banco podrá autorizar a las mutuales para que diversifiquen operaciones llevando a cabo otras diferentes a las de sus giros normales, siempre y cuando fueren necesarias para su fortalecimiento y consecución de sus objetivos primordiales, y que constituyeren una actividad secundaria y no principal.” (Resaltado no es del original) De lo anterior, podemos comenzar a extraer lo siguiente. En primer lugar, se debe apuntar que la vinculación a las disposiciones de la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central (Ley N° 7558), conteste también con el artículo 69 de la Ley N° 7052, se debe a que la actividad principal que desempeñan las mutuales reside precisamente en la prestación de servicios de intermediación financiera, de allí que los artículos 115 a 117 y 150 de la Ley N° 7558, sometan sus actividades de esta categoría al control y supervisión de la Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras. Esto refuerza nuevamente la concepción a la que hemos arribado, de las Mutuales como entidad financiera dentro del sistema financiero para la vivienda, pues su ámbito principal de actividad se circunscribe, precisamente, en torno a la intermediación financiera que allí lleva a cabo. En este contexto se enmarcan las “funciones” o actividades económicas de las Mutuales, a las que refiere el numeral 75 de la Ley 7052: Cuentas de ahorro (inciso a), créditos para lote y vivienda (inciso b), cesión de créditos hipotecarios (inciso c), emisión de títulos valores (inciso ch), fideicomisos (inciso d), actividades específicas del sistema financiero para la vivienda (inciso e), cualesquiera otras previstas o no en la ley previamente autorizadas por el Banhvi (inciso f). En segundo lugar, y esto tiene relación directa con el argumento opuesto por la actora, respecto al tipo de exención que contienen los artículos 69 y 74 de la Ley N° 7052, para esta Cámara no se puede colegir de las normas de cita, una exoneración con las características que le son atribuidas por la accionante. Como vimos en la sentencia de esta Sección n° 010-2014-VI, podemos clasificar efectivamente las exenciones en subjetivas u objetivas, dependiendo de dónde recaiga la dispensa legal de la obligación tributaria, de modo que si está referida a uno o unos sujetos pasivos determinados, podemos afirmar que se trata de una exención subjetiva; mientras que si se refiere hipótesis del hecho generador, se le denomina objetiva, sin que ambos tipos sean excluyentes entre sí o incluso respecto de otras categorizaciones, como veremos seguidamente. El artículo 62 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios establece: “Artículo 62.-Condiciones y requisitos exigidos. La ley que contemple exenciones debe especificar las condiciones y los requisitos fijados para otorgarlas, los beneficiarios, las mercancías, los tributos que comprende, si es total o parcial, el plazo de su duración, y si al final o en el transcurso de dicho período se pueden liberar las mercancías o si deben liquidar los impuestos, o bien si se puede autorizar el traspaso a terceros y bajo qué condiciones.” (Resaltado no es del original) Ahora bien, en el caso bajo análisis, por tratarse de una misma exención regulado en dos artículos (69 y 74 Ley 7052), es posible sintetizar la misma para efectos de análisis, de la siguiente manera: Las asociaciones mutualistas “…gozarán de exención, de tributos de toda clase, presentes y futuros…”, “…Para la mejor realización de sus fines,…”, para lo cual deberán “…contar con la aprobación previa del Banco…” Hipotecario de la Vivienda “…en cada caso…”. Esta reformulación que hemos realizado, es consistente asimismo con lo dispuesto en el artículo 6 del decreto ejecutivo número 20574-VAH-H del 8 de julio de 1991, denominado: “Reglamento de Exenciones Fiscales y otros beneficios de la Ley del Sistema Financiero Nacional para la Vivienda”, que establece lo siguiente: “…articulo 6º.- Exenciones de las mutuales: De conformidad con los artículos 69, 71 y 74 de la Ley del Sistema, para la mejor realización de sus fines, las mutuales están exentas de toda clase de tributos. Dicha exención abarca los impuestos directos e indirectos, nacionales y municipales, incluidos los de papel sellado, timbres fiscales, timbres y otros cargos de los colegios profesionales y derechos registrales. Para acogerse al derecho de exención las mutuales necesitarán autorización previa del Banco, de conformidad con el artículo 74 de la Ley del Sistema. No se requerirá esta autorización en los casos que se refieren a las actividades normales y repetitivas de las mutuales, tales como: compra de equipo y materiales de oficina (excepto de computación y vehículos), traspaso de propiedades adjudicatarias en remates judiciales o dación en pago, formalización de otros actos notariales y otras actividades similares a juicio del Banco.” (Resaltado no es del original). De las condiciones y requisitos de la exoneración bajo análisis, tanto de conformidad con la norma recién transcrita, como con los artículo 69 y 74 Ley 7052, primeramente, se debe excluir la referencia a impuestos futuros, toda vez que esto no puede surtir efectos, en atención a lo estipulado en los numerales 63 y 64 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios: “Artículo 63.- Límite de aplicación. Aunque haya disposición expresa de la ley tributaria, la exención no se extiende a los tributos establecidos posteriormente a su creación. Artículo 64.- Vigencia. La exención, aun cuando fuera concedida en función de determinadas condiciones de hecho, puede ser derogada o modificada por ley posterior, sin responsabilidad para el Estado.” (Resaltado no es del original). Como consecuencia, se desvirtúa por inútil e innecesaria una discusión sostenida en vía administrativa en relación con el elemento temporal de la obligación tributaria, ya que el hecho de que la ley 7052 disponga que la exención es para impuestos tanto actuales como futuros, es improcedente, pues no puede abarcar los tributos que se promulguen con posterioridad y recordemos que en ese sentido la Ley 7092 está vigente desde el año 1988, mientras que la Ley 7052 es de 1986, sin que esto se vea afectado por el numeral 2.ñ de la Ley N° 7293 de 1992, Ley Reguladora de todas las Exoneraciones Vigentes, su Derogatoria y sus Excepciones. Dicho esto, se debe retomar el hilo central de la discusión: ¿Qué tipo de exención es la contenida en los artículos 69 y 74 de la Ley 7052? ¿Cuáles son sus alcances? La parte actora fundamenta que es únicamente de tipo de subjetivo, las Administración señalan que además es de tipo objetivo, pues en sus razonamientos exponen la tesis de que está sujeta al cumplimiento de los fines. Este Tribunal, en vista de lo desarrollado hasta aquí y atendiendo los diversos argumentos de las partes, se decanta por considerar que, efectivamente, es al mismo tiempo una exención subjetiva y objetiva, y además, una en función de intereses generales de carácter social (sentencia de esta Sección n° 010-2014-VI, arriba citada). La exoneración se otorga así a una subcategoría concreta de contribuyentes: las asociaciones mutualistas, pero además se supedita a “…la mejor realización de sus fines…”, lo que debe entenderse que abarca las actividades dirigidas a satisfacer la finalidad para la cual se establecieron las Mutuales, que no es otro distinto al del sistema financiero nacional para la vivienda, marco legal bajo el que han sido reguladas en nuestro país: “…fomentar el ahorro y la inversión nacional y extranjera, con el fin de recaudar recursos financieros para procurar la solución del problema habitacional existente en el país…” (Artículos 1 a 3, 68, 69, 74 y 75 Ley N° 7052). En consideración de este Tribunal, este interés general de carácter social, se verifica de pleno derecho en tratándose de las actividades o ‘funciones’ enlistadas en el artículo 75 de la Ley del Sistema Financiero Nacional para la Vivienda, por estar ligadas con dicho interés, tan es así que son previstas expresa y directamente por el legislador. Caso distinto el de las actividades secundarias, en particular, de la que fue objeto de retención en la fuente y que ha dado lugar a este asunto, que en criterio de la Mutual accionante resulta accesoria al objetivo primordial de la institución y que lleva a considerar los recursos provenientes de esta actividad, tan cubiertos por la exención como las funciones de intermediación financiera para la vivienda. Este criterio, si bien merece el respeto de esta Cámara, no es compartido por la misma, toda vez que se trata de un argumento truncado o incompleto, puesto que omite justificar el porqué de esa aseveración. En concreto, olvida la parte tener en cuenta que al vincularse objetivamente la exención con la acreditación del cumplimiento de los fines, implica la necesaria comprobación de la relación de causalidad entre los resultados de la actividad secundaria y la consecución del fin principal de las Mutuales y este nexo causal, se alcanza a través de un elemento fundamental que las partes no han mencionado en este asunto, pese a la relevancia que le otorgan los instrumentos normativos citados: la autorización del Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda. Así, los artículos 74 y 75 de la ley 7052: “Artículo 74.- Las mutuales […] Gozarán de la exención de […] del pago de todo tipo de impuestos […] Para acogerse a esta última exención, la entidad, en cada caso, deberá contar con la aprobación previa del Banco. Artículo 75.- Las mutuales tendrán las siguientes funciones: […] f) En general, realizar todas las operaciones previstas en la presente ley y en sus reglamentos, o que, de conformidad con ellos, les estén autorizadas por el Banco…” (Resaltado no es del original). Igualmente, el art. 11 del Reglamento de Organización del Sistema Financiero Nacional para Vivienda: “…De conformidad con el artículo 75, inciso f) de la ley, el Banco podrá autorizar a las mutuales para que diversifiquen operaciones llevando a cabo otras diferentes a las de sus giros normales, siempre y cuando fueren necesarias para su fortalecimiento y consecución de sus objetivos primordiales, y que constituyeren una actividad secundaria y no principal…” (Resaltado no es del original). El artículo 6 del Reglamento de Exenciones Fiscales y otros beneficios de la Ley del Sistema Financiero Nacional para la Vivienda: “…Para acogerse al derecho de exención las mutuales necesitarán autorización previa del Banco, de conformidad con el artículo 74 de la Ley del Sistema. No se requerirá esta autorización en los casos que se refieren a las actividades normales y repetitivas de las mutuales, tales como: compra de equipo y materiales de oficina (excepto de computación y vehículos), traspaso de propiedades adjudicatarias en remates judiciales o dación en pago, formalización de otros actos notariales y otras actividades similares a juicio del Banco.” (Resaltado no es del original). Esto quiere decir que, incluso más allá de la labor probatoria que pueda desplegar una asociación mutualista, para acreditar que la actividad secundaria se realiza para la generación de los recursos financieros necesarios para emprender o fortalecer las actividades primarias de esas entidades, en todo caso, siempre necesitará que esa relación causal sea acreditada por parte del Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda, si es que desea extender a estas actividades los efectos de la dispensa legal de la exoneración bajo análisis. Esto es así, ya que de conformidad con el artículo 185 CNPT, la carga de la prueba “…incumbe al contribuyente respecto de los hechos impeditivos, modificativos o extintivos de la obligación tributaria. En ese sentido, corresponde a este último, según el caso, demostrar los hechos o actos que configuren sus costos, gastos, pasivos, créditos fiscales, exenciones, no sujeciones, descuentos y, en general, los beneficios fiscales que alega existentes en su favor…” (Resaltado no es del original) Todo lo cual no ha logrado demostrar la entidad accionante, no sólo en vía administrativa, sino también ante este Tribunal, tal y como se puede observar en el elenco de hechos no probados de esta sentencia. Valga decir que la autorización del Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda, tiene mucho sentido dentro del esquema de control y supervisión que ha sido implementado en la Ley Orgánica del Banco Central y en la misma Ley del Sistema Financiero para la Vivienda, pues en ese sentido dicha normativa otorgó al Banhvi una competencia de supervisión auxiliar de las mutuales. Dice el art. 90 Ley 7052: “Artículo 90.- El Banco actuará como ente supervisor auxiliar de la Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras, en relación con la fiscalización de las entidades autorizadas, para efectos de garantizar el cumplimiento de las disposiciones de esta ley; de conformidad con el reglamento que dictará la Superintendencia, previa consulta al Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda. De acuerdo con lo anterior, el Banco mantendrá una fiscalización amplia y permanente de las mutuales. Para estos efectos podrá, en cualquier tiempo, examinar los libros, documentos, archivos y contratos efectuados. Las mutuales también están obligadas a entregar al Banco toda la información que este les solicite y el Banco deberá mantener esa información de modo confidencial.” (Resaltado no es del original) De esta manera, tal y como lo afirmamos al inicio de este Considerando, en el tanto las Mutuales pretendan participar del sistema financiero nacional para la vivienda, u obtener los beneficios de éste – como la exoneración en estudio-, el Banvhi poseerá las competencias de control y supervisión indispensables e idóneas para verificar que las actividades secundarias que las asociaciones mutualistas emprendan de conformidad con el artículo 75.f) de la Ley 7052, estén directamente relacionadas con la generación de recursos que les permitan cumplir con los objetivos primordiales de las mismas, y así alcanzar las metas de orden extrafiscal que justificaron su creación. Esto se refuerza también por lo dispuesto en otros numerales de la Ley 7052, como por ejemplo, el artículo 148: “…Artículo 148.- Todos los actos y contratos que, en cuanto a operaciones del Sistema, realicen el Banco y las entidades autorizadas entre sí o entre otras personas físicas o jurídicas, estarán exonerados del pago de todo tipo de tributos. Esta exención se aplicará únicamente en lo que se refiere a los tributos pagaderos por el Banco o por la respectiva entidad autorizada. Asimismo, estará exento del pago de honorarios notariales, el traspaso de terrenos -a título gratuito u oneroso- de las instituciones públicas a entidades autorizadas, para el desarrollo de proyectos de vivienda…” (Resaltado no es del original) Nuevamente, observamos como las exoneraciones dispuestas en dicha Ley están vinculadas necesariamente con un elemento objetivo: el cumplimiento de los fines del sistema financiero para la vivienda. Ahora, se insiste que esa relación causal, debe comprobarse por parte de las Mutuales y es el Banhvi, la autoridad administrativa competente para acreditarlo. Dice el artículo 174 Ley 7052: “Artículo 174.- Las facultades conferidas en esta ley al Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda, en cuanto al funcionamiento de las entidades autorizadas, sólo corresponden al financiamiento de viviendas que otorguen éstas. En consecuencia, las otras funciones para las que tengan facultad las entidades autorizadas quedan fuera de la competencia y del control del Banco.” (Resaltado no es del original) Como señalamos anteriormente, una vez nacida a la vida jurídica, una asociación mutualista en tanto entidad privada y por tanto, regida por el principio constitucional de autonomía de la voluntad (Art. 28 CPOL), puede prestar libremente servicios de distinta de naturaleza, sin embargo, en el tanto y en el cuanto, los mismos se enmarquen, obedezcan o atiendan los fines y actividades del sistema financiero nacional para la vivienda, o pretendan hacerse de los beneficios, fiscales o no, que otorga la ley 7052 a las entidades autorizadas, las Mutuales estarán sujetas inevitablemente a las potestades de fiscalización del Banhvi. Así se establece también en los artículos 6 a 9 del decreto ejecutivo número 25788-MP-MIVAH, “Reglamento Organización del Sistema Financiero Nacional para Vivienda”, pero particularmente en los numerales 6 y 7: “Artículo 6°—Alcances de la declaratoria de Entidad Autorizada: La condición de Entidad Autorizada del Sistema rige para las instituciones respectivas, en cuanto a aquellos programas, planes, proyectos y operaciones que ejecuten dentro de la normativa del Sistema. Estas disposiciones no se aplicarán a las actividades que ejecutaren esas instituciones y que no reunieren los requisitos anteriores, por lo que no podrán invocarlas en forma alguna para respaldar o justificar sus actuaciones. Artículo 7°— Otras operaciones de las Entidades Autorizadas: En cuanto a las entidades que ejecutan actividades fuera del Sistema, el Banco estará autorizado para formularles observaciones y recomendaciones cuando estuvieren afectando o pudieren perjudicar, los programas de vivienda que ejecuten dentro del mismo. Dichas observaciones o recomendaciones también podrán ser formuladas a las autoridades supervisoras de esas entidades.” (Resaltado no es del original) Este último artículo refleja de manera negativa, lo indispensable de la autorización previa del Banhvi, ya que precisamente la realización de actividades secundarias sin supervisión o control, podría poner en peligro más bien la consecución de los fines primordiales de las Mutuales, en tanto entidades autorizadas dentro del sistema financiero para la vivienda; de allí, que si sobre éstas se van a generar exoneraciones tributarias que se justifiquen por los fines extrafiscales de ese sistema, no tendría sentido –al menos para este Tribunal- aceptar una tesis en la que puedan las asociaciones mutualistas verse beneficiadas con las mismas, sin que exista una comprobación previa de parte del Banhvi del necesario vínculo de las rentas obtenidas por estas actividades secundarias, con el cumplimiento del objetivo primordial de solucionar el “problema habitacional existente en el país”, a través de un sistema especial de intermediación financiera. Así las cosas, habiéndose determinado por parte de esta Cámara que la exención tributaria contenida en los artículos 69 y 74 de la Ley N° 7052, al ser de orden subjetivo y objetivo a la vez, además de que se justifica en la satisfacción de intereses generales de carácter social, requiere para operar jurídicamente la comprobación previa del vínculo entre la generación de rentas y la consecución de los fines del sistema financiero nacional para la vivienda, por parte del Banco Hipotecario de la Vivienda, en especial, tratándose de los supuestos de las actividades secundarias que estas podrán llevar a cabo según el numeral 75.f) ibídem. De esta manera, en el caso concreto, estima este Tribunal que la generación de rentas brutas (comisiones) por parte de Grupo Mutual Alajuela La Vivienda, como contraprestación económica proveniente de una relación contractual con el Instituto Nacional de Seguros, constituye una actividad secundaria de aquélla que no está cubierta por la exoneración en cuestión, ya que como se ha dicho, se requiere de la autorización previa del Banhvi para que opere; lo cual, sin embargo, no ha sido acreditado, ni ante este Tribunal, ni en sede administrativa. Por este motivo, llevan razón las Administraciones demandadas, en considerar como no exonerada la renta obtenida por Grupo Mutual mediante el negocio de recaudación de derechos de circulación que brinda al INS, la cual, por consiguiente, sí se encuentra sujeta al pago del impuesto sobre la renta, máxime cuando la consulta tributaria realizada en su momento (hecho probado número 7), no ha sido impugnada […].”