The FRE does not qualify for the 8% exemption under Article 23 of the LISREl FRE no goza de la exención del 8 % del artículo 23 de la LISR

“IV.- The object of the proceeding turns on whether the 8% exemption established in canon 23 of the LISR applies to the FRE, by virtue of the existence of legal norms that, in the opinion of the appellant, release it from that tax obligation. Firstly, it invokes Article 21 of the Constitutive Law of the CCSS, from which it interprets that since the FRE is an integral part of the Caja, it is reached by its privileges; furthermore, it points out that the Fund was created by agreement of the Board of Directors, without it being considered an autonomous or parallel figure of the institution. On these statements, the judges concluded: “*the ordinary legislature created an exemption in favor of the entities indicated in numeral 3, subsection a) of the Income Tax Law—without expressly mentioning the FRE—since it exempted them from payment of the tax obligation under discussion. The absence of mention of the aforementioned Fund as favored or recipient of the cited tax benefit allows the conclusion that it is in no way exempt from the supra-indicated withholding, not even when the investment in securities was carried out by the CCSS itself with funds from the FRE, since these do not form part of the entity’s assets, nor was the referred Fund created with the purpose of strengthening the social security constitutionally and legally entrusted to said entity.*” On the other hand, the Court determined that failure to recognize the 8% exemption does not violate numeral 58 of the Constitutive Law of the CCSS, by virtue of the fact that: “*.. the 'exemption' constitutes a liberality of the ordinary legislature, who, in the exercise of its legislative discretion, assesses the advisability of releasing certain passive subjects from payment of the tax obligation—for reasons of diverse nature—without such tax benefit being extendable to other subjects not expressly indicated by the legislature. From that perspective, the 'exemption' referred to by the representative of the defendant entity—provided for in numeral 58 of the Constitutive Law of the CCSS—is, as he himself recognizes, granted directly to said entity, and under no circumstance do the internal management of the Fund—joint administration—nor the organizational structure to which he alludes, constitute justifications, arguments, instruments, or mechanisms that allow understanding said exemptions granted to the CCSS as extended to the FRE.*” This Chamber has had the opportunity to refer on other occasions to the subject of exemptions and the interpretation of tax norms, where it has stated: “*IV.- Purpose of norms that provide for exemptions. A tax exemption (exención tributaria) takes place when a norm contemplates that in certain expressly provided-for situations, despite the occurrence of the taxable event, the obligation of the passive subject to pay the tax obligation does not arise. It forms part of the so-called “tax benefits,” which usually respond to a non-tax (extrafiscal) purpose, or to the stimulation of certain activities. On many occasions, these benefits are based on the logic of the economic capacity principle, or on other reasons that motivate the legislature’s decision. In this sense, within tax doctrine (doctrina tributarista) they are constituted, and should be considered, as mechanisms and tools proper to the tax environment. They constitute avenues that, in essence, seek and allow, through strategic conditions (which may be temporary), the fostering, development, or promotion of a specific economic sector, of certain areas of activity, social contexts, or the leveling of economic conditions to promote a state of equality in the distribution of contributory burdens, in the short, medium, or long term. On occasions, they simply seek to prevent the tax system from becoming confiscatory. Hence, they are unviable when their purpose is an unjustified benefit, incompatible with their parafiscal purpose or when they depart from reasonable criteria and the value system proper to the Political Constitution. Thus seen, their creation is not incompatible with the principles of equality, generality, and the duty to contribute to public burdens that stems from numeral 18 of the Political Constitution, but rather they are elements that complement each other to achieve, in principle, a balance and stability in the country’s fiscal situation in its integral dimension. That is to say, they fundamentally seek the fulfillment of those postulates, through actions oriented towards constituting a system clothed in conditions of equity in terms of economic capacity and development. Therefore, in its new composition, this Chamber considers that, contrary to the criterion held until now in this field, they do not constitute, stricto sensu, exceptions to the duty to contribute, but rather parts of a system that provide for the release from payment of the tax, or other benefits, which, integrally considered, seek to improve, in a global sense, the tax system in quantitative and qualitative terms. The foregoing through the total or partial release from the tax payment or the reduction of its calculation base, ergo, they can fall upon the tax obligation in its fullness, or upon the exclusion of some components from that base. Given these particularities, its handling must be careful and cautious, since its arbitrary application can cause impacts on the principles of generality and equality, distorting its very purpose.”* (Resolution of this Chamber number 399 at 10:40 a.m. on June 28, 2006).

*IV.- Interpretation of tax norms and exemptions. Purpose. On this specific aspect, in vote number 657 mentioned supra, this Deciding Body made the following considerations: “The hermeneutic work on mandates that regulate tax relations must be carried out within the channels of the rules of legal interpretation, common to all branches of law, drawing upon their various methods, in order to specify the scope and particularities of a given mandate, so that the hypothetical formulation, applied to daily practice, fulfills its intrinsic task and the purpose the legislature has provided for its issuance. In this sense, numeral 6 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures establishes: ‘Tax norms must be interpreted in accordance with all the methods admitted by the Common Law./ Analogy is an admissible procedure to fill legal gaps, but by virtue of it, neither tributes nor exemptions can be created.’ (The highlighting is not from the original). In this work, in tune with the principle of constitutional equality, it is clear that the interpreter must weigh the diverse variables that converge in each situation, including the nature of the provision, seeking that its use, in the form and scope it establishes, be equal for all similar cases, and avoiding a material application that circumvents the very purpose of its content. The means the legal operator uses to carry out this process are principally the philological or grammatical, logical, historical, sociological, and teleological. Article 10 of the Civil Code, to which canon 6 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures remits, in relation to the interpretation of tax rules, contemplates these elements: ‘Norms shall be interpreted according to the proper sense of their words, in relation to the context, the historical and legislative antecedents, and the social reality of the time in which they are to be applied, attending fundamentally to their spirit and purpose.’ The exegesis of tax norms, in principle, cannot be restrictive.*” **"IV.-** The object of the proceeding concerns whether or not the 8% exemption established in canon 23 of the LISR is applicable to the FRE, by virtue of the existence of legal provisions which, in the opinion of the appellant, excuse it from that tax obligation. First, it relies on Article 21 of the Constitutive Law of the CCSS, from which it interprets that since the FRE is an integral part of the Caja, its privileges extend to it; it further notes that the Fund was created by Board of Directors agreement, without it being considered an autonomous or parallel figure of the institution. Regarding these assertions, the judges concluded: "*the ordinary legislator created an exemption in favor of the entities indicated in numeral 3 subsection a) of the Income Tax Law (Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta) -without expressly mentioning the FRE-, as it exempted them from the payment of the tax obligation in question. The absence of mention of said Fund as favored by or recipient of the cited tax benefit allows for the conclusion that it is in no way exempt from the aforementioned withholding, not even when the CCSS itself made the investment in securities using FRE funds, as these do not form part of the entity's assets, nor was the Fund created for the purpose of strengthening the social security entrusted constitutionally and legally to said entity."* On the other hand, the Court determined that failing to recognize the 8% exemption does not violate numeral 58 of the Constitutive Law of the CCSS, by virtue of the fact that: ".. *the 'exemption' constitutes a liberality of the ordinary legislator, who, exercising his legislative discretion, assesses the advisability of excusing certain passive subjects (sujetos pasivos) from the payment of the tax obligation -for diverse reasons-, without such tax benefit being extendable to other subjects other than those expressly indicated by the legislator. From that perspective, the 'exemption' to which the representative of the respondent entity refers -provided for in numeral 58 of the Constitutive Law (Ley Constitutiva) of the CCSS- is, as he himself acknowledges, granted directly to said entity and under no circumstances do the internal management of the Fund -joint administration-, nor the organizational structure to which he alludes, constitute justifications, arguments, instruments, or mechanisms that would allow such exemptions granted to the CCSS to be understood as extended to the FRE."* This Chamber has had the opportunity to address the issue of exemptions and the interpretation of tax provisions on other occasions, where it has been stated: *"IV.- Purpose of provisions providing for exemptions. Tax exemption occurs when a provision contemplates that, in certain expressly provided-for cases, notwithstanding the occurrence of the taxable event (hecho generador), the obligation of the passive subject to pay the tax obligation does not arise. It forms part of the so-called 'tax benefits,' which usually respond to a non-fiscal (extrafiscal) purpose, or one of stimulating certain activities. On many occasions, these benefits are based on the logic of the ability-to-pay principle, or on other reasons that motivate the legislator's decision. In this sense, within tax law doctrine (doctrina tributarista), they constitute and must be considered as mechanisms and tools proper to the tax environment. They constitute avenues that, at their core, seek and allow, through strategic conditions (which may be temporary), the promotion, development, or encouragement of a specific economic sector, certain areas of activity, social contexts, or the equalization of economic conditions to foster equality in the distribution of contributory burdens, in the short, medium, or long term. At times, they simply seek to prevent the tax system from becoming confiscatory. Hence, they are unviable when their purpose is an unjustified benefit, incompatible with their non-fiscal (parafiscal) purpose, or when they depart from reasonable criteria and the value system proper to the Political Constitution (la Constitución Política). Thus viewed, their creation is not incompatible with the principles of equality, generality, and the duty to contribute to public burdens that derives from numeral 18 of the Political Constitution (la Constitución Política), but they are complementary elements aimed at achieving, in principle, a balance and stability in the country's fiscal situation in its integral dimension. That is, at their core, they seek compliance with these postulates, through actions oriented toward constituting a system vested with conditions of equity in terms of economic capacity and development. Therefore, in its new integration, this Chamber considers that, contrary to the criterion previously held in this field, they do not constitute, in the strict sense (stricto sensu), exceptions to the duty to contribute, but rather parts of a system that provide for the dispensation from tax payment, or other benefits, which, integrally considered, seek to improve, in a global sense, the tax system in quantitative and qualitative terms. The foregoing through the total or partial dispensation from tax payment or the reduction of its calculation base, ergo, they may fall upon the tax obligation in its fullness, or upon the exclusion of some components from that base. Given these particularities, their handling must be careful and cautious, as their arbitrary application may lead to infringements upon the principles of generality and equality, disrupting their very purpose.".* *(Resolution of this Chamber number 399 of 10 hours 40 minutes on June 28, 2006). IV.- Interpretation of tax provisions and exemptions. Purpose. On this specific aspect, in the aforementioned vote number 657, this Deciding Body (Órgano decisor) made the following considerations:* *"The hermeneutic task of mandates regulating tax relations must be carried out within the channels of legal interpretation rules, common to all branches of law, resorting to their various methods, in order to specify the scope and particularities of a given mandate, so that the hypothetical formulation, applied to daily practice, fulfills its intrinsic purpose and the aim the legislator has established for its issuance. In this sense, numeral 6 of the Code of Tax Standards and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) establishes: 'Tax provisions shall be interpreted in accordance with all methods admitted by Common Law./ Analogy is an admissible procedure to fill legal gaps, but by virtue thereof, taxes or exemptions may not be created.' (The highlighting is not from the original). In this task, in accordance with the principle of constitutional equality, it is clear that the interpreter must weigh the various variables that converge in each situation, including the nature of the provision, seeking to ensure that its application, in the form and scope it establishes, is equal for all similar cases and avoids a material application that evades the very purpose of its content. The means the legal operator (operador jurídico) uses to carry out this process are primarily the philological or grammatical, logical, historical, sociological, and teleological. Article 10 of the Civil Code, to which canon 6 of the Code of Tax Standards and Procedures refers regarding the interpretation of tax rules, contemplates these elements: 'The provisions shall be interpreted according to the proper meaning of their words, in relation to the context, the historical and legislative background, and the social reality of the time in which they are to be applied, attending fundamentally to the spirit and purpose thereof.' The exegesis of tax provisions, in principle, cannot be restrictive."* The tax (tributo) is particularized by its coerciveness (coactividad), as it emanates from the exercise of Public Power, which, through this means, imposes, under the protection of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Constitución" style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(res://ietag.dll/#34/#1001); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x; BACKGROUND-POSITION: left bottom" tabIndex="0" w:st="on">la Constitución</st1:PersonName>, economic levies on passive subjects. But furthermore, it is identified by its contributory character as its purpose is to collaborate with public burdens, in order to endow the State with the adequate resources that allow it to deploy its functional and benefit-providing (prestacional) framework for the benefit of the community. This, of course, does not exclude that in certain cases, this type of burden arises with a different objective, as would be the case with the criterion of parafiscality (parafiscalidad). From this perspective, tax provisions cannot be considered exceptional or limiting of the rights of individuals, given that such a character would lead to their application and therefore their interpretation being similarly restrictive. Within this approach then, provisions containing regulations of the aforementioned type must be weighed without subjection to any special or specific criterion. In this task, *it must be remembered that the transcribed provision establishes in its final paragraph an objective limit to this exegetical task, which is the impossibility of creating taxes or exemptions via analogy, a mechanism that, while useful for filling legal gaps, cannot supplant, in these terms, the role of the legislator by virtue of the principle of legal reserve (reserva legal).* *Thus seen, the field of creating levies and tax benefits is forbidden through this means, being therefore figures that must be created by a formal legislative manifestation, in the terms already explained previously. In sum, the legal operator must analyze in each case the content of the provision, to establish the proper channels for its application, in accordance with the parameters already indicated, so that the mandate fulfills its purpose and, in the case of tax matters, the finality immersed in the legislative manifestation is satisfied, be it imposing tax burdens, establishing benefit frameworks, and other matters inherent to the legal-tax relationship that derives therefrom."* (Bold highlighting corresponds to the original and the underlining is ours. Judgment No. 091-2011 of 8 hours 55 minutes on February 3, 2011). Based on the jurisprudence of this Chamber and the correct normative interpretation, it is clear that a tax exemption can only be granted by the express will of the legislator, without extending it to what is not legally contemplated, that is, the creation of exoneration scenarios would not be possible via interpretation.

It has been a reiterated criterion that in tax matters the principle of legal reserve (reserva de ley) prevails, stipulated in Article 5 of the Code of Tax Standards and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), which provides that exclusively by the will of the ordinary legislator, via law, can taxes be created, modified, or suppressed. As well as exempting certain subjects from their payment, specifying the conditions and requirements for their granting. Furthermore, the legislator expressly designated the entities favored by the exemption, such that the benefit corresponds to those exhaustively indicated (taxativa) in canon 23 subsection c) of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la LISR" style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(res://ietag.dll/#34/#1001); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x; BACKGROUND-POSITION: left bottom" tabIndex="0" w:st="on">la LISR</st1:PersonName>, being, solely, those subjects who meet the conditions set out in subsection a) of Article 3 of that normative body (understood to be, the State, Municipalities, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions that by special law enjoy exemption, and state universities) and the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, when they invest in securities issued by the Ministry of Finance, where it is easily noted that the FRE is not found. The extended application of the exemption would violate the principles of legal reserve, legality, and equality. In that sense, this Chamber agrees with what was expressed in the ruling that, by not expressly mentioning the FRE as a beneficiary of the exemption being analyzed, it must be understood that it was not excused from the payment of the referred tax obligation. The FRE was created for the benefit of the servants of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Institución" style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(res://ietag.dll/#34/#1001); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x; BACKGROUND-POSITION: left bottom" tabIndex="0" w:st="on">la Institución</st1:PersonName> to safeguard the particular interests of its members; the extension of the benefits granted to <st1:PersonName ProductID="la CCSS" style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(res://ietag.dll/#34/#1001); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x; BACKGROUND-POSITION: left bottom" tabIndex="0" w:st="on">la CCSS</st1:PersonName>, which by constitutional mandate is exempted from the payment of taxes in order to guarantee the development and permanence of the security regime, is not appropriate. Regarding the non-observance of numeral 72 of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley" style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(res://ietag.dll/#34/#1001); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x; BACKGROUND-POSITION: left bottom" tabIndex="0" w:st="on">la Ley</st1:PersonName> de Protección al Trabajador, the Court resolved: "*Likewise, it is also not possible, via Article 72 of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley" style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(res://ietag.dll/#34/#1001); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x; BACKGROUND-POSITION: left bottom" tabIndex="0" w:st="on">la Ley</st1:PersonName> de Protección al Trabajador, to access the intended 'exemption' (…) to be able to enjoy it, it is required that the Funds -pension funds, (…) be administered and invested by Operators (Operadoras) or by the Social Organizations mentioned in Article 30 of said Law. (…) once authorized by <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Superintendencia" style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(res://ietag.dll/#34/#1001); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x; BACKGROUND-POSITION: left bottom" tabIndex="0" w:st="on">la Superintendencia</st1:PersonName> de Pensiones -SUPEN- and registered before said body*".

This Chamber considers that, although the FRE is subject to the supervision of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Supen" style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(res://ietag.dll/#34/#1001); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x; BACKGROUND-POSITION: left bottom" tabIndex="0" w:st="on">la Supen</st1:PersonName>, it does not comply with the stipulations of Article 30 of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley" style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(res://ietag.dll/#34/#1001); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x; BACKGROUND-POSITION: left bottom" tabIndex="0" w:st="on">la Ley</st1:PersonName> de Protección al Trabajador, since it is not administered by a pension operator (operadora de pensiones), therefore, the established benefit of exemption from payment of the 8% withholding tax established in canon 72 of <st1:PersonName ProductID="la Ley" style="BACKGROUND-IMAGE: url(res://ietag.dll/#34/#1001); BACKGROUND-REPEAT: repeat-x; BACKGROUND-POSITION: left bottom" tabIndex="0" w:st="on">la Ley</st1:PersonName> de Protección del Trabajador is not applicable to it. Regarding the exemption of the yields generated by investments in securities made by the repeatedly cited Fund, since it is not administered by an authorized entity, and no legal provision exists that would allow exempting said fund from the payment of the mentioned withholding tax, what is sought is not possible.

By virtue of the foregoing, since the alleged normative violation has not materialized, the charge is rejected." The tax is particularized by its coerciveness, insofar as it emanates from the exercise of Public Power, which, through this means, imposes, under the protection of the Constitution, economic levies on the passive subjects. But furthermore, it is identified by its contributory character, insofar as its purpose is to collaborate with public burdens, in order to provide the State with the adequate resources that allow it to deploy its functional and service-provision framework for the benefit of the community. This, of course, does not exclude that in certain cases, this type of burdens arise with a different objective, as would be the case of the criterion of parafiscality (parafiscalidad).

From this standpoint, tax norms cannot be considered exceptional or restrictive of the rights of individuals, given that such a character would lead to their application, and therefore their interpretation, being equally restrictive. Within this approach, then, norms containing regulations of the referred type must be weighed without being subject to any special or specific criterion. In this task, it must be remembered that the transcribed norm establishes in its final paragraph an objective limit to this exegetical task, which is the impossibility of creating taxes or exemptions via analogy, a mechanism that, while useful for filling legal gaps, cannot, in these terms, supplant the role of the legislator by virtue of the principle of legal reserve (reserva legal). Thus seen, the field of creating levies and tax benefits is forbidden by this means, being therefore figures that must be created through a formal legislative manifestation, in the terms already explained previously. In summary, the legal operator must analyze, in each case, the content of the norm, to establish the proper channels for its application, in accordance with the parameters already indicated, so that the mandate fulfills its purpose, and in the case of tax matters, satisfies the purpose immersed in the legislative manifestation, that is, imposing tax burdens, establishing benefit frameworks, and other matters inherent to the tax legal relationship that derives from it.” (Bold highlighting corresponds to the original and the underlining is our own. Judgment No. 091-2011 of 8:55 a.m. on February 3, 2011).

Based on the case law of this Chamber and the correct normative interpretation, it is clear that the tax exemption (exención tributaria) can only be granted by the express will of the legislator, without it being possible to authorize what is not legally contemplated, that is, the creation of scenarios of exoneration would not be possible via interpretation. The criterion has been reiterated that in tax matters the principle of legal reserve (principio de reserva de ley) prevails, stipulated in Article 5 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), which provides that only by the will of the ordinary legislator via law, can taxes be created, modified, or suppressed. As well as exempting certain subjects from their payment, specifying the conditions and requirements for their granting. Furthermore, the legislator expressly designated the entities favored by the exemption, so the benefit corresponds to those indicated exhaustively in canon 23, subsection c) of the LISR, being, solely, the subjects who meet the conditions indicated in subsection a) of Article 3 of that normative body (understood as the State, the Municipalities, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions that by special law enjoy an exemption, and state universities) and the Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, when they invest in securities issued by the Ministry of Finance, from which it is easily noted that the FRE is not included. The extensive application of the exemption would violate the principles of legal reserve (reserva de ley), legality (legalidad), and equality (igualdad). In this sense, this Chamber agrees with what was expressed in the ruling that by not expressly mentioning the FRE as a beneficiary of the exemption under analysis, it must be understood that it was not dispensed from the payment of the referred tax obligation. The FRE was created for the benefit of the employees of the Institution to safeguard the particular interests of its members; the extension of the benefits granted to the CCSS—which by constitutional mandate is exempted from tax payment in order to guarantee the development and permanence of the security regime—does not proceed.

Regarding the disregard of numeral 72 of the Worker Protection Law (Ley de Protección al Trabajador), the Court resolved: “Likewise, it is also not possible via Article 72 of the Worker Protection Law (Ley de Protección al Trabajador) to access the intended ‘exemption’ (…) in order to enjoy it, it is required that the Funds—pension funds, (…) be administered and invested by Operators or, by the Social Organizations mentioned in Article 30 of said Law. (…) once authorized by the Superintendency of Pensions (Superintendencia de Pensiones)—SUPEN—and registered before said body.” This Chamber considers that, although the FRE is subject to the supervision of the SUPEN, it does not comply with what is stipulated in Article 30 of the Worker Protection Law (Ley de Protección al Trabajador), as it is not administered by a pension operator; consequently, the established benefit of the exemption from the payment of the 8% withholding established in canon 72 of the Worker Protection Law (Ley de Protección al Trabajador) is not applicable to it. Regarding the exemption of the yields generated by the investments in securities made by the repeatedly cited Fund, since it is not administered by an authorized entity, and no legal norm exists that allows exempting said fund from the payment of the cited withholding, what is sought is not possible.

By virtue of the foregoing, since the alleged normative violation has not materialized, the rejection of the charge is appropriate.

“IV.- El objeto del proceso versa en si es o no de aplicación la exención del 8% establecida en el canon 23 de la LISR al FRE, en virtud de la existencia de normas legales que en criterio de la parte recurrente lo dispensan de esa obligación tributaria. En primer lugar hace uso del artículo 21 de su Ley Constitutiva de la CCSS, de donde interpreta que al ser el FRE parte integrante de la Caja le alcanzan sus privilegios, además apunta, la creación del Fondo fue por acuerdo de Junta Directiva, sin que se le considere como una figura autónoma o paralela de la institución. Sobre estas manifestaciones los jueces concluyeron: “el legislador ordinario creó una exención a favor de las entidades señaladas en el numeral 3 inciso a) de la Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta -sin mencionar expresamente al FRE-, pues las eximió del pago de la obligación tributaria que se comenta. La ausencia de mención del señalado Fondo como favorecido o destinatario del beneficio fiscal citado, permite concluir que el mismo no se encuentra en modo alguno exento de la retención supra indicada, ni aún cuando la inversión en títulos valores, la haya realizado la propia CCSS con dineros del FRE, pues los mismos no forman parte del patrimonio de la entidad, ni el referido Fondo fue creado con una finalidad de fortalecer la seguridad social encomendada constitucional y legalmente a dicha entidad.” Por otro lado, determinó el Tribunal, el no reconocer la exención del 8% no violenta el numeral 58 de la ley Constitutiva de CCSS, en virtud de que: “.. la "exención" constituye una liberalidad del legislador ordinario, quien ejerciendo su discrecionalidad legislativa, valora la conveniencia de dispensar del pago de la obligación tributaria a determinados sujetos pasivos -por motivos de diversa índole-, sin que tal beneficio fiscal, pueda extenderse a otros sujetos que no sean los expresamente señalados por el legislador. Desde esa perspectiva, la "exención" a la que hace referencia el representante de la entidad accionada -prevista en el numeral 58 de la Ley Constitutiva de la CCSS- es como el mismo reconoce, concedida en forma directa a dicha entidad y bajo ninguna circunstancia, el manejo interno del Fondo -administración conjunta-, ni la estructura organizacional a la que alude, constituyen justificaciones, argumentos, instrumentos o mecanismos que permitan entender extendida al FRE, tales exenciones concedidas a la CCSS”. Esta Sala ha tenido la oportunidad de referirse en otras ocasiones sobre el tema de las exenciones y la interpretación de las normas tributarias, donde se ha señalado: “ IV.- Finalidad de las normas que disponen exenciones. La exención tributaria tiene lugar cuando una norma contempla que en determinados supuestos expresamente previstos, no obstante producirse el hecho generador, no surge la obligación del sujeto pasivo de cancelar la obligación tributaria. Forma parte de los denominados “beneficios fiscales”, los que suelen responder a una finalidad extrafiscal, o bien de estímulo a ciertas actividades. En muchas ocasiones, estos beneficios se sustentan en la lógica del principio de capacidad económica, o en otras razones que motivan la decisión del legislador. En este sentido, dentro de la doctrina tributarista se constituyen y así deben considerarse, como mecanismos y herramientas propias del entorno tributario. Constituyen vías que en el fondo pretenden y permiten, mediante condiciones estratégicas (que pueden ser temporales), el fomento, desarrollo o promoción de un determinado sector económico, de ciertas áreas de actividad, contextos sociales, o bien, la equiparación de las condiciones económicas para potenciar un estado de igualdad en la distribución de las cargas contributivas, a corto, mediano o largo plazo. En ocasiones, simplemente buscan evitar que el sistema tributario se torne confiscatorio. De ahí que resulten inviables cuando tengan por fin un beneficio injustificado, incompatible con su finalidad parafiscal o se aparten de criterios razonables y del sistema de valores propio de la Constitución Política. Así visto, su creación no es incompatible con los principios de igualdad, generalidad y el deber de contribuir con las cargas públicas que se desprende del numeral 18 de la Constitución Política, sino que son elementos que se complementan para lograr, en tesis de principio, un equilibrio y estabilidad en la situación fiscal del país en su dimensión integral. Es decir, en el fondo buscan el cumplimiento de esos postulados, mediante acciones que se orientan a constituir un sistema revestido por condiciones de equidad en términos de capacidad económica y desarrollo. Por ende, en su nueva integración, esta Sala considera que contrario al criterio hasta el momento sostenido en este campo, no constituyen estricto sensu, excepciones al deber de contribuir, sino partes de un sistema que disponen la dispensa del pago del impuesto, o bien otros beneficios, que integralmente considerados, buscan mejorar, en sentido global, el sistema impositivo en términos cuantitativos y cualitativos. Lo anterior mediante la dispensa total o parcial del pago del impuesto o la disminución de su base de cálculo, ergo, pueden recaer sobre la obligación tributaria en su plenitud, o bien, sobre la exclusión de aquella base de algunos componentes. Ante estas particularidades, su manejo debe ser cuidadoso y cauteloso, pues su aplicación arbitraria puede hacer incurrir en afectaciones a los principios de generalidad y de igualdad, trastornando su propia finalidad.”. (Resolución de esta Sala número 399 de las 10 horas 40 minutos del 28 de junio de 2006). IV.- Interpretación de las normas tributarias y exenciones. Finalidad. Sobre este aspecto en concreto, en el voto mencionado supra número 657, este Órgano decisor hizo las siguientes consideraciones: “La labor hermenéutica de los mandatos que regulen relaciones tributarias, debe realizarse dentro de los cauces de las reglas de interpretación jurídica, comunes a todas las ramas del derecho acudiendo a sus diversos métodos, a fin de precisar los alcances y particularidades de un determinado mandato, de modo que la formulación hipotética, aplicada a la praxis diaria, cumpla su cometido intrínseco y el fin que ha dispuesto el legislador para su emisión. En este sentido, el numeral 6 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios establece: “Las normas tributarias se deben interpretar con arreglo a todos los métodos admitidos por el Derecho Común./ La analogía es procedimiento admisible para llenar los vacíos legales pero en virtud de ella no pueden crearse tributos ni exenciones .” (El resaltado no es del original). En esta labor, a tono con el principio de igualdad constitucional, es claro que el intérprete debe ponderar las diversas variables que convergen en cada situación, dentro de ellas, la naturaleza de la disposición, procurando que su uso, en la forma y alcances que establezca, sea igual para todos los casos similares y evitar una aplicación material que burle la finalidad misma de su contenido. Los medios de que el operador jurídico, se sirve para llevar a cabo este proceso, son principalmente el filológico o gramatical, lógico, histórico, sociológico y finalista. El artículo 10 del Código Civil, al cual remite el canon 6 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, en relación a la interpretación de las reglas tributarias, contempla estos elementos: “ Las normas se interpretarán según el sentido propio de sus palabras, en relación con el contexto, los antecedentes históricos y legislativos y la realidad social del tiempo en que han de ser aplicadas, atendiendo fundamentalmente al espíritu y finalidad de ellas ”. La exégesis de las normas tributarias, en tesis de principio, no puede ser restrictiva. El tributo se particulariza por su coactividad, en tanto dimana del ejercicio del Poder Público, que mediante esta vía, impone, al amparo de la Constitución, gravámenes económicos a los sujetos pasivos. Pero además, se identifica por su carácter contributivo en tanto su finalidad es colaborar con las cargas públicas, a fin de dotar al Estado de los recursos adecuados que le permitan desplegar su marco funcional y prestacional a favor de la colectividad. Esto desde luego no excluye que en ciertos casos, este tipo de cargas nazcan con un objetivo diferente, como sería el caso del criterio de la parafiscalidad. Desde este plano, las normas tributarias no pueden ser consideradas excepcionales o bien, limitativas de los derechos de los particulares, dado que ese carácter llevaría a que su aplicación y por tanto su interpretación, fuese igualmente restrictivo. Dentro de este enfoque entonces, las normas que contengan regulaciones del tipo referido, deben ser ponderadas sin sujeción a ningún criterio especial o específico. En esta tarea, d ebe recordarse que la norma transcrita establece en su párrafo final un límite objetivo a esta labor exegética, tal cual es, la imposibilidad de crear tributos o exenciones vía analógica, mecanismo que si bien es útil para llenar los vacíos legales, no puede suplir en estos términos, el papel del legislador en virtud del principio de reserva legal. Así visto, el campo de la creación de gravámenes y beneficios tributarios está vedado por este medio, siendo por ende figuras que deben crearse por una manifestación legislativa formal, en los términos ya explicitados con antelación. En suma, el operador jurídico debe analizar en cada caso, el contenido de la norma, para establecer los cauces debidos de su aplicación, a tono con los parámetros ya señalados, a fin de que el mandato cumpla su cometido y en el caso de la materia tributaria, se satisfaga la finalidad inmersa en la manifestación legislativa, sea imponer cargas tributarias, establecer marcos de beneficios y demás asuntos inherentes a la relación jurídico tributaria que de aquella se desprenda.” (Destacado en negrita, corresponde al original y el subrayado es propio. Sentencia No. 091-2011 de las 8 horas 55 minutos del 3 de febrero de 2011). Con base en la jurisprudencia de esta Cámara y la correcta interpretación normativa, es claro que la exención tributaria solo puede ser otorgada por voluntad expresa del legislador, sin que pueda autorizarse a lo no contemplado legalmente, es decir, no cabría, vía interpretación, la creación de supuestos de exoneración. Ha sido reiterativo el criterio de que en materia tributaria impera el principio de reserva de ley, estipulado en el artículo 5 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, el cual dispone que únicamente por voluntad del legislador ordinario vía ley, se pueden crear, modificar o suprimir tributos. Así como eximir de su pago a determinados sujetos, especificando las condiciones y requisitos para su otorgamiento. Además, el legislador designó de manera expresa las entidades favorecidas de la exención, por lo que el beneficio corresponde a los indicados de manera taxativa en el canon 23 inciso c) de la LISR, siendo, únicamente, las sujetos quienes se encuentren en las condiciones señaladas en el inciso a) del artículo 3 de ese cuerpo normativo (entiéndase, el Estado, las Municipalidades, instituciones autónomas y semiautónomas que por ley especial gocen de exención y universidades estatales) y el Banco Popular y de Desarrollo Comunal, cuando inviertan en títulos valores emitidos por el Ministerio de Hacienda, donde se rescata con facilidad no se encuentra el FRE. La aplicación extensiva de la exención sería violatorio de los principios de reserva de ley, legalidad e igualdad. En ese sentido, coincide esta Sala con lo expresado en el fallo de que al no mencionar en forma expresa el legislador ordinario al FRE, como beneficiario de la exención que se analiza, ha de entenderse que el mismo no fue dispensado del pago de la referida obligación tributaria. El FRE fue creado en beneficio de los servidores de la Institución para tutelar los intereses particulares de los integrantes de este, no procede la extensión de los beneficios otorgados a la CCSS que por mandato constitucional se le exime del pago de tributos con el fin de garantizar el desarrollo y permanencia del régimen de seguridad. En cuanto a la inobservancia del numeral 72 de la Ley de Protección al Trabajador el Tribunal resolvió: “Igualmente, tampoco es posible vía artículo 72 de la Ley de Protección al Trabajador, acceder a la pretendida "exención" (…) para poder gozar de la misma, se requiere que los Fondos -de pensiones, (…) sean administrados e invertidos por Operadoras o bien, por las Organizaciones Sociales que menciona el artículo 30 de dicha Ley. (…) una vez autorizadas por la Superintendencia de Pensiones -SUPEN- y registradas ante dicho órgano”. Estima esta Sala, si bien el FRE está sujeto a la supervisión de la Supen, no cumple con lo estipulado en el artículo 30 de la Ley de Protección al Trabajador, pues no es administrado por una operadora de pensiones, de manera tal, no le es aplicable el beneficio establecido de la exención de pago de la retención del 8% establecida en el canon 72 de la Ley de Protección del Trabajador. En cuanto a la exención de los rendimientos que generen las inversiones en títulos valores que realice el Fondo de reiterada cita, al no ser administrado por una entidad autorizada, y no existir norma legal alguna que permita exonerar del pago de la retención de cita a dicho fondo, lo pretendido no es posible. En virtud de lo expuesto al no concretarse la violación normativa formulada procede el rechazo del cargo.”