Validity of the Centralized Register of Large Taxpayers' ShareholdersValidez del Registro Central de Accionistas de Grandes Contribuyentes

III.- Before addressing the grievances, it must be noted that they are all interrelated; therefore, to avoid unnecessary repetition, some of those aspects of the appeal will be analyzed jointly. Precepts 8 of the regulation called "Scheduled and Objective Multifunctional Analysis Tool" (Herramienta de Análisis Multifuncional Programados y Objetivo) -AMPO-, of 9:40 a.m. on July 24, 2014, and 3 of the "Annex to Resolution DGT-R-030-2014, Summary of Information Contained in the AMPO Tool" -challenged in this proceeding-, state the following: “Article 8: "Non-compliance: Failure to comply with the provisions of this resolution qualifies as an administrative infraction typified in the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), and may therefore be sanctioned in accordance with the provisions on that matter." Section 3 (Annex): "Company Shareholders: Comprises information identifying the shareholders of the large taxpayer. It consists of the following data: a. Shareholder identification. b. Shareholder name. c. Percentage of share capital. d. Number of shares. e. Type of shares. f. Nominal value (C). g. Total value of shares (C). h. Taxpayer observations." Firstly, this Chamber considers that the Court has not infringed upon the principle of legality, since the information requested in Article 3 of the Annex responds to stipulations 99 and 104 of the CNPT. According to the judges, the power challenged by the plaintiff is expressly recognized in those rules, it being sufficient to require the tax relevance of the requested information. A criterion shared by this Chamber as will be analyzed below. In accordance with precept 99 ibidem, the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) may issue general rules for the correct application of tax laws, within the limits established by the pertinent legal and regulatory provisions. Then, Article 104 of the same regulatory body provides as follows: “To facilitate the timely verification of the tax situation of taxpayers, the Tax Administration may require them to submit books, files, accounting records and all other information of tax relevance (trascendencia tributaria) that is printed in document form, on technical media, or recorded by any other technological means...” (emphasis supplied). From the integration of these two rules, it is deduced that, in effect, the Tax Administration is legally enabled to issue general resolutions in order to request information for tax purposes. Now, undoubtedly, for this Chamber, the information regarding the identity of the shareholders of large taxpayers does possess inherence and tax relevance, so that the Administration can carry out its oversight and tax control duties; that is, the timely verification and efficient monitoring of the tax situation of taxpayers. As established in Considerando VII of the challenged administrative resolution, these data will allow the Tax Administration to have quality information that enables greater effectiveness in the exercise of its tax control powers. The AMPO tool seeks to obtain this information (in this case from the shareholder registry) so that the Administration fulfills its duties, among others, verifying the correct fulfillment of tax obligations. This control cannot be limited exclusively to the moment of the audit as the appellant alleges, since it can also occur before or after that activity, especially in the case of large taxpayers. If in that task the Administration requires such information (shareholders), there is no better way to preserve and obtain it than by creating a “Centralized Shareholder Registry”. Nor can the required information be restricted to copies of books, files, and accounting records as the appellant Association intends; for as highlighted supra, the Law also allows the Tax Administration to resort to all other information of tax relevance, in order to correctly apply tax laws and specifically to facilitate the timely verification of the tax situation of taxpayers. As Article 104 of the CNPT itself clarifies, these are general powers, not limited to the enumeration that this rule makes from the second paragraph onwards. In this sense, it must be noted, a law that grants powers such as the one analyzed here cannot be circumscribed to specific documents, hence the importance of allowing the Administration to also request information of a general nature, provided it is of tax relevance, like the one analyzed here. For all these reasons, rules 99 and 104 ejúsdem allow the Tax Administration, via general resolutions, to have at its disposal this information and data from taxpayers, which rules out an infringement of the principle of legality. Furthermore, it is not that the regulation in question provided that non-compliance with the duty contained in rule 3 of the Annex would lead to the imposition of a fine; on the contrary, what precept 8 ibidem does is replicate what is established in provisions 83 and 84bis of the CNPT. The first sanctions, in general terms, non-compliance in the supply of information or errors in the supplied information. The second (84bis) orders the imposition of a fine equivalent to one base salary on legal entities that do not keep the registry established in Article 137 of the Commercial Code up to date (i.e., for non-compliance with the duty to maintain the shareholder registry). Then, based on this last precept, it can be seen that, for the legislator, this information does have tax relevance, to the point that it imposed the duty on taxpayers and responsible parties to keep an updated shareholder registry. But it is insisted, it is the Law that establishes this penalty (rules 83 and 84 bis of the CNPT) and not the challenged Regulation, which rules out the infringement of numeral 124 of the LGAP pointed out by the appellant. What the challenged resolution does is simply develop a request for information that is endowed with tax relevance; while at the same time recalling that there is an infraction for “non-compliance in the supply of information,” typified in the CNPT. Article 8 of the challenged resolution is clear in that sense. With all this, the Court is correct when it states that this rule “…does not establish or create a new sanctionable conduct, much less a sanction. The foregoing, because the sanction for failing to comply with the obligation to supply tax-relevant information required by the Tax Administration is found in numeral 83 of the CNPT. Thus, the only thing done in the challenged numeral is to refer to the (sic) administrative infractions and their respective sanctions, which are typified in the CNPT…”. On the other hand, the relevance of that information for a specific case has not been the object of the proceeding, since only in each case and after analyzing each declaration—with the supporting documentation—can the Tax Administration determine whether or not to resort to that information (of the shareholders); it is for this reason that it is affirmed that such information must also have “potential” relevance and not only current relevance. In any case, the argument about the relevance or not of that information, at the time of verifying the income tax and dividend tax, was not expressly developed in the complaint, for which reason this Chamber is barred from hearing it in accordance with rules 220 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, CPCA) and 608 of the Civil Procedure Code.

IV.- Nor is this power contrary to the rules of logic, since its requirement proceeds precisely from tax law, where the legislator generally empowered the Tax Administration to require all those data of tax relevance (current and potential) necessary to facilitate the timely verification of the tax situation of taxpayers. Rather, such tax regulations must be attacked through the corresponding legal channel (constitutional jurisdiction), precisely because it is Articles 99, 104, and 109 of the CNPT that established the aforementioned power. Moreover, if there are cases of difficult compliance, this escapes this analysis, since as indicated, each case must be previously analyzed by the Administration. It is even worth noting, before determining the non-compliance with the obligation or the existence of the infraction (in its subjective and objective elements), officials are obliged to analyze and assess the existence of grounds for exemption from liability alleged by the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo), adhering to the particularities of each case and according to the evidence in the case file (as established by the recent resolution of the Dirección General de Tributación no.

**V.-** Regarding the violation of canon 19 of the LGAP, the Court stated that the plaintiff does not explain why it considers that providing the Tax Administration with information that allows knowing the shareholders of a company registered as a Large Taxpayer would affect or could affect the right to privacy; especially since this information is requested for strictly tax purposes and not for public disclosure. The judges added that the principles, rights, and guarantees established in Law 8968: "Protection of Individuals Regarding the Processing of Their Personal Data," may be limited in a fair, reasonable manner, and in accordance with the principle of administrative transparency, when, among others, the following purposes are pursued: "*Public safety and the exercise of public authority, and The effective ordinary activity of the Administration, by official authorities.*" Furthermore, they reiterated, such power of the Tax Administration is sufficiently regulated at the legal level, meaning that a new law or an article with legal status that regulates it with regulatory detail is not required for its exercise. On this point, the Judges are again correct, because in the lawsuit, the plaintiff did not detail the risk or danger it claims in providing such data. It is only at this procedural stage that it explains this situation. Consequently, since it was not an issue clearly and precisely elucidated in the proceedings, the appeal must also be dismissed on that specific point. The risks it now mentions were not detailed in the lawsuit, whether due to the alleged violation of the right to privacy and the inviolability of private documents. In any case, it is clarified that this information is requested for tax purposes, and regarding it, there exists the responsibility and duty of the official to safeguard confidential information (canons 117 of the CNPT; 272 and 273 of the LGAP; 110 subsection c) of the Law of the Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets; 1 and 9 of the Law to Improve the Fight Against Tax Fraud). In this regard, numeral 117 of the CNPT establishes the following: "*Confidential nature of information. The information that the Tax Administration obtains from taxpayers, responsible parties, and third parties, by any means, is confidential; and its officials and employees may not disclose in any way the amount or origin of income, nor any other data appearing in the declarations, nor shall they permit these or their copies, books, or documents containing extracts or references to them to be seen by persons other than those in the Administration tasked with ensuring compliance with the legal provisions regulating the taxes under their charge*…".

**VI.-** In view of the foregoing, it is clear that legislation does exist in the domestic legal system authorizing the Tax Administration to create a "Centralized Shareholder Registry," given the tax relevance of that information. Thus, there is a legitimate reason, as tax and commercial law grants tax significance to that information. Underlying this power is the effective ordinary activity of the Tax Administration. Legislation expressly establishes that such interference, as well as access to the referenced private documentation, are not violations of the rights to privacy and confidentiality of documents, but rather respond to a substantive task of public policy. The timely verification of the tax situation of taxpayers carried out by the Ministry of Finance is necessary for proper tax control and collection. This task is facilitated if taxpayers correctly and timely supply all information of tax relevance, a purpose that justifies the power mentioned in cardinal 104 of the CNPT. The aim is to maintain the efficiency of the system, within an environment of legality, while protecting the rights of the taxpayer; reasons that are also of public interest. In any case, it is worth stating that Law 9416 (Law to Improve the Fight Against Tax Fraud) of December 14, 2016, came to strengthen the questioned power, through the imposition of a transparency system that allows for the supply of information on legal entities and other legal structures. Ergo, no direct violation of precepts 11, 16.1, 19, 124, 133.1, 158.2, and 166 of the LGAP; 24 and 39 of the Political Constitution; 99, 104, 109, and 84 bis of the CNPT is perceived." In any event, the argument regarding the relevance or irrelevance of that information at the time of verifying the profits tax and the tax on dividends was not expressly developed in the complaint, and therefore this Chamber is precluded from considering it in accordance with rules 220 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code (<span class=SpellE>CPCA</span>) and 608 of the Civil Procedure Code.</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:200%'><span class=SpellE><b><span style='font-family:Tahoma'>IV</span></b></span><b><span style='font-family: Tahoma'>.-</span></b><span style='font-family:Tahoma'> Nor is that power contrary to the rules of logic, since its requirement derives precisely from tax law, where the legislature, in a general manner, empowered the Tax Administration to require all data of tax significance (current and potential) necessary to facilitate the timely verification of the tax situation of taxpayers. Rather, that tax regulation must be challenged through the appropriate legal channel (constitutional jurisdiction), precisely because it is articles 99, 104, and 109 of the <span class=SpellE>CNPT</span> that established the power in question. Moreover, if there are cases of difficult compliance, that falls outside this analysis, since, as indicated, each case must be previously examined by the Administration. It is even worth noting that before determining the breach of the obligation or the existence of the infraction (in its subjective and objective elements), officials are obliged to analyze and assess the existence of grounds for exemption from liability alleged by the taxpayer (pasivo sujeto), taking into account the particularities of each case and according to the evidence in the case file (as established by the recent resolution of the Dirección General de Tributación no. <span class=SpellE>DGT</span>-R-50-2016 of 8:15 a.m. on October 7, 2016, which is “Interpretation and application of the administrative infraction for failure to provide information as defined in articles 83 and 106 <span class=SpellE>ter</span> of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures”). Thus, it is disproportionate to annul a regulation based on hypothetical scenarios or eventualities that vary in each case and that may well give rise to grounds for exemption from liability or corrective measures, in the event of impossibility of obtaining the information. </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:200%'><b><span style='font-family:Tahoma'>V.-</span></b><span style='font-family:Tahoma'> Regarding the violation of canon 19 of the <span class=SpellE>LGAP</span>, the Court stated that the plaintiff does not explain why it considers that providing the Tax Administration with information that makes it possible to know the shareholders of a company registered as a Large Taxpayer would affect or could affect the right to privacy; especially since that information is requested for strictly tax purposes and not for public disclosure. The judges added that the principles, rights, and guarantees established in Law 8968: "Protection of the Person regarding the processing of their personal data", may be limited in a fair and reasonable manner and in accordance with the principle of administrative transparency, when, among others, the following purposes are pursued: "<i>The security and exercise of public authority and The effective ordinary activity of the Administration, by official authorities</i>." Furthermore, they reiterated, such power of the Tax Administration is sufficiently regulated at the legal level, so its exercise does not require a new law or an article with legal rank that regulates it with regulatory detail. On this point, the Judges are again correct, since in the complaint, the plaintiff did not detail what risk or danger it claims in providing such data. It is only at this procedural stage that it explains such a situation. Consequently, as this was not an issue clearly and precisely elucidated in the proceedings, the appeal on this specific point must also be dismissed. The complaint did not detail the risks it now discusses, whether due to the alleged violation of the right to privacy and the inviolability of private documents. In any case, it is clarified that this information is requested for tax purposes, and regarding it, there is the responsibility and duty of the official to safeguard confidential information (canons 117 of the <span class=SpellE>CNPT</span>; 272 and 273 of the <span class=SpellE>LGAP</span>; 110 subparagraph c) of the Law of Financial Administration of the Republic and Public Budgets; 1 and 9 of the Law to Improve the Fight against Tax Fraud). In this regard, numeral 117 of the <span class=SpellE>CNPT</span> establishes the following: “<i>Confidential nature of information. The information that the Tax Administration obtains from taxpayers, responsible parties, and third parties, by any means, is of a confidential nature; and its officials and employees may not disclose in any way the amount or origin of income, nor any other data appearing in the declarations, nor shall they permit that such declarations or their copies, books, or documents containing extracts or references thereof be seen by persons other than those in the Administration charged with ensuring compliance with the legal provisions governing the taxes under its charge</i>…”. </span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal style='line-height:200%'><b><span style='font-family:Tahoma'>VI.-</span></b><span style='font-family:Tahoma'> In light of the foregoing, it is clear that legislation does exist in the domestic legal system that authorizes the Tax Administration to create a “Central Shareholders Registry,” given the tax relevance of that information. Thereby, there is a legitimate reason, as tax and commercial law grants tax significance to that information. Underlying this power is the effective ordinary activity of the Tax Administration. The legislation expressly establishes that such interference, as well as access to the private documentation in question, are not violations of the rights to privacy and the confidentiality of documents, but rather respond to a substantive public-order function. The timely verification of the tax situation of taxpayers carried out by the Ministry of Finance is necessary for proper tax control and collection. That task is facilitated if taxpayers correctly and timely provide all information of tax significance, a purpose that justifies the power mentioned in cardinal 104 of the <span class=SpellE>CNPT</span>. The aim is to maintain system efficiency, within a framework of legality, while simultaneously protecting taxpayer rights; reasons that are also of public interest. In any event, it is worth noting that Law 9416 (Law to Improve the Fight against Tax Fraud) of December 14, 2016, came to strengthen the challenged power, through the imposition of a transparency system that allows the provision of information on legal persons and other legal structures. Ergo, no direct violation is observed of precepts 11, 16.1, 19, 124, 133.1, 158.2, and 166 of the <span class=SpellE>LGAP</span>; 24 and 39 of the Political Constitution; 99, 104, 109, and 84 bis of the <span class=SpellE>CNPT</span>.”</span><o:p></o:p></p> <p class=MsoNormal><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></p> </div> </body> </html>

“III.- Previo al conocimiento de los agravios, ha de indicarse, todos se encuentran relacionados, motivo por el cual, para evitar reiteraciones innecesarias, algunos de esos extremos del recurso serán analizados conjuntamente. Los preceptos 8 del reglamento denominado "Herramienta de Análisis Multifuncional Programados y Objetivo" -AMPO-, de las 9 horas 40 minutos del 24 de julio del 2014, y 3 del "Anexo a Resolución DGT-R-030-2014, Resumen de Información Contenida en la Herramienta AMPO" -impugnados en este proceso-, dicen lo siguiente: “Artículo 8: "Incumplimiento: El incumplimiento a lo establecido en la presente resolución califica como infracción administrativa tipificada en el Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, por lo que podrá ser sancionado de conformidad con lo dispuesto en esa materia." Apartado 3 (Anexo): "Accionistas de la empresa: Comprende información que identifica a los accionistas del gran contribuyente. Se compone de los siguientes datos: a. Identificación del accionista. b. Nombre accionista. c. Porcentaje capital social. d. Número de acciones. e. Tipo de acciones. f. Valor nominal (C). g. Valor total de las acciones (C). h. Observaciones del contribuyente." En primer término, estima esta Sala, el Tribunal no ha lesionado el principio de legalidad, puesto que la información solicitada en el artículo 3 del Anexo, responde a las estipulaciones 99 y 104 del CNPT. Según los jueces, en esas normas se encuentra de la trascendencia tributaria de la información requerida. Criterio que comparte esta Sala como de seguido se analizará. De conformidad con el precepto 99 ibídem, la Administración Tributaria puede dictar normas generales para los efectos de la aplicación correcta de las leyes tributarias, dentro de los límites fijados por las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias pertinentes. Luego, el artículo 104 de mismo cuerpo normativo, dispone lo siguiente: “Para facilitar la verificación oportuna de la situación tributaria de los contribuyentes, la Administración Tributaria podrá requerirles la presentación de los libros, los archivos, los registros contables y toda otra información de trascendencia tributaria que se encuentre impresa en forma de documento, en soporte técnico o registrada por cualquier otro medio tecnológico...” (lo subrayado es suplido). De la integración de esas dos normas, se deduce que, en efecto, la Administración Tributaria sí está legalmente posibilitada para emitir resoluciones generales en aras de solicitar información con fines tributarios. Ahora bien, indudablemente, para esta Sala, la información relativa a la identidad de los accionistas de los grandes contribuyentes, sí tiene inherencia y trascendencia tributaria, a fin de que la Administración pueda ejercer sus labores de fiscalización y control tributario; sea la verificación oportuna y el control eficiente de la situación tributaria de los contribuyentes. Tal y como lo establece el considerando VII de la resolución administrativa cuestionada, esos datos permitirán a la Administración Tributaria, contar con información de calidad que posibilite mayor efectividad en el ejercicio de sus facultades de control tributario. La herramienta AMPO procura obtener esa información (en este caso del registro de accionistas) a fin de que la Administración cumpla con sus cometidos, entre otros, verificar el correcto cumplimiento de las obligaciones tributarias. Este control no puede ser limitado exclusivamente al momento de la fiscalización como alega la recurrente, ya que también puede presentarse antes o después de esa actividad, máxime tratándose de grandes contribuyentes. Si en esa faena la Administración requiere de dicha información (accionistas), no existe mejor forma de conservarla y obtenerla, que creando un “Registro de Accionistas Centralizado”. Tampoco se puede restringir la información requerida a las copias de los libros, los archivos y los registros contables como pretende la Asociación recurrente; pues como se resaltó supra, la Ley también permite que la Administración Tributaria pueda acudir a toda otra información de trascendencia tributaria, a fin de aplicar correctamente de las leyes tributarias y específicamente para facilitar la verificación oportuna de la situación tributaria de los contribuyentes. Como el propio ordinal 104 del CNPT aclara, se trata de facultades generales, no limitadas a la enumeración que esa norma realiza a partir del segundo párrafo. En este sentido, debe indicarse, una ley que otorgue potestades como la aquí analizada, no puede circunscribirse a documentos específicos, de ahí la relevancia de permitirle a la Administración que también pueda solicitar información de carácter general, siempre que sea de relevancia tributaria, como la que aquí se analiza. Por todo ello, las normas 99 y 104 ejúsdem, permiten que, vía resoluciones generales, la Administración Tributaria pueda disponer de esta información y datos de los contribuyentes, lo cual descarta la lesión del principio de legalidad. Por otro lado, no es que el reglamento en cuestión dispuso que el incumplimiento del deber contenido en la norma 3 del Anexo, conllevarían la imposición de una multa; por el contrario, lo que hace el precepto 8 ibídem, es replicar lo establecido en las disposiciones 83 y 84bis del CNPT. El primero, sanciona en términos generales, el incumplimiento en el suministro de información o errores en la suministrada. El segundo (84bis), ordena la imposición de una multa equivalente a un salario base, a las personas jurídicas que no tengan al día el registro establecido en el artículo 137 del Código de Comercio (sea por el incumplimiento del deber de llevar el registro de accionistas). Luego, con base en este último precepto, se puede apreciar que, para el legislador, esa información sí tiene relevancia tributaria, al punto que impuso el deber a cargo de los contribuyentes y responsables, de llevar actualizado un registro de accionistas. Pero se insiste, es la Ley la que establece esta pena (normas 83 y 84 bis del CNPT) y no el Reglamento cuestionado, lo cual descarta la lesión del numeral 124 de la LGAP apuntada por el casacionista. Lo que hace la resolución impugnada, es simplemente desarrollar un requerimiento de información que está dotada de trascendencia tributaria; recordando a la vez, que existe la infracción por el “incumplimiento en el suministro de información”, tipificada en el CNPT. El artículo 8 de la resolución cuestionada es claro en ese sentido. Con todo ello, lleva razón el Tribunal cuando dispone que esa norma “…no establece ni crea una nueva conducta sancionable, ni mucho menos una sanción. Lo anterior, por cuanto la sanción por incumplir la obligación de suministrar la información de relevancia tributaria que requiera la Administración Tributaria se encuentra en el numeral 83 del CNPT. Así, lo único que se hace en el numeral cuestionado, es remitir a la (sic) infracciones administrativas y sus respectivas sanciones, que se encuentran tipificadas en el CNPT…”. Por otro lado, la trascendencia de esa información para un caso concreto, no ha sido el objeto del proceso, pues solo en cada supuesto y analizada cada declaración -con la documentación que la respalde-, la Administración Tributaria podrá determinar si acude a esa información o no (de los accionistas), por ello es que se afirma que esa información también debe tener trascendencia “potencial” y no solo actual. En todo caso, el argumento sobre la relevancia de esa información o no, al momento de verificarse el impuesto a las utilidades y sobre los dividendos, no fue desarrollado de conformidad con las normas 220 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo (CPCA) y 608 del Código Procesal Civil.

IV.- Tampoco resulta esa potestad contraria a las reglas de la lógica, puesto que su exigencia procede precisamente de la ley tributaria, donde el legislador de forma general, facultó a la Administración Tributaria para que exigiera todos aquellos datos de trascendencia tributaria (actual y potencial) necesarios para facilitar la verificación oportuna de la situación tributaria de los contribuyentes. Antes bien, debe atacarse esa normativa tributaria mediante el cauce legal correspondiente (sede constitucional), precisamente por ser los artículos 99, 104 y 109 del CNPT, los que establecieron la potestad comentada. Por lo demás, si hay supuestos de difícil cumplimiento, escapa de este análisis, pues como se indicó, cada caso debe ser analizado previamente por la Administración. Inclusive, cabe advertir, antes de determinarse el incumplimiento de la obligación o la existencia de la infracción (en sus elementos subjetivo y objetivo), los funcionarios están obligados a analizar y valorar la existencia de causas eximentes de responsabilidad alegadas por el sujeto pasivo, ateniéndose a las particularidades de cada caso y según las probanzas que estén en el expediente (así lo dispuso la reciente resolución de la Dirección General de Tributación no. DGT-R-50-2016 de las 8 horas 15 minutos, del 7 de octubre de 2016, que es “Interpretación y aplicación de la infracción administrativa por el incumplimiento en el suministro de información tipificada en los artículos 83 y 106 ter del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios”). Así, resulta desproporcionado anular un reglamento por supuestos o eventualidades que varían en cada caso y que bien pueden dar lugar a eximentes de responsabilidad o medidas para su corrección, en caso de imposibilidades para obtener la información.

V.- Respecto a la lesión del canon 19 de la LGAP, dijo el Tribunal, la actora no explica por qué considera que el suministrar a la Administración Tributaria, la información que permite conocer a los accionistas de una empresa registrada como Gran Contribuyente, afectaría o podría afectar el derecho a la intimidad; máxime que esa información se solicita con fines estrictamente tributarios y no para divulgación pública. Agregaron los jueces, los principios, derechos y garantías establecidas en la Ley 8968: "Protección de la Persona frente al tratamiento de sus datos personales", podrán ser limitados de manera justa, razonable y acorde con el principio de transparencia administrativa, cuando se persigan entre otros, los siguientes fines: "La seguridad y el ejercicio de la autoridad pública y La eficaz actividad ordinaria de la Administración, por parte de las autoridades oficiales." Además, reiteraron, tal potestad de la Administración Tributaria se encuentra suficientemente regulada a nivel legal, por lo que no se requiere para su ejercicio, una nueva ley o un artículo con rango legal, que con detalle reglamentario la regule. En este extremo, nuevamente llevan razón los Jueces, pues en la demanda, la actora no detalló cuál es el riesgo o el peligro que acusa en brindar tales datos. Es hasta esta etapa procesal donde explica tal situación. En consecuencia, como no fue un tema dilucidado en el proceso de forma clara y precisa, también debe ser desestimado el recurso en ese punto concreto. No se detallaron en la demanda, los riesgos que ahora comenta, ya sea por la supuesta violación al derecho a la intimidad y por la inviolabilidad de los documentos privados. De todas formas, se aclara, esa información se solicita con fines tributarios, y sobre ella, existe la responsabilidad y el deber del funcionario de resguardar información confidencial (cánones 117 del CNPT; 272 y 273 de la LGAP; 110 inciso c) de la Ley de la Administración Financiera de la República y Presupuestos Públicos; 1 y 9 de la Ley para Mejorar la Lucha contra el Fraude Fiscal). En este sentido, el numeral 117 del CNPT establece lo siguiente: “Carácter confidencial de las informaciones. Las informaciones que la Administración Tributaria obtenga de los contribuyentes, responsables y terceros, por cualquier medio, tienen carácter confidencial; y sus funcionarios y empleados no pueden divulgar en forma alguna la cuantía u origen de las rentas, ni ningún otro dato que figure en las declaraciones, ni deben permitir que estas o sus copias, libros o documentos, que contengan extractos o referencia de ellas sean vistos por otras personas que las encargadas en la Administración de velar por el cumplimiento de las disposiciones legales reguladoras de los tributos a su cargo…”.

VI.- En mérito de lo expuesto, es claro que sí existe legislación en el ordenamiento jurídico patrio, que autoriza a la Administración Tributaria a crear un “Registro Central de Accionistas”, dada la relevancia tributaria de esa información. Con ello, sí hay un motivo legítimo, pues la ley tributaria y comercial, le otorga trascendencia tributaria a esa información. Subyace tras esta potestad, la eficaz actividad ordinaria de la Administración Tributaria. En la legislación, se establece expresamente que tal injerencia, así como el acceso a la documentación privada de referencia, no son violatorios a los derechos de intimidad y privacidad de los documentos, sino que obedece a una labor sustantiva de orden público. La verificación oportuna de la situación tributaria de los contribuyentes que realiza el Ministerio de Hacienda, es necesaria para el debido control y recaudación tributaria. Esa tarea se facilita, si los contribuyentes suministran correcta y oportunamente toda información de trascendencia tributaria, fin que justifica la potestad mencionada en el cardinal 104 del CNPT. Se busca con ello, mantener la eficiencia del sistema, dentro de un ambiente de legalidad, protegiendo al mismo tiempo los derechos del contribuyente; razones que además son de interés público. En todo caso, no está demás decir, la Ley 9416 (Ley para Mejorar la Lucha contra el Fraude Fiscal) del 14 de diciembre de 2016, vino a fortalecer la potestad cuestionada, mediante la imposición de un sistema de transparencia que permite el suministro de información de personas jurídicas y otras estructuras jurídicas. Ergo, no se aprecia la violación directa de los preceptos 11, 16.1, 19, 124, 133.1, 158.2 y 166 de la LGAP; 24 y 39 de la Constitución Política, 99, 104, 109 y 84 bis del CNPT.”