Customs value cannot be the taxable base for vehicle property taxValor aduanero no es base imponible del impuesto a la propiedad de vehículos

VIII.- On the Tax on the Ownership of Motor Vehicles, Vessels, and Aircraft (Impuesto a la Propiedad de los Vehículos Automotores, Embarcaciones y Aeronaves). Before proceeding to resolve the merits of the debated issue, it is appropriate to briefly refer to the general aspects of this tax; a topic that has already been addressed by this Court, among others, in judgments No. 1558-2010, at 8:00 a.m. on April 29, 2010, and No. 3926, at 1:50 p.m. on October 20, 2010. In those rulings, it was explained that this tax was created by Article 9 of Law No. 7088, published in La Gaceta on November 30, 1987, entitled "Tax adjustment and resolution 18 of the Central American tariff and customs council." Its purpose is to tax the ownership of motor vehicles, vessels, and aircraft registered in the National Registry (Registro Nacional), the Civil Aviation Registry (Registro de Aviación Civil), and the General Directorate of Maritime Transport (Dirección General de Transporte Marítimo). Regarding its elements, the taxable event (hecho generador) is determined by the ownership of motor vehicles, aircraft, or vessels for recreation or sport fishing and occurs initially at the moment of their acquisition and is maintained until the cancellation of the registration. In this same vein, the Regulation to the Law on the Tax on the Ownership of Motor Vehicles, Vessels, and Aircraft provides in Article 3: "Taxable event and moment it occurs. It is the ownership of motor vehicles, vessels, and aircraft registered in the Vehicle Property Registry (Registro de la Propiedad de Vehículos), in the Costa Rican Naval Registry (Registro Naval Costarricense) of the General Directorate of Maritime Transport, and in the Civil Aviation Registry, respectively." From this perspective, it is clear that the material element of the taxable event of the tax is the ownership of motor vehicles that are registered in the National Registry. On the other hand, regarding the temporal objective element, the tax remains in force for the entire period in which the registration entry exists, and the only cause for the definitive cessation of its effectiveness or temporal validity is the definitive cancellation of said registration entry. At that moment, the factual presupposition is extinguished and, therefore, a break in the taxable event occurs, leading to the extinction of the tax obligation because the central element has been lost, which is the ownership accredited in the National Registry. Then, in its spatial phase, every vehicle registered in the National Registry, regardless of whether or not it is used in national territory, constitutes a reference parameter that obliges the owner to pay the tax. In the same terms, the mere ownership accredited in Costa Rica obliges the passive subject (sujeto pasivo) to pay the tax obligation, regardless of whether they reside in national territory or not. That is, the reference of the tax is objective and not subjective with respect to this territorial element. Regarding the subjective element, the passive subject of the tax is any person who is the registered owner (propietaria registral) of a vehicle as defined by Law No. 7088 in its numeral 9. This legal condition remains intact until the moment the subject loses that particular legal condition that makes the status of taxpayer attributable to them. It is of interest in this proceeding to refer to the form of quantification of the taxable base (base imponible) of the tax. On this point, we must indicate that this tax applies a system of progressive rates or aliquots, which allows harmony with the principle of economic capacity, insofar as, being a tax intended to levy on wealth, it allows adjusting the contribution of passive subjects to their economic situation. The acquisition of a vehicle of greater fiscal value demands, within the framework of this principle, establishing a greater tax burden than that imposable on a vehicle of lesser fiscal value. The payment of the tax is annual and is updated for each collection period according to the estimates of the fiscal value that the Ministry of Finance (Ministerio de Hacienda) makes for each type of vehicle by Executive Decree (Decreto Ejecutivo), which allows an adjustment of the economic terms of the taxable base of the tax, which even considers the depreciation of the vehicles. In that order, subsection f) of the same numeral 9 of the cited Law No. 7088 provides that the tax shall be paid on the value that motor vehicles, aircraft, or recreational vessels have, in the internal market, in January of each year, according to the list that the Executive Branch will issue by decree for each make, year, body, and style. The same law indicates the duty of the Executive Branch to update the list of vehicle values, as well as the amounts applicable to each category. In that order, the aforementioned Article 9 of Law No. 7088 states: "(...) The Executive Branch shall update the list of values of the vehicles cited in the first paragraph of this numeral; likewise, the amounts of the preceding table, with a valuation index determined by the behavior of the inflation rate (consumer price index calculated by the General Directorate of Statistics and Censuses (Dirección General de Estadística y Censos)), an annual depreciation rate of ten percent (10%), and the rate of variation of the tax burden affecting the importation of each type of vehicle. Based on the growth of the inflation rate, the minimum rate of six thousand colones (¢6,000.oo) shall be updated annually by executive decree.(...)". The regulation also indicates that when there is no information on the value of a specific vehicle in the internal market, the DGT shall be empowered to establish the value by appraisal (tasación) or by analogy or similarity with other vehicles included in the list referred to in this subsection. Finally, it is worth indicating that subsection ch) of Article 9 ibidem establishes the subjective and objective assumptions for exemption from payment of said tax, which are repeated in numeral 5 of the Regulation to the Tax on the Ownership of Vehicles, Vessels, and Aircraft, namely: "...1) Foreign States that use them for the exclusive use of their embassies and consulates accredited in the country with the limitations arising from the application, in each case, of the principle of reciprocity on tax benefits. 2) International organizations that use them exclusively for their functions. 3) The Central Government and the Municipalities. The following vehicles shall also be exempt: 4) Ambulances and rescue units of the Costa Rican Red Cross, the National Hospital System, Homes for the Elderly, and the National Insurance Institute (Instituto Nacional de Seguros), as well as fire extinguishing machines. 5) Bicycles... [...]

X.- The Court does not share the arguments by which the TFA revoked the decision of the AT that established the tax value for the vessel owned by the defendant. As a first aspect, we must bear in mind that pursuant to subsection f) of Article 9 of the referred Law No. 7088, the taxable base for determining the IP is constituted by the value that, in this case, the vessel has in the internal market in January of each year according to the list that, for such purposes, the Executive Branch will issue by decree; and when there is no information on the value of a specific vehicle in the internal market, the DGT shall be empowered to establish the value by appraisal or by analogy or similarity with other vehicles included in the referred list. From what is provided in that regulation, it can be concluded that there are three parameters to which the AT must resort to calculate the taxable base of the said tax (which is the tax value, in this case, of the vessel). The first of these is the list of values that, for such purposes, the Executive Branch will issue by decree. If the vessel for which the tax value must be set is not registered in the referred listing, it must resort to the value that it has in the internal market (not the generic or marketable value (valor venal), as the TFA indicates); and only when there is no information on the value of the vessel in the internal market, may it be established by appraisal. Well, in the opinion of these judges, in the resolution under challenge, the TFA adds a parameter to establish or calculate the taxable base of the referred tax that was not provided by the legislator, namely, the customs value (valor aduanero) of the vehicle or vessel; thus violating the provisions of subsection f) of Article 9 of the referred Law No. 7088 in an aspect that, moreover, is reserved to the Law according to the provisions of numeral 5 subsection a) of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios). In the opinion of the TFA, since there was no value registered in the lists of the Executive Branch for the defendant's vessel, the AT should have taken as a reference the customs value declared by the defendant herein to establish the taxable base and effect the liquidation of the IP; because it was a certain piece of data that allowed them to approach, insofar as possible, the generic marketable or market value for this type of good. However, besides the fact that it is a basis for quantifying the tax value not provided for by the legislator, we estimate that the value declared at customs is not, ultimately, synonymous with the market value of that vessel, and even less so, with the internal market value, which is the second parameter to which one must resort to calculate the taxable base of the IP, in accordance with subsection f) of Article 9 of the cited Law No. 7088. According to Guideline VA-001-2008 issued by the AT, which was used in the valuation carried out by that body of the plaintiff's vessel, market value is the estimated amount for which a property could be exchanged on the valuation date, in a transaction between a motivated buyer and an equally motivated seller, after an appropriate exposure period, in which each of the parties has acted with knowledge and prudence and without compulsion. It refers, then, to the commercial or transaction value. While the customs value constitutes the taxable base for tariff duties or import taxes on goods. To determine the customs value of imported goods, the provisions and principles of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereinafter Valuation Agreement or the Agreement) apply, as well as those established by the General Customs Law (LGA) and the applicable national and international regulations (Article 251 of the LGA), resorting for such purposes to six different methods or criteria that must be used to determine the value of imported goods on which customs duties must be applied, namely: the transaction value, the transaction value of identical goods, the transaction value of similar goods, the deductive method, the computed value method, and the fall-back method. The difference between the two values is, therefore, notable. In addition to the methods for determining both values being different, in determining the market value of a good, both the buyer and the seller intervene, who agree on the transaction. Whereas in the case of customs value, we are not facing a value concerted or transacted between parties, but rather an act of the Customs Administration required for the importation or nationalization of the imported goods. More than a value set bilaterally and by agreement (market value), the customs value is initially declared by the importer in the DUA and is subsequently determined and set (and even audited) by the Customs Administration. Therefore, for the Court, the value declared at Customs for the defendant's vessel herein cannot be equated (as the TFA does) with the market value, and even less so, with the internal market value, which is the second quantification parameter allowed by subsection f) of the cited Law No. 7088. We reiterate that the customs value does not correspond, per se, to a concerted transaction but rather to a unilateral declaration by the importer that is later authorized, corrected, or rejected by the Customs Administration. At most, the market value that the plaintiff's vessel may have had was external (as the transaction or sale was carried out outside the national market) and prior to the value declared at Customs, which is why it in no way coincided with the quantification parameters enabled by ordinal 9 ibidem.

For the foregoing reasons, contrary to what was ordered by the TFA, we are of the opinion that the customs value cannot become the starting point for quantifying the taxable base of the IP. In addition to the above, the challenged resolution enables the Customs Administration a competence (setting the calculation basis for the IP or liquidating that tax) that is not authorized by the legal system to that body but to another, namely, the DGT. And it is that even though sometimes it is allowed that the value declared at customs forms part of or serves as a basis to establish the taxable base of some national taxes; the truth is that in the case of the IP, this is not so by express provision of the legislator. Nor is the statement of the TFA shared, in the sense that the AT, in accordance with Article 125 of the CNPT, was not enabled to resort to a presumptive basis method when a certain indication existed. On the one hand, it cannot be overlooked that in the case of the IP, there is a special regulation that establishes what the methods or parameters for quantifying the taxable base are, and that within these, the legislator did not provide for the value declared at customs. On the other hand, if the plaintiff's vessel was not registered in the value lists of the Executive Branch (an aspect on which both parties agree) and there were no internal market transactions that could serve as a reference (because the customs import declaration does not constitute one of these, as we explained), we estimate that in accordance with subsection f) of ordinal 9 ibidem, the AT was indeed enabled to resort to an expert appraisal (tasación pericial), as indeed happened in the specific case, as inferred from the Expert Report RE-450-2010 and the cited resolution VA-AU-01-PV-1798-11, through which the AT established the tax value of the plaintiff's vessel. On this aspect, it is worth noting that the object of this process is to examine the legality of resolution No. 354-2012 issued by the TFA and not that of the cited resolution VA-AU-01-PV-1798-11 or the expert report that serves as the basis for this latter formal conduct. We draw attention at this point because, both during the closing arguments and in the hearing granted by this Court prior to the issuance of this judgment, the representation of the defendant has claimed the existence of flaws, deficiencies, or irregularities in the tax value established by the AT for the vessel based on those conducts. However, as these conducts do not form part of the object of this litigation, this Court cannot examine them nor rule on them or on the arguments raised by the defendant. What is discussed here is the legality of the TFA's decision to revoke the tax value set by the AT for Mr. Madriz de Mezerville's vessel during the fiscal period 2010 and to set it at the customs value declared at the time of its importation. And, after the respective analysis, we estimate that the reason (motivo) that served as the basis for the resolution of the improper hierarchical head in tax matters challenged here is contrary to the provisions of subsection f) of numeral 9 of the cited Law No. 7088 for the reasons stated ut supra. Those deficiencies in reason impact the content of the resolution, making it illegitimate. By virtue of the foregoing, the Court estimates that the definitive act issued by the TFA and challenged here is substantially inconsistent with the legal system due to a defect in its reason and in its content; which means that in accordance with Articles 5 of the CNPT, 9 of Law No. 7088, and 11, 132, 133, 158, 160, 166, 169, and 171 of the LGAP, its absolute nullity must be declared.

From the provisions of that rule, it can be concluded that there are three parameters that the Tax Administration (AT) must use to calculate the taxable base of the referred tax (which is the taxable value, in this case, of the vessel). The first of them is the list of values that, for such purposes, the Executive Branch will issue by decree. If the vessel for which the taxable value must be set is not registered in the referred list, it must resort to the value that it has in the domestic market (not the generic or market value, as the Tax Administrative Court (TFA) points out); and only when no information exists on the vessel's value in the domestic market, may it establish it through an appraisal (tasación). Now, in the opinion of these judges, in the resolution being challenged, the TFA adds a parameter to establish or calculate the taxable base of the referred tax that was not provided by the legislator, namely, the customs value of the vehicle or vessel; thus violating the provisions of subsection f) of Article 9 of Law No. 7088 referenced in an aspect that, moreover, is reserved to the Law as provided by section 5, subsection a) of the Tax Code of Rules and Procedures (CNPT). In the opinion of the TFA, in the absence of a value registered in the Executive Branch's lists for the defendant's vessel, the AT should have taken as a reference the customs value declared by the claimant here to establish the taxable base and perform the liquidation of the IP (Property Tax); because it was a certain piece of data that allowed it to get as close as possible to the generic market value or value for this type of good. However, besides it being a quantification base for the taxable value not foreseen by the legislator, we consider that the value declared at customs is not, ultimately, synonymous with the market value of that vessel, and even less so with the domestic market value, which is the second parameter that must be used to calculate the taxable base of the IP, in accordance with subsection f) of Article 9 of Law No. 7088 cited. Pursuant to Directive VA-001-2008 issued by the AT, which was used in the valuation performed by that body on the claimant's vessel, market value is the estimated amount for which a property could be exchanged on the date of valuation, in a transaction between a motivated buyer and a motivated seller, after an appropriate exposure period, in which each of the parties acted with knowledge, prudence, and without compulsion. It refers, then, to the commercial or transaction value. Whereas, the customs value constitutes the taxable base for customs duties or import taxes on goods. To determine the customs value of imported goods, the provisions and principles of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereinafter Valuation Agreement or the Agreement) govern, as well as those established by the General Customs Law (hereinafter LGA) and the applicable national and international regulations (Article 251 of the LGA), resorting for such purposes to six different methods or criteria that must be used for determining the value of imported goods on which customs duties must be applied, namely: the transaction value, the transaction value of identical goods, the transaction value of similar goods, the deductive method, the computed value method, and the fall-back method. The difference between both values is, then, notable. In addition to the methods for determining both values being different, in determining the market value of a good, both the buyer and the seller intervene, who agree on the transaction. While, in the case of customs value, we are not faced with one agreed upon or transacted between parties, but rather with an act of the Customs Administration required for the entry or nationalization of the imported merchandise. More than a value set bilaterally and by agreement (market value), the customs value is initially declared by the importer in the Single Customs Declaration (DUA) and it is later determined and set (and even audited) by the Customs Administration. Therefore, for the Court, the value declared at Customs for the defendant's vessel here cannot be equated (as the TFA does) with the market value, and even less so with the domestic market value, which is the second quantification parameter that subsection f) of Law No. 7088 cited allows resorting to. We reiterate that the customs value does not correspond, per se, with an agreed transaction but more with a unilateral declaration by the importer that is later authorized, corrected, or rejected by the Customs Administration. At most, the market value that the claimant's vessel may have had was external (as the transaction or sale was carried out outside the national market) and prior to the value declared at Customs, reason for which it in no way coincided with the quantification parameters enabled by Article 9, ibidem.

Based on the foregoing, contrary to what was ordered by the TFA, we are of the opinion that the customs value cannot constitute the starting point for quantifying the taxable base of the IP. In addition to the foregoing, the challenged resolution grants the Customs Administration a competence (setting the calculation base for the IP or liquidating that tax) that is not authorized by the legal framework for that body but for another, namely, the General Directorate of Taxation (DGT). And it is that although sometimes it is permitted that the value declared at customs forms part of or serves as a base to establish the taxable base of some national taxes; the truth is that regarding the IP, this is not the case by express provision of the legislator. Nor is the TFA's statement shared, in the sense that the AT, in accordance with Article 125 of the CNPT, was not enabled to resort to a presumed base method when a certain indicator existed. On one hand, it cannot be overlooked that regarding the IP, there is a special rule that establishes which are the methods or parameters for quantifying the taxable base, and that within these, the legislator did not provide for the value declared at customs. On the other hand, if the claimant's vessel was not registered in the Executive Branch's value lists (an aspect on which both parties agree) and there were no domestic market transactions that could serve as a reference (because the import customs declaration does not constitute one of these, as we explained), we consider that in accordance with subsection f) of Article 9 ibidem, the AT was indeed enabled to resort to an expert appraisal, as effectively happened in the specific case, as inferred from Expert Report RE-450-2010 and from resolution VA-AU-01-PV-1798-11 cited, through which the AT established the taxable value of the claimant's vessel. On this aspect, it should be noted that the object of this proceeding is to examine the legality of resolution No. 354-2012 issued by the TFA, and not that of resolution VA-AU-01-PV-1798-11 cited or the expert report serving as the basis for this latter formal conduct. We call attention to this point because, both during the closing arguments and in the hearing granted by this Court prior to issuing this judgment, the representation of the defendant party has claimed the existence of defects, deficiencies, or irregularities in the taxable value established by the AT for the vessel based on those conducts. However, as these conducts do not form part of the object of this litigation, this Court cannot examine them or rule on them or on the arguments put forward by the defendant. What is being discussed here is the legality of the TFA's decision to revoke the taxable value set by the AT for Mr. Madriz de Mezerville's vessel during fiscal period 2010 and set it at the customs value declared at the time of its importation. And, following the respective analysis, we consider that the grounds serving as the basis for the resolution of the improper hierarchical superior in tax matters that is being challenged here are contrary to the provisions of subsection f) of section 9 of Law No. 7088 cited, for the reasons set forth ut supra. These deficiencies in the grounds have repercussions on the content of the resolution, rendering it illegitimate. By virtue of the foregoing, the Court considers that the final act issued by the TFA and challenged here is substantially non-compliant with the legal framework due to a defect in the grounds and in the content; which means that in accordance with Articles 5 of the CNPT, 9 of Law No. 7088 and 11, 132, 133, 158, 160, 166, 169 and 171 of the General Law of Public Administration (LGAP), its absolute nullity must be declared." If the vessel for which the tax value must be determined is not registered in the referenced list, one must turn to the value that vessel has in the domestic market (not the generic or market value (valor venal), as the TFA indicates); and only when there is no information regarding the value of the vessel in the domestic market may it be established through appraisal. Thus, in the opinion of these judges, in the resolution being challenged the TFA adds a parameter to establish or calculate the taxable base of the referenced tax that was not provided by the legislator, namely, the customs value of the vehicle or vessel; thereby violating the provisions of subsection f) of Article 9 of Law No. 7088, referenced in an aspect that, furthermore, is reserved to the Law as provided by numeral 5, subsection a) of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios. In the TFA's opinion, since there was no value registered in the Executive Branch's lists for the defendant's vessel, the AT should have taken as a reference the customs value declared by the party proceeded against here to establish the taxable base and carry out the IP assessment; because it was a certain piece of data that allowed it to approach, as far as possible, the market value (valor venal) or generic market value for this type of goods. However, besides the fact that it is a quantification base for the tax value not foreseen by the legislator, we consider that the value declared at customs is not, ultimately, synonymous with the market value of that vessel, and even less so with the domestic market value, which is the second parameter that must be used to calculate the IP taxable base, in accordance with subsection f) of Article 9 of the cited Law No. 7088. According to Guideline VA-001-2008 issued by the AT, which was used in the valuation carried out by that body for the plaintiff's vessel, market value is the estimated amount for which a property could be exchanged on the valuation date, in a transaction between a motivated buyer and an equally motivated seller, after an appropriate exposure period, in which each party acted with knowledge and prudence and without compulsion. It therefore refers to commercial or transaction value. Meanwhile, customs value constitutes the taxable base for tariff duties or import taxes on goods. To determine the customs value of imported goods, the provisions and principles of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (hereinafter Valuation Agreement or the Agreement) apply, as well as those established by the Ley General de Aduanas (hereinafter LGA) and the applicable national and international regulations (Article 251 of the LGA), turning for such purposes to six different methods or criteria that must be used to determine the value of imported goods on which customs duties are to be applied, namely: the transaction value, the transaction value of identical goods, the transaction value of similar goods, the deductive method, the computed value method, and the fall-back method. The difference between both values is, therefore, notable. Besides the methods for determining both values being different, both the buyer and the seller, who agree on the transaction, participate in determining the market value of a good. Whereas, in the case of customs value, we are not dealing with one agreed upon or transacted between parties, but rather with an act of the Customs Administration required for the entry or nationalization of the imported merchandise. More than a bilaterally and consensually fixed value (market value), the customs value is initially declared by the importer in the DUA and is subsequently determined and fixed (and even audited) by the Customs Administration. For this reason, in the Tribunal's view, the value declared at Customs for the vessel of the defendant here cannot be equated (as the TFA does) to the market value and even less so to the domestic market value, which is the second quantification parameter that subsection f) of the cited Law No. 7088 allows one to use. We reiterate that the customs value does not correspond, per se, to an agreed-upon transaction but rather more to a unilateral declaration by the importer that is later authorized, corrected, or rejected by the Customs Administration. At most, the market value that the plaintiff's vessel may have had was external (insofar as the transaction or sale took place outside the domestic market) and prior to the value declared at Customs, which is why it in no way coincided with the quantification parameters enabled by Article 9 ibidem. For the foregoing reasons, contrary to what was ordered by the TFA, we are of the opinion that the customs value cannot constitute the starting point for quantifying the IP taxable base. In addition to the above, the challenged resolution grants the Customs Administration a competence (fixing the IP calculation base or assessing that tax) that is not authorized by the legal system to that body but rather to another, namely, the DGT. And although it is sometimes permitted that the value declared at customs form part of or serve as a basis for establishing the taxable base of some national taxes; the truth is that, in the case of the IP, this is not so by express provision of the legislator. The TFA's statement that the AT, in accordance with Article 125 of the CNPT, was not authorized to resort to a presumptive basis method when a certain indication existed is also not shared. On the one hand, one cannot lose sight of the fact that, in the case of the IP, there is a special rule that establishes which are the methods or parameters for quantifying the taxable base and that within these, the legislator did not provide for the value declared at customs. On the other hand, if the plaintiff's vessel was not registered in the Executive Branch's value lists (an aspect on which both parties agree) and there were no domestic market transactions that could serve as a reference (because the customs import declaration does not constitute one of these, as we explained), we consider that, in accordance with subsection f) of Article 9 ibidem, the AT was indeed authorized to resort to an expert appraisal, as indeed occurred in the specific case, as inferred from the Expert Report RE-450-2010 and the cited resolution VA-AU-01-PV-1798-11, through which the AT established the tax value of the plaintiff's vessel. On this aspect, it should be noted that the object of this proceeding is to examine the legality of resolution N° 354-2012 issued by the TFA and not that of the cited resolution VA-AU-01-PV-1798-11 or the expert report that serves as the basis for this latter formal conduct. We draw attention to this point because, both during the closing arguments and in the hearing granted by this Tribunal prior to the issuance of this judgment, the representation of the defendant has claimed the existence of defects, failings, or irregularities in the tax value established by the AT for the vessel based on those conducts. However, since these conducts are not part of the object of this litigation, this Tribunal cannot examine them or rule on them or on the arguments put forth by the defendant. What is being discussed here is the legality of the TFA's decision to revoke the tax value set by the AT for the vessel of Mr. Madriz de Mezerville during the 2010 fiscal period and to set it at the customs value declared at the time of its importation. And, after the respective analysis, we consider that the ground that served as the basis for the resolution of the improper hierarch in tax matters being challenged here is contrary to the provisions of subsection f) of numeral 9 of the cited Law No. 7088 for the reasons set forth ut supra. Those deficiencies in the grounds impact the content of the resolution, rendering it illegitimate. By virtue of the foregoing, the Tribunal considers that the final act issued by the TFA and challenged here is substantially inconsistent with the legal system due to a defect in the grounds and in the content; which means that, in accordance with Articles 5 of the CNPT, 9 of Law No. 7088, and 11, 132, 133, 158, 160, 166, 169, and 171 of the LGAP, its absolute nullity must be declared.”

“ VIII.- Sobre el Impuesto a la Propiedad de los Vehículos Automotores, Embarcaciones y Aeronaves. De previo a ingresar a resolver el fondo del tema debatido, resulta conveniente referirse, de forma breve, los aspectos generales de este tributo; tema que ya ha sido abordado por este Tribunal, entre otras en las sentencias No. 1558-2010, de las 8 horas del 29 de abril de 2010 y la No. 3926, de las 13 horas 50 minutos del 20 de octubre de 2010. En esos fallos se explicó que este tributo fue creado mediante el artículo 9 de la Ley No. 7088, publicada en La Gaceta del 30 de noviembre de 1987, denominada "Reajuste tributario y resolución 18 consejo arancelario y aduanero centroamericano." Tiene por objeto gravar la propiedad de los vehículos automotores, embarcaciones y aeronaves inscritos en el Registro Nacional, Registro de Aviación Civil y en la Dirección General de Transporte Marítimo. En cuanto a sus elementos, el hecho generador está determinado por la propiedad de los vehículos automotores, aeronaves o embarcaciones de recreo o pesca deportiva y ocurre inicialmente en el momento de su adquisición y se mantiene hasta la cancelación de la inscripción. En esta misma dirección, el Reglamento de la Ley de impuesto sobre la propiedad de vehículos automotores, embarcaciones y aeronaves, dispone en el artículo 3: “Hecho generador y momento en que ocurre. Es la propiedad de los vehículos automotores, embarcaciones y aeronaves inscritos en el Registro de la Propiedad de Vehículos, en el Registro Naval Costarricense de la Dirección General de Transporte Marítimo y en el Registro de Aviación Civil, respectivamente.” Desde este plano, es claro que el elemento material del hecho generador del impuesto es la propiedad de los vehículos automotores que son inscritos en el Registro Nacional. Por otra parte, en lo atañe al elemento objetivo temporal, el tributo se mantiene vigente durante todo el plazo en que exista el asiento registral de inscripción y la única causa de cesación definitiva de su eficacia o vigencia temporal, es la cancelación definitiva de dicho asiento registral. En ese momento se extingue el presupuesto de hecho y, por ende, opera una ruptura en el hecho generador que da paso a la extinción de la obligación tributaria por cuanto se ha perdido el elemento central, tal cual es, la propiedad acreditada en el Registro Nacional. Luego, en su fase espacial, todo vehículo inscrito en el Registro Nacional, indistintamente de que sea o no utilizado en territorio nacional, constituye un parámetro de referencia que obliga al propietario a cancelar el tributo. En iguales términos, la sola propiedad acreditada en Costa Rica, obliga al sujeto pasivo a cancelar la obligación tributaria, al margen de que resida o no en territorio nacional. Es decir, la referencia del impuesto es objetiva y no subjetiva respecto de este elemento territorial. En lo que toca al elemento subjetivo, tenemos que el sujeto pasivo del impuesto es toda aquella persona que sea propietaria registral de un vehículo de los que define la Ley No. 7088 en su numeral 9. Esta condición jurídica se mantiene incólume hasta el momento en que el sujeto pierda esa condición jurídica particular que le hace atribuible la condición de contribuyente. Interesa en este proceso referirnos a la forma de cuantificación de la base imponible del tributo. Sobre este punto, debemos indicar que este tributo aplica un sistema de tarifas o alícuotas progresivas, lo cual permite la armonía con el principio de capacidad económica, en tanto al ser un impuesto que pretende gravar el patrimonio, permite ajustar la contribución de los sujetos pasivos a su situación económica. La adquisición de un vehículo de un mayor valor fiscal exige, dentro del bagaje de este principio, establecer una carga tributaria mayor a la imponible a un vehículo de menor valor fiscal. El pago del impuesto es anual y se actualiza para cada período de cobro según las estimaciones del valor fiscal que para cada tipo de vehículo realiza el Ministerio de Hacienda mediante Decreto Ejecutivo, lo cual permite un ajuste de los términos económicos de la base imponible del impuesto, que incluso considera la depreciación de los vehículos. En ese orden, el inciso f) del mismo numeral 9 de la citada Ley No. 7088 dispone que el impuesto se pagará sobre el valor que tengan, en el mercado interno, en enero de cada año, los vehículos, las aeronaves o las embarcaciones de recreo, según la lista que el Poder Ejecutivo emitirá, por decreto para cada marca, año, carrocería y estilo. La misma ley señala que el deber del Poder Ejecutivo de actualizar la lista de valores de los vehículos, así como de los montos aplicables a cada categoría. En ese orden el aludido artículo 9 de la Ley No. 7088 señala: "(...) El Poder Ejecutivo actualizará la lista de valores de los vehículos citados en el párrafo primero de este numeral; asimismo, los montos de la tabla anterior, con un índice de valuación determinado por el comportamiento de la tasa de inflación (índice de precios al consumidor que calcula la Dirección General de Estadística y Censos), una tasa de depreciación anual del diez por ciento (10 %) y la tasa de variación de la carga tributaria que afecta la importación de cada tipo de vehículo. Con base en el crecimiento de la tasa de inflación, la tasa mínima de seis mil colones (¢6.000.oo) se actualizará anualmente mediante decreto ejecutivo.(...)". La norma señala, también, que cuando no existiese información sobre el valor de un determinado vehículo en el mercado interno, la DGT estará facultada para establecer el valor mediante tasación o por analogía o similitud con otros vehículos incluidos en la lista referida en este inciso. Finalmente, cabe indicar que el inciso ch) del artículo 9 ibídem establece los supuestos subjetivos y objetivos de exención de pago de dicho tributo, que se repiten en el numeral 5 del Reglamento al Impuesto sobre la Propiedad de Vehículos, Embarcaciones y Aeronaves, a saber: "...1) Los Estados Extranjeros que los destinen para el uso exclusivo de sus embajadas y consulados acreditados en el país con las limitaciones que se generen de la aplicación, en cada caso, del principio de reciprocidad sobre los beneficios fiscales. 2) Los organismos internacionales que los destinen exclusivamente para sus funciones. 3) El Gobierno Central y la Municipalidades. También estarán exentos los siguientes vehículos: 4) Las ambulancias y unidades de rescate de la Cruz Roja Costarricense, del Sistema Hospitalario Nacional, de los Asilos de Ancianos y del Instituto Nacional de Seguros, así como las máquinas para extinguir incendios. 5) Las bicicletas... […]

X.- El Tribunal no comparte los argumentos por los cuales el TFA revocó la decisión de la AT que estableció el valor tributario para la embarcación propiedad del demandado. Como primer aspecto, debemos tener presente que conforme al inciso f) del artículo 9 de la referida Ley No. 7088, la base imponible para determinar el IP la constituye el valor que tenga, en este caso, la embarcación en el mercado interno en enero de cada año según la lista que, para tales efectos, emitirá el Poder Ejecutivo por decreto; y cuando no existiese información sobre el valor de un determinado vehículo en el mercado interno, la DGT estará facultada para establecer el valor mediante tasación o por analogía o similitud con otros vehículos incluidos en la lista referida. De lo dispuesto en esa norma, puede concluirse que son tres los parámetros a los que debe acudir la AT para calcular la base imponible del referido tributo (que es el valor tributario, en este caso, de la embarcación). El primero de ellos es la lista de valores que, para tales efectos, emitirá el Poder Ejecutivo por decreto. Si la embarcación a la que debe fijarse el valor tributario no está registrada en el referido listado, debe acudir al valor que tenga aquella en el mercado interno (no al valor genérico o venal, como señala el TFA); y solo cuando no exista información sobre el valor de la embarcación en el mercado interno, podrá establecerlo mediante tasación. Pues bien, en criterio de estos juzgadores, en la resolución que se impugna el TFA adiciona un parámetro para establecer o calcular la base imponible del referido tributo que no fue dispuesto por legislador, a saber, el valor aduanero del vehículo o embarcación; violando, entonces, lo dispuesto en el inciso f) del artículo 9 de la Ley No. 7088 referida en un aspecto que, además, está reservado a la Ley según lo dispone el numeral 5 inciso a) del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios. En criterio del TFA, al no existir un valor registrado en las listas del Poder Ejecutivo de la embarcación del demandado, la AT debió tomar como referencia el valor aduanero declarado por el aquí accionado para establecer la base imponible y efectuar la liquidación del IP; porque se trataba de un dato cierto que le permitía acercarse, en la medida de lo posible, al valor venal o de mercado genérico para este tipo de bienes. Sin embargo, amén de que se trata de una base de cuantificación del valor tributario no previsto por el legislador, estimamos que el valor declarado en aduanas no es, en última instancia, sinónimo del valor de mercado de esa embarcación y menos aún, del valor de mercado interno, que es el segundo parámetro al que debe acudirse de para calcular la base imponible del IP, de conformidad con el inciso f) del artículo 9 de la Ley No. 7088 citada. Conforme a la Directriz VA-001-2008 emitida por la AT, que fue utilizada en la valoración efectuada por ese órgano a la embarcación del accionado, el valor de mercado es la cantidad estimada por la cual una propiedad puede intercambiarse a la fecha de la valuación, en una transacción entre un comprador motivado y un vendedor también motivado, después de un período de exposición apropiado, en la cual cada una de las partes ha actuado con conocimiento y prudencia y sin compulsión. Refiere, entonces, al valor comercial o de transacción. Mientras que el valor aduanero constituye la base imponible de los derechos arancelarios o impuestos de importación de mercancías. Para determinar el valor aduanero de las mercancías importadas, rigen las disposiciones y principios del Acuerdo Relativo a la Aplicación del Artículo VII del Acuerdo General sobre Aranceles Aduaneros y Comercio de 1994 (en adelante Acuerdo de Valoración o el Acuerdo), así como por las que establezca la Ley General de Aduanas (en adelante LGA) y la normativa nacional e internacional aplicable (artículo 251 de la LGA), acudiendo para tales efectos a seis diferentes métodos o criterios que deben ser utilizados para la determinación del valor de las mercancías importadas sobre las cuales deben aplicarse los derechos aduaneros, a saber: el valor de transacción, el valor de transacción de mercancías idénticas, el valor de transacción de mercancías similares, el método deductivo, el método del valor reconstruido y el método del último recurso. La diferencia entre ambos valores es, entonces, notable. Además de que los métodos para determinar ambos valores son distintos, en la determinación del valor de mercado de un bien intervienen tanto el comprador como el vendedor, quienes concertan la transacción. Mientras que tratándose de valor aduanero, no estamos frente a uno concertado o transado entre partes, sino frente a un acto de la Administración Aduanera requerido para la internación o nacionalización de la mercancía importada. Más que un valor fijado de manera bilateral y concertada (valor de mercado), el valor aduanero lo declara, inicialmente, el importador en la DUA y éste luego es determinado y fijado (y hasta fiscalizado) por la Administración Aduanera. Por ello, para el Tribunal el valor declarado en Aduanas para la embarcación del aquí demandado no puede equipararse (como hace el TFA) al valor de mercado y menos aún, al de mercado interno, que es el segundo parámetro de cuantificación al que permite acudir el inciso f) de la Ley No. 7088 citada. Reiteramos que el valor aduanero no se corresponde, persé, con una transacción concertada sino más con una declaración unilateral del importador que luego es autorizada, corregida o rechazada por la Administración Aduanera. A lo sumo, el valor de mercado que pudo haber tenido la embarcación del accionado fue externo (en tanto la transacción o venta se efectuó fuera del mercado nacional) y anterior al valor declarado en Aduanas, razón por la cual de ninguna manera coincidía con los parámetros de cuantificación habilitados por el ordinal 9 ibídem. Por lo expuesto, contrario a lo dispuesto por el TFA, somos del criterio de que, el valor aduanero no puede constituirse en el punto de partida para cuantificar la base imponible del IP. Aunado a lo anterior, la resolución impugnada habilita a la Administración Aduanera una competencia (fijar la base de cálculo del IP o liquidar ese tributo) que no se encuentra autorizada por el ordenamiento jurídico a ese órgano sino a otro, a saber, la DGT. Y es que aunque algunas veces se permite que el valor declarado en aduanas forme parte o sirva de base para establecer la base imponible de algunos tributos nacionales; lo cierto es que tratándose del IP ello no es así por disposición expresa del legislador. Tampoco se comparte la afirmación del TFA en el sentido de que la AT, de conformidad con el 125 del CNPT no estaba habilitada para acudir a un método de base presunta existiendo un indicio cierto. Por una parte, no puede perderse de vista que tratándose del IP existe norma especial que establece cuáles son los métodos o parámetros para cuantificar la base imponible y que dentro de éstos, el legislador no dispuso el valor declarado en aduanas. Por otra, si la embarcación del accionado no estaba registrada en las listas de valores del Poder Ejecutivo (aspecto en el que coinciden ambas partes) y no existían transacciones de mercado interno que pudieran servir de referencia (porque la declaración aduanera de importación no constituye una de éstas, según explicamos), estimamos que de conformidad con el inciso f) del ordinal 9 ibídem, la AT sí estaba habilitada para acudir a una tasación pericial, como en efecto sucedió en el caso concreto, según se infiere del Informe pericial RE-450-2010 y de la resolución VA-AU-01-PV-1798-11 citada, mediante los cuales la AT estableció el valor tributario de la embarcación del accionado. Sobre este aspecto, conviene advertir que el objeto de este proceso es examinar la legalidad de la resolución N° 354-2012 dictada por el TFA y no la de resolución VA-AU-01-PV-1798-11 citada o la del informe pericial que sirve de base a esta última conducta formal. Llamamos la atención en este punto porque, tanto durante las conclusiones como en la audiencia conferida por este Tribunal previo al dictado de esta sentencia, la representación de la parte demandada ha reclamado la existencia de vicios, falencias o irregularidades en el valor tributario establecido por la AT a la embarcación con base en aquellas conductas. Sin embargo, como estas conductas no forman parte del objeto de esta litis, este Tribunal no puede examinarlas ni pronunciarse sobre ellas o sobre los argumentos esgrimidos por el demandado. Aquí lo que se discute es la legalidad de la decisión del TFA de revocar el valor tributario fijado por la AT para la embarcación del señor Madriz de Mezerville durante el período fiscal 2010 y fijarlo en el valor aduanero declarado al momento de su importación. Y, luego del análisis respectivo, estimamos que el motivo que sirvió de base a la resolución del jerarca impropio en materia tributaria que aquí se impugna resulta contrario a lo dispuesto en el inciso f) del numeral 9 de la Ley No. 7088 citada por las razones expuestas ut supra. Esas deficiencias en motivo repercuten en el contenido de la resolución, convirtiéndolo en ilegítimo. En virtud de lo expuesto, el Tribunal estima que el acto definitivo dictado por el TFA y que aquí se impugna resulta sustancialmente disconforme con el ordenamiento jurídico por vicio en el motivo y en el contenido; lo que supone que de conformidad con los artículos 5 del CNPT, 9 de la Ley No. 7088 y 11, 132, 133, 158, 160, 166, 169 y 171 de la LGAP debe declararse su nulidad absoluta.”