Banana cultivation and export not an industrial activity subject to patent tax in ParritaCultivo y exportación de banano no es actividad industrial gravada con patente en Parrita

III.- Regarding the municipal business license tax. Taxable event (Hecho generador). In our country, the taxing power in tax matters is exclusively conferred upon the Legislative Assembly, which is recognized by Article 121, subsection 13) of the Political Constitution as having the power to establish national taxes and contributions, as well as to authorize municipal ones. This matter is therefore governed by the principle of tax legality, as inferred from mandates 121 subsection 13) ibid, and 5 and 6 of the Tax Code of Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, CNPT). This means that taxes can only be created, modified, or extinguished through formal law. In this understanding, subsection 5 a) of the CNPT classifies as matters exclusive to law: "a) Create, modify, or suppress taxes; define the taxable event of the tax relationship; establish the tax rates and their calculation bases; and indicate the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo)." That is, tax legality presupposes a framework within which the components of the tax are established that must necessarily be defined by express law; these are the essential and determining components of the tax, among which the taxable event, the taxpayer, the taxable base (base imponible), the rate, and the collection period stand out—ineludibly. As an exception to the rule, the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has endorsed the possibility of a legislative delegation regarding the definition of the rate, of course, by means of a law that establishes beforehand the limits within which this exercise can be carried out; for example, the case of the selective consumption tax. Hence, the aforementioned legal reservation can be qualified as "relative," as ratified by that Chamber in several pronouncements (rulings number 8271-2001, 8580-2001, and 5504-2002). Now, concerning the specific case at hand, based on article 121, subsection 13) of the Magna Carta, and as a manifestation of the autonomy granted by the constituent power to the municipalities (constitutional canon 170), they are recognized as having the initiative in the formulation, creation, modification, and extinction of municipal taxes (Article 13, subsection b) of the Municipal Code); a power from which derives the possibility of taxing lucrative activities that take place within their territorial jurisdiction. In this context, precept 88 of the current Municipal Code (whose numbering was modified by Article 1 of Law N° 9542 "Ley de Fortalecimiento de la Policía Municipal", of April 23, 2018, which moved it from the former canon 79 to 88), establishes: "To engage in any lucrative activity, interested parties must have the respective municipal license, which will be obtained through the payment of a tax. Said tax shall be paid during the entire time the lucrative activity has been carried out or for the time the license has been held, even if the activity has not been performed." Since this is a tax whose nature, objectives, and purposes originate from the taxing power of the municipalities, it will be each local government that, in exercise of its autonomy and the initiative recognized in this matter, establishes the essential characteristics of the tax system for the levy in its territorial scope, which, as stated, must ineludibly be expressly defined by formal law. As was mentioned, one of the structural components of the tax obligation is the taxable event or objective material element, an aspect that in the specific case is the core point of discord between the parties. For this reason, the clarifications made previously are of special importance in the present matter, as the debate hinges on whether the economic activity carried out by the plaintiff (identified as banana cultivation and export) on its farms located in the canton of Parrita can or cannot be considered taxed by the business license tax and, consequently, whether the defendant Municipality is entitled to collect it. Given the special impact of the principle of legal reservation regarding the definition of the taxable event (hecho imponible), the subjection of the activity carried out by the plaintiff company depends on it being expressly included within that objective element provided in the law, because otherwise the existence of a tax duty could not be affirmed. In general terms, according to the reiterated opinion of the Constitutional Chamber: "(…) It is in exercise of their taxing power that is recognized to each municipality, that they are empowered to define the parameters and taxable bases of this tax, whose taxable event is always the same, that is, the exercise of a lucrative activity in a determined territorial jurisdiction, that is, a specific canton. That is why in each municipality the tax to be paid is different" (Ruling 3506-2014 of 4:01 p.m. on March 12, 2014). In that sense, the Municipal Code itself, in its numeral 92, establishes that the business license tax shall be regulated by a special law. In the case of the canton of Parrita, Law Number 7585 of March 14, 1996, governs. In line with the general tax regime provided in the Municipal Code, Articles 88 and 92, ordinal 1 of Law 7585 stipulates: "Mandatory payment of the tax. Individuals or legal entities engaged in the exercise of lucrative activities in the canton of Parrita shall be obliged to pay a patent tax to the Municipality of Parrita, in accordance with this law" (emphasis supplied). In accordance with the aforementioned principle of legal reservation, in the underlined phrase, the precept conditions the payment of the business license tax to what is established in that normative body, without extensive or analogical interpretations being permissible that could mean the modification of the essential elements of the tax to the detriment of the taxpayer. Therefore, to establish the tax obligation, one must abide by the express mandate of its special Law (number 7585), which in Article 1 imposes the tax for the exercise of a lucrative activity in the canton of Parrita, but which in turn in article 14 lists which activities are understood to be subject to the tax. It is not admissible to interpret that, in itself, any lucrative activity is taxed, as this implies an isolated interpretation of Article 1 of Law 7585. Profit, in itself, is not determinative for the purposes of considering an activity as subject to the business license tax. The taxable event must be constructed from a harmonious and systematic interpretation of the law, in this case for the canton of Parrita, which requires reading Article 88 of the Municipal Code and Article 1 of Law 7585 in light of Article 14 of the latter, which exhaustively lists the lucrative activities taxed by the levy. That article stipulates: "Activities subject to the tax. All lucrative activities, as indicated below, included in the international classification of economic activities; shall pay in accordance with the provisions of Articles 3 and 4 of this law. a) Industry. Refers to the set of material operations executed to extract, transform, or manufacture one or several products. Includes the processing of agricultural products and the mechanical or chemical transformation of organic or inorganic substances into new products, through mechanized or non-mechanized processes, in factories or homes. It implies both the creation of products, as well as repair and conditioning workshops. It comprises the extraction and exploitation of minerals, metallic and non-metallic, in solid, liquid, or gaseous state; the construction, repair, or demolition of all types of buildings, installations, and transportation routes; printing presses, publishing houses, and similar establishments. In general, it refers to goods, constructions, movable and immovable property. b) Commerce. Comprises the purchase and sale of all kinds of goods, merchandise, properties, securities, currency, and others. Also, acts of valuation of economic goods, according to supply and demand, such as representation houses, commission agents, agencies, stockbrokers, banking and insurance institutions, credit institutions, and, in general, everything involving market transactions of any kind. (As amended by the sole article of Law N° 9491 of October 25, 2017) c) Services. Comprises services provided to the private sector, the public sector, or both, attended by private organizations or persons. Includes transportation, storage, communications, the establishment of recreation centers and private education, except semi-official ones" (Emphasis supplied). Having analyzed the above, it is then appropriate to determine whether the economic activity deployed by the plaintiff fits within the taxable event of the tax defined in the law and, therefore, whether it is taxed by it.

IV.- As noted, Article 14 of the Ley de Impuestos Municipales de Parrita defines three categories of lucrative activities subject to that tax, namely industry, commerce, and services. Due to the reasoning of the challenged municipal acts, for the specific case, the industrial category is of interest, defined by the norm based on the material actions of "extracting, transforming, or manufacturing one or several products"; generally, referring to the transformation of raw materials into new products. Now, as the Court had as the first proven fact, and furthermore not contested in the process, Frutas Selectas del Trópico S.A. is dedicated to the activity of banana cultivation and commercialization, apart from the exploitation of its owned farms, having an infrastructure where the harvested product goes through the phases of cleaning, selection, packing, and preservation. This also finds support in the expert report rendered in the case (from folios 226 to 229 of the judicial file), evidence against which the defendant party did not raise any objection. The agricultural engineer appointed for this purpose detailed in his expertise the activity carried out by the plaintiff company. Regarding the cultivation and production process, he noted "initially the land is prepared with the respective leveling, infrastructure works (…) for drainage; subsequently (…) installations for transporting the product and inputs. Next, the banana planting is carried out (…) The crop begins production before the year (sic) during which the process of fertilization, fumigation, sucker removal, cleaning, and other cultural tasks occurs until bagging and harvest. When the harvest begins, the bunches are transported to the plant (…). When the banana enters the plant, he explains, it follows this process: a) De-flowering, removal of the stalk from the bunch, and de-handing; b) Selection of the fruit according to size; c) Washing; d) Classification of the clusters on trays according to their size; e) Placement of stickers on the clusters; f) Spraying with fungicide; g) Weighing, h) Packing in cardboard boxes or bags; i) Loading and stowage in containers for transport and export. Finally, after the site visit, the expert concluded: 1) That Frutas Selectas del Trópico S.A. is dedicated to the cultivation and export of bananas, 2) The company has two fruit packing plants, 3) The plaintiff produces bananas and markets them as fresh fruit in their natural state without undergoing any transformation, 4) In the company's facilities, the banana is not transformed into other by-products such as juices, concentrates, or others. Based on the above, as the plaintiff correctly proposes, it is not possible to affirm that the scope of its activity is agro-industrial as the Court classified it. According to the expert evidence, and without there having been any contention on this point in the trial, the company Frutos Selectos del Trópico cultivates and exports bananas as fresh fruit, without it being subjected to any type of physical and/or chemical transformation, or any manufacturing process, that converts it into another product—different from the raw material—(fact four of the complaint, admitted as true by the defendant insofar as the fruit is not transformed or processed into another product). Although the expert in his report refers to the treatment of crops with fertilizers and fumigations, and of the harvested product with fungicides, this does not imply the processing of the fruit with the objective of obtaining new products, but rather corresponds to habitual techniques aimed at the preservation of the harvest and of the agricultural product itself. Considering the perishable nature inherent to a fruit, even more so if it is to be exported, it is logical that it be subjected to certain processes for its preservation in good condition, without this per se implying a mutation or alteration of the natural state in which it was harvested. Note that according to the description made in the expert report, none of the procedures to which the banana is subjected after being harvested on the plaintiff's farms are aimed at obtaining new products, but rather are oriented towards its preservation as fresh fruit and compliance with the quality controls, packing, and labeling required for its export, but always in the same character of fruit in its natural state. Therefore, according to the definition that the legal norm itself establishes for the activity taxed under the qualifier "industry," the work carried out by the plaintiff could not be considered immersed in that category, as it is limited to the cultivation, harvest, and subsequent export of the natural fruit, without any transformation or manufacturing process taking place that generates new products. Unlike the opinion of the Court of instance, when evaluating whether the plaintiff's economic activity is subject to the business license tax or not, the discussion regarding whether or not transformation or manufacturing processes of the fruit are involved takes on total relevance; this is because the legal norm itself establishes that condition as a parameter to define when one is in the presence of an industrial-type activity taxed by Article 14 of the Ley de Impuestos Municipales de Parrita. It cannot be overlooked that, according to the doctrine of articles 5 and 6 of the CNPT, as well as the principle of tax legality, the possibility of expanding the taxable event of a tax to factual situations not expressly contemplated in the legal norm that defines the essential components of that tax is prohibited; which proscribes resorting to the analogical method as a source for creating or extending taxes, or as a mechanism to legitimize the exercise, in this case, of municipal fiscal powers that exceed the tax framework set by formal law. For this reason, this Chamber disagrees with the opinion of the Court, for which the definition that the special norm (numeral 14 of Law 7585) makes about the "industry" category is merely illustrative, having to resort to extra-legal sources (such as the "International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities" and the "Classification of Economic Activities of Costa Rica") to provide content to the taxable event of the tax. Being a matter exclusive to law, to establish the existence of a tax obligation, one must necessarily abide by what is expressly provided in the respective legal norm. It is true that the cited mandate subjects to the payment of the tax: "All lucrative activities, as indicated below, included in the international classification of economic activities (…)". But the meaning of the precept is not to provide a mere "illustrative" definition of the taxed categories (industry, commerce, and services), in an open and indeterminate manner, understanding that it is enough that a lucrative activity is included in the aforementioned Classifications to be considered subject to the tax—as if that inclusion were the determining element of subjection. The reasoning is in the opposite sense; that is, from the vast quantity of existing economic activities, of which those statistical instruments would indeed be illustrative, those that fit within the concrete definition and the parameters established by the legal norm for each of the categories it subjects to the tax—which is indeed the determining aspect—will be taxed. Otherwise, the realization of the taxable event of the tax would hinge on other exogenous sources, but not on the legal norm that creates and defines it, which would mean an attack against the principle of tax legality in force in our legal system. In this understanding, if the plaintiff company's activity is reduced to the cultivation, harvest, packing, storage, and subsequent export of bananas, without an industrial process taking place in the terms defined by canon 14 of Law 7585, it must necessarily be concluded that it is not subject to the business license tax as regulated at the legal level, specifically for the canton of Parrita. In tune with what has already been analyzed regarding the taxable event of the tax in that locality, the Court's appreciations regarding the volume of fruit harvested, the extension of the cultivation lands, the infrastructure of the packing plant, and the number of employees working there become irrelevant; none of those elements is expressly contemplated in ordinal 14 ibid as a parameter for qualifying the activity as industrial, so that, as stated, it is not possible to extend the taxable event to factual situations not contemplated by that article. Consequently, if the determining element for the subjection of an activity under the "industrial" category comes from the transformation or manufacturing of a raw material into a new product, and such circumstance does not occur in the activity carried out by the plaintiff, the taxable event of the tax is not verified and therefore no tax obligation arises at its charge.

V.- For the sake of abundant reasoning, and without prejudice to what has already been analyzed regarding the taxable event of the tax in question, nor is it possible to conclude from the "International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities" that the activity carried out by the plaintiff is taxed by the business license tax in the canton of Parrita. In the opinion of the Court: "In direct application of the text of the Ley de Impuestos Municipales de Parrita in its article fourteen, having been credited, that according to the most recent update of the 'International Standard Industrial Classification of all economic activities (ISIC)' (…) of the United Nations Organization (UN) corresponding to two thousand nine, as well as the adaptation to our nation included in the 'Classification of Economic Activities of Costa Rica' (CAERCR-2011) of the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses, the ordinary line of business that the plaintiff company deploys as a lucrative economic activity in the use and exploitation of its farms for the cultivation of banana plants and the commercialization of the fruit, corresponds to an 'agro-industrial activity', such circumstance would suffice to say that it is subject to the business license tax of the mentioned Municipality. (…) Thus, resorting to the international classification, it is clear that (…) in the Third part of the document, on Detailed structure and explanatory notes, point A), it expressly refers to the inclusion in the classification of agriculture, livestock, forestry, and fishing. All these activities are defined as industrial on its page 63." Having analyzed the reference document, the conclusion deduced from it is different. Firstly, it does not define itself as a classification of industrial activities, as if all the activities included in it had that character. It is an international instrument for the categorical classification of the production units of an economy, for statistical and economic evaluation purposes. The classification into one or another category is made considering the similarity of the economic activity carried out, taking into account inputs, processes, and production technology, the characteristics of the products, and the uses for which they are intended. It contains a total of 21 individual categories, of which, in the specific case, two are of interest: "Agriculture, livestock, forestry and fishing" and "Manufacturing industries" (page 43). Among others, within the first, it includes "cultivation activities" and "production of agricultural products" (page 63). Contrary to what the Court indicated, it does not state that these activities are defined as industrial, nor does it even use that qualifier. Banana cultivation is found in category 01 "Agriculture," subcategory 012 "Growing of perennial crops," section 0122 "Growing of tropical and subtropical fruits" (page 66). Note that even within the "Agriculture" category, it includes the so-called "Post-harvest activities," for example: "preparation of the crop for commercialization in primary markets: cleaning, trimming, sorting, disinfection" (page 72). This classification coincides with the expert report rendered in this process, where the activity of banana planting carried out by the plaintiff and its subsequent tasks of collection, assistance, and packing, without transformation processes of the fresh fruit into other types of products taking place, were cataloged by the expert as a purely agricultural activity; expressly differentiating it from agro-industrial ones, where these types of fruit transformation processes do occur, for example into juices or chips (according to the trial testimony of the expert agricultural engineer). If one wishes, even more conclusive, and furthermore coinciding with the qualification criterion as "industrial" followed by Article 14 of Law 7585, the ISIC defines the "Manufacturing industries" category as: "the physical or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products (…) The materials, substances, or components transformed are raw materials from agriculture (…) (page 87). That is, it makes a clear differentiation between what is conceived as an eminently agricultural activity and as a manufacturing industry. For example, within the latter, it places the production of food products from fruits (page 90). Then, without prejudice to what is stated in Considerando IV of this ruling, insofar as the taxable event of the tax in question is already defined expressly in articles 1 and 14 of Law 7585, the truth is that the ISIC and the classification it contains support the non-subjection of the activity carried out by the plaintiff to the business license tax in the canton of Parrita, this under the criterion of being an industry. As analyzed, the determining criterion for defining an activity as industrial, both in Law 7585 and in the ISIC, is the existence of a transformation process of a raw material into a new product, a scenario that does not occur in the case at hand. Hence, the appellant is correct regarding the substantive grievances formulated.

In accordance with the aforementioned principle of legal reserve, in the underlined phrase, the precept conditions the payment of the business license tax (impuesto de patente) to what is established in that regulatory body, without extensive or analogical interpretations being permissible that could mean the modification of the essential elements of the tax to the detriment of the taxpayer. Therefore, to establish the tax obligation, one must adhere to the express mandate of its special Law (number 7585), which in Article 1 imposes the tax for the exercise of a lucrative activity (actividad lucrativa) in the canton of Parrita, but which in turn in Article 14 lists which activities are understood to be subject to the tax. It is not possible to interpret that, in itself, every lucrative activity is taxed, as this implies an isolated interpretation of Article 1 of Law 7585. Profit, in itself, is not determinative for the purposes of considering an activity as subject to the business license tax. The taxable event (hecho imponible) must be constructed from a harmonious and systematic interpretation of the law, in this case for the canton of Parrita, which requires a reading of Article 88 of the Municipal Code and Article 1 of Law 7585 in light of Article 14 of the latter, which exhaustively lists the lucrative activities taxed by the tribute. That article provides: “Activities subject to the tax. All the lucrative activities, hereinafter indicated, included in the international classification of economic activities; shall pay in accordance with the provisions of Articles 3 and 4 of this law. a) Industry. Refers to the set of material operations executed to extract, transform, or manufacture one or several products. Includes the processing of agricultural products and the mechanical or chemical transformation of organic or inorganic substances into new products, through mechanized or non-mechanized processes, in factories or homes. It implies both the creation of products and repair and conditioning workshops. It comprises the extraction and exploitation of minerals, metallic and non-metallic, in solid, liquid, or gaseous state; the construction, repair, or demolition of all types of buildings, transportation facilities, and roadways; printing presses, publishing houses, and similar establishments. In general, it refers to goods, constructions, movable and immovable property. b) Commerce. Comprises the purchase and sale of all kinds of goods, merchandise, properties, securities, currency, and others. Furthermore, the acts of valuation of economic goods, according to supply and demand, such as representative offices, commission agents, agencies, stockbrokers, banking and insurance institutions, credit institutions and, in general, everything that involves market transactions of any type. (As amended by the sole article of Law N° 9491 of October 25, 2017) c) Services. Comprises services provided to the private sector, the public sector, or both, attended by private organizations or persons. Includes transportation, storage, communications, the establishment of recreational centers and private educational centers, except semi-official ones” (Emphasis supplied). Having analyzed the foregoing, it is then appropriate to determine whether the economic activity carried out by the plaintiff fits within the taxable event of the tribute defined in the law and, therefore, whether it is taxed by it.\n\nIV.- As noted, Article 14 of the Ley de Impuestos Municipales de Parrita defines three categories of lucrative activities subject to that tribute, namely industry, commerce, and services. Based on the reasoning of the challenged municipal acts, for the specific case, the industrial category is of interest, defined by the rule based on the material actions of “extracting, transforming, or manufacturing one or several products”; generally referring to the transformation of raw materials into new products. Now, as the Tribunal held as the first proven fact, and also uncontested in the proceeding, Frutas Selectas del Trópico S.A. is engaged in the activity of banana cultivation and commercialization, apart from the exploitation of its owned farms, having an infrastructure where the harvested product passes through the phases of cleaning, selection, packing, and preservation. This also finds support in the expert report rendered in the case (at folios 226 to 229 of the judicial file), evidence against which the defendant party raised no objection. The agronomist engineer appointed for that purpose detailed in his expertise the activity carried out by the plaintiff company. Regarding the cultivation and production process, he stated: “initially the land is prepared with the respective leveling, infrastructure works (…) for drainage; subsequently (…) installations for transporting the product and inputs. Next, the planting of banana is carried out (…) The cultivation begins production within a year (sic) during which the process of fertilization, fumigations, sucker removal, cleaning, and other cultural practices occurs until bagging and harvest. When the harvest begins, the bunches are transported to the packhouse (planta) (…). When the banana enters the packhouse, he explains, it follows this process: a) Deflowering, removal of the rachis of the bunch and hand cutting; b) Selection of the fruit according to size; c) Washing; d) Classification of the clusters in trays according to their size; e) Placement of stickers on the clusters; f) Spraying with fungicide; g) Weighing, h) Packing in cardboard boxes or bags; i) Loading and stowing in containers for transport and export. Finally, after the site visit, the expert concluded: 1) That Frutas Selectas del Trópico S.A. is dedicated to the cultivation and export of banana, 2) The company has two fruit packing plants, 3) The plaintiff produces banana and commercializes it as fresh fruit in its natural state without undergoing any transformation, 4) At the company’s facilities, the banana is not transformed into other by-products such as juices, concentrates, or others. From the foregoing, as the plaintiff correctly proposes, it is not possible to affirm that the nature of its activity is agro-industrial as the Tribunal qualified it. According to the expert evidence, and without there being any controversy on this point at trial, the company Frutos Selectos del Trópico cultivates and exports banana as fresh fruit, without it being subjected to any type of physical and/or chemical transformation, or any manufacturing process, that turns it into another product -different from the raw material- (fourth fact of the claim, admitted as true by the defendant in that the fruit is neither transformed nor processed into another product). Although the expert in his report refers to the treatment of crops with fertilizers and fumigations, and of the harvested product with fungicides, this does not imply the processing of the fruit with the objective of obtaining new products, but rather corresponds to habitual techniques aimed at the preservation of the crop and the agricultural product itself. Considering the perishable nature inherent to a fruit, even more so if it is to be exported, it is logical that it be subjected to certain processes for its preservation in good condition, without this per se implying a mutation or alteration of the natural state in which it was harvested. Note that according to the description made in the expert opinion, none of the procedures to which the banana is subjected after being harvested on the plaintiff’s farms are aimed at obtaining new products, but rather are oriented towards its preservation as fresh fruit and compliance with the quality controls, packing, and labeling required for its export, but always in the same character of fruit in its natural state. Therefore, according to the definition that the legal rule itself establishes for the activity taxed under the qualifier of “industry”, the work carried out by the plaintiff could not be considered included in that category, since it is limited to the cultivation, harvest, and subsequent export of the natural fruit, without any transformation or manufacturing process that generates new products taking place in between. Unlike the criterion of the Trial Court, when assessing whether the economic activity of the plaintiff is or is not subject to the business license tax, the discussion regarding whether or not there are transformation or manufacturing processes of the fruit is of total relevance; this is because the legal rule itself establishes that condition as a parameter to define when one is in the presence of an industrial-type activity taxed by Article 14 of the Ley de Impuestos Municipales de Parrita. It cannot be overlooked that, according to the doctrine of Articles 5 and 6 of the CNPT, as well as the principle of tax legality, the possibility of expanding the taxable event (hecho generador) of a tribute to factual situations not expressly contemplated in the legal rule that defines the essential components of that tax is prohibited; which proscribes resorting to the analogical method as a source of creation or extension of tributes, or as a mechanism to legitimize the exercise, in this case, of municipal fiscal powers that exceed the tax framework set by formal law. Therefore, this Chamber disagrees with the criterion of the Tribunal, for whom the definition that the special rule (Article 14 of Law 7585) provides regarding the “industry” category is merely illustrative, requiring resort to extra-legal sources (such as the “International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities” and the “Classification of Economic Activities of Costa Rica”) to give content to the taxable event of the tribute. As it is a matter reserved to law, to establish the existence of a tax obligation, one must obligatorily adhere to what is expressly provided in the respective legal rule. It is true that the cited mandate subjects to the payment of the tax: “All the lucrative activities, hereinafter indicated, included in the international classification of economic activities (…)”. But the meaning of the precept is not to provide a mere “illustrative” definition of the taxed categories (industry, commerce, and services), in an open and undetermined manner, understanding that it is sufficient that a lucrative activity is included in the aforementioned Classifications to be considered subject to the tribute –as if that inclusion were the determinative element of subjection-. The reasoning is in the inverse sense; that is, of the vast number of existing economic activities, of which those statistical instruments could indeed be illustrative, those that will be taxed are those that fit the concrete definition and the parameters that the legal rule establishes regarding each of the categories it subjects to the tax –which indeed is the determinative aspect-. Otherwise, the concretion of the taxable event of the tax would rely on other exogenous sources, but not on the legal rule that creates and defines it, which would mean an attack against the principle of tax legality in force in our legal system. In this understanding, if the activity of the plaintiff company is reduced to the cultivation, harvest, packing, storage, and subsequent export of banana, without an industrial process mediating in the terms defined by Article 14 of Law 7585, it must necessarily be concluded that it is not subject to the business license tax as it is regulated at the legal level, specifically for the canton of Parrita. In line with what has already been analyzed regarding the taxable event of the tribute in that locality, the Tribunal’s assessments regarding the volume of fruit harvested, the extension of the cultivation lands, the infrastructure of the packing plant, and the number of employees working there become inconsequential; none of these elements is expressly contemplated in Article 14 ibidem as a parameter for qualifying the activity as industrial, so that, as stated, it is not permissible to extend the taxable event to factual situations not contemplated by that article. Consequently, if the determinative element for the subjection of an activity under the “industrial” category is given by the transformation or manufacturing of a raw material into a new product, and such circumstance does not occur in the activity carried out by the plaintiff, the taxable event of the tax is not verified and therefore no tax obligation arises on its part.\n\nV.- By way of further reasoning, and without prejudice to what has already been analyzed regarding the taxable event of the tribute in question, it is also not possible, from the “International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities”, to conclude that the activity carried out by the plaintiff is taxed by the business license tax in the canton of Parrita. In the opinion of the Tribunal: “In direct application of the text of the Ley de Impuestos Municipales de Parrita in its Article fourteen, having been accredited, that according to the most recent update of the \"International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC)” (…) of the United Nations Organization (UN) corresponding to 2009, as well as the adaptation to our nation comprised in the \"Classification of Economic Activities of Costa Rica\" (CAECR-2011) of the National Institute of Statistics and Census, the ordinary course of business deployed by the plaintiff company as a lucrative economic activity in the use and exploitation of its farms for the cultivation of banana plants and the commercialization of the fruit, corresponds to an “agro-industrial activity\", such a circumstance would suffice to say that it is subject to the business license tax of the aforementioned Municipality. (…) Thus, resorting to the international classification, it is clear that (…) in the Third part of the document, on Detailed structure and explanatory notes, point A), it expressly refers to the inclusion in the classification of agriculture, livestock, forestry, and fishing. All these activities are defined as industrial on its page 63”. Having analyzed the reference document, the conclusion deduced from it is different. In the first place, it does not define itself as a classification of industrial activities, as if all the activities included in it had that character. It is an international instrument for the classification by categories of the production units of an economy, for statistical and economic evaluation purposes. The classification into one or another category is carried out according to the similarity of the economic activity developed, taking into account inputs, production processes and technology, the characteristics of the products, and the uses for which they are intended. It contains a total of 21 individual categories, of which, in the specific case, two are of interest: “Agriculture, forestry and fishing” and “Manufacturing” (page 43). Among others, within the first, it includes “growing activities” and “production of agricultural products” (page 63). Contrary to what the Tribunal indicated, it does not state that these activities are defined as industrial, nor does it even use that qualifier. Banana cultivation is found in category 01 “Agriculture”, subcategory 012 “Growing of perennial crops”, section 0122 “Growing of tropical and subtropical fruits” (page 66). Note that even within the “Agriculture” category, it includes so-called “Post-harvest activities”, for example: “preparation of the crop for commercialization in primary markets: cleaning, trimming, grading, disinfecting” (page 72). That qualification coincides with the expert opinion rendered in this proceeding, where the banana planting activity developed by the plaintiff and its subsequent collection, assistance, and packing tasks, without transformation processes of the fresh fruit into other types of products mediating, were classified by the expert as a purely agricultural activity; expressly differentiating it from agro-industrial types, where those types of fruit transformation processes do occur, for example into juices or toasted products (according to the agronomist engineer expert’s statement at trial). If one wishes, even more conclusive, and moreover coinciding with the qualification criterion as “industrial” followed by Article 14 of Law 7585, the ISIC defines the category of “Manufacturing” as: “the physical or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products (…) The materials, substances, or components transformed are raw materials from agriculture (…) (page 87). That is, it makes a clear differentiation between what is conceived as an eminently agricultural activity and as a manufacturing industry. For example, within the latter it places the elaboration of food products from fruits (page 90). Therefore, without prejudice to what is stated in Considerando IV of this ruling, to the effect that the taxable event of the tribute in question is already expressly defined in Articles 1 and 14 of Law 7585, the truth is that the ISIC and the classification it contains support the non-subjection of the activity carried out by the plaintiff to the business license tax in the canton of Parrita, this under the criterion of being an industry. As analyzed, the determinative criterion for defining an activity as industrial, both in Law 7585 and in the ISIC, is the existence of a transformation process of a raw material into a new product, an assumption that does not occur in this case. Hence, the appellant is correct regarding the substantive grievances formulated." For that reason, the clarifications made above are of special importance in the present matter, since the debate centers on whether the economic activity carried out by the plaintiff (identified as banana cultivation and export) on its farms located in the canton of Parrita can or cannot be considered subject to the patent tax and, consequently, whether the defendant Municipality is authorized to collect it. Given the special incidence of the principle of legal reserve regarding the definition of the taxable event, the subjection of the activity carried out by the plaintiff company depends on it being expressly included within that objective element provided for in the law, since otherwise the existence of a tax duty could not be affirmed. In general terms, according to the reiterated criterion of the Constitutional Chamber: "(…) It is in the exercise of its tax power that each municipality is recognized, and they are empowered to define the parameters and taxable bases of this tax, whose taxable event is always the same, namely the exercise of a lucrative activity in a given territorial jurisdiction, that is, a specific canton. That is why in each municipality the tax to be paid is different" (Judgment 3506-2014 of 4:01 p.m. on March 12, 2014). In that sense, the Municipal Code itself, in its section 92, establishes that the patent tax shall be regulated by a special law. In the case of the canton of Parrita, Law number 7585 of March 14, 1996 governs. In accordance with the general tax regime provided for in the Municipal Code, articles 88 and 92, section 1 of Law 7585 provides: "Obligation to pay the tax. Individuals or legal entities engaged in the exercise of lucrative activities in the canton of Parrita shall be obliged to pay to the Municipality of Parrita a patent tax, in accordance with this law" (emphasis supplied). In accordance with the principle of legal reserve mentioned above, in the underlined phrase, the provision conditions the payment of the patent tax to what is established in that normative body, without extensive or analogical interpretations being permissible that could signify the modification of the essential elements of the tax to the detriment of the taxpayer. Therefore, to establish the tax obligation, one must abide by the express mandate of its special Law (number 7585), which in article 1 imposes the tax for the exercise of a lucrative activity in the canton of Parrita, but which in turn in section 14 lists which are the activities understood to be subject to the tax. It is not feasible to interpret that, in itself, every lucrative activity is taxed, since that implies an isolated interpretation of article 1 of Law 7585. Profit, in itself, is not determinative for the purpose of considering an activity as subject to the patent tax. The taxable event must be constructed from a harmonious and systematic interpretation of the law, in this case for the canton of Parrita, which requires a reading of article 88 of the Municipal Code and of the first article of Law 7585 in light of section 14 of the latter, which exhaustively lists the lucrative activities taxed by the tax. That section provides: "Activities subject to the tax. All lucrative activities, which are indicated below, included in the international classification of economic activities; shall pay in accordance with the provisions of articles 3 and 4 of this law. a) Industry. Refers to the set of material operations executed to extract, transform or manufacture one or several products. Includes the processing of agricultural products and the mechanical or chemical transformation of organic or inorganic substances into new products, through mechanized processes or not, in factories or homes. Involves both the creation of products, as well as repair and reconditioning workshops. Comprises the extraction and exploitation of minerals, metallic and non-metallic, in solid, liquid or gaseous state; the construction, repair or demolition of all types of buildings, installations and transportation routes; printing presses, publishing houses and similar establishments. In general, refers to merchandise, constructions, movable and immovable property. b) Commerce. Comprises the purchase and sale of all kinds of goods, merchandise, properties, securities, currency and others. Also, acts of valuation of economic goods, according to supply and demand, such as representation firms, commission agents, agencies, stockbrokers, banking and insurance institutions, credit institutions and, in general, everything that involves market transactions of any kind. (Thus amended the previous subsection by the sole article of law N° 9491 of October 25, 2017) c) Services. Comprises services provided to the private sector, the public sector or both, attended by organizations or private persons. Includes transportation, storage, communications, the establishment of recreation centers and private education centers, except semi-official ones" (Emphasis supplied). Having analyzed the above, it is then appropriate to determine whether the economic activity carried out by the plaintiff fits within the taxable event of the tax defined in the law and, therefore, whether it is taxed by it.

IV.- As indicated, article 14 of the Municipal Tax Law of Parrita defines three categories of lucrative activities subject to that tax, namely industry, commerce and services. Based on the reasoning of the questioned municipal acts, for the specific case the industrial category is of interest, defined by the norm based on the material actions of "extracting, transforming or manufacturing one or several products"; in general, referring to the transformation of raw materials into new products. Now, as the Trial Court held it as the first proven fact, and also uncontroverted in the proceedings, Frutas Selectas del Trópico S.A. is engaged in the activity of banana cultivation and marketing, apart from the exploitation of the farms it owns, having an infrastructure where the harvested product goes through the phases of cleaning, selection, packing, and conservation. This is further supported by the expert report rendered in the case (from folios 226 to 229 of the judicial file), evidence against which the defendant party raised no objection. The agronomist engineer appointed for the purpose detailed in his expertise the activity carried out by the plaintiff company. Regarding the cultivation and production process he stated "initially the land is prepared with the respective leveling, infrastructure works (…) for drainage; subsequently (…) installations for transporting the product and inputs. Next, the planting of banana is carried out (…) The crop begins production before one year (sic) during which the process of fertilization, fumigations, sucker removal, cleaning and other cultural tasks takes place until bagging and harvest. When the harvest begins, the bunches are transported to the plant (…). When the banana enters the plant, he explains, it follows this process: a) De-flowering, removal of the bunch rachis and declustering; b) Selection of the fruit according to size; c) Washing; d) Classification of the clusters on trays according to their size; e) Application of stickers to the clusters; f) Spraying with fungicide; g) Weighing, h) Packing in cardboard boxes or bags; i) Loading and stowing in containers for transportation and export. Finally, after the on-site visit, the expert concluded: 1) That Frutas Selectas del Trópico S.A. is engaged in the cultivation and export of banana, 2) The company has two packing plants for the fruit, 3) The plaintiff produces banana and markets it as fresh fruit in its natural state without undergoing any transformation, 4) At the company's facilities, banana is not transformed into other by-products such as juices, concentrates or others. Based on the foregoing, as rightly proposed by the plaintiff, it is not possible to affirm that the scope of its activity is agro-industrial as qualified by the Trial Court. According to the expert evidence, and without there having been any contention on the matter at trial, the company Frutos Selectos del Trópico cultivates and exports banana as fresh fruit, without it being subjected to any type of physical and/or chemical transformation, or to any manufacturing process, that turns it into another product -different from the raw material- (fact four of the complaint, admitted as true by the defendant insofar as the fruit is not transformed or processed into another product). Although the expert in his report refers to the treatment of the crops with fertilizers and fumigations, and of the harvested product with fungicides, this does not imply the processing of the fruit with the objective of obtaining new products, but rather corresponds to habitual techniques aimed at the preservation of the harvest and of the agricultural product itself. Considering the inherently perishable nature of a fruit, even more so if it is to be exported, it is logical that it be subjected to certain processes for its preservation in good condition, without this per se implying a mutation or alteration of its natural state as harvested. Note that according to the description made in the expert report, none of the procedures to which the banana is subjected after being harvested on the plaintiff's farms aim to obtain new products, but rather are oriented towards its preservation as fresh fruit and to comply with the quality controls, packing and labeling required for its export, but always in the same character of fruit in its natural state. Therefore, according to the definition that the legal norm itself establishes for the activity taxed under the classification of "industry", the labor carried out by the plaintiff could not be considered encompassed in that category, since it is limited to the cultivation, harvest and subsequent export of the natural fruit, without any transformation or manufacturing process taking place that generates new products. Unlike the criterion of the Trial Court, when assessing whether the plaintiff's economic activity is or is not subject to the patent tax, the discussion regarding whether or not transformation or manufacturing processes of the fruit take place is fully relevant; this because the legal norm itself establishes that condition as a parameter to define when one is in the presence of an industrial-type activity taxed by article 14 of the Municipal Tax Law of Parrita. It cannot be ignored that, according to the doctrine of sections 5 and 6 of the CNPT, as well as the principle of tax legality, the possibility of expanding the taxable event of a tax to factual situations not expressly contemplated in the legal norm that defines the essential components of that tax is prohibited; which proscribes resorting to the analogical method as a source of creation or extension of taxes, or as a mechanism to legitimize the exercise, in this case, of municipal fiscal powers that exceed the tax framework set by formal law. For this reason, this Chamber disagrees with the criterion of the Trial Court, for which the definition that the special norm (section 14 of law 7585) makes regarding the "industry" category is merely illustrative, and one must turn to extra-legal sources (such as the "International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities" and the "Classification of Economic Activities of Costa Rica") to give content to the taxable event of the tax. Being a matter reserved to law, to establish the existence of a tax obligation one must necessarily pay attention to what is expressly provided in the respective legal norm. It is true that the cited mandate subjects to the payment of the tax: "All lucrative activities, which are indicated below, included in the international classification of economic activities (…)". But the meaning of the precept is not to provide a mere "illustrative" definition of the taxed categories (industry, commerce and services), in an open and indeterminate manner, understanding that it is sufficient that a lucrative activity be included in the aforementioned Classifications to be considered subject to the tax –as if that inclusion were the determining element of subjection-. The reasoning is in the opposite direction; that is, of the vast quantity of existing economic activities, for which those statistical instruments would indeed be illustrative, those that fit within the concrete definition and parameters established by the legal norm regarding each of the categories it subjects to the tax shall be taxed –which is indeed the determining aspect-. Otherwise, the concretion of the taxable event of the tax would rest on other exogenous sources, but not on the legal norm that creates and defines it, which would mean an attack against the principle of tax legality in force in our legal system. In that understanding, if the activity of the plaintiff company is reduced to the cultivation, harvest, packing, storage and subsequent export of banana, without an industrial process taking place in the terms defined by section 14 of Law 7585, it must necessarily be concluded that it is not subject to the patent tax as regulated at the legal level, specifically for the canton of Parrita. In line with what has already been analyzed regarding the taxable event of the tax in that locality, the Trial Court's appreciations regarding the volume of harvested fruit, the extension of the cultivation lands, the infrastructure of the packing plant and the number of employees working therein become irrelevant; none of those elements is expressly contemplated in section 14 ibidem as a parameter for classifying the activity as industrial, such that, as stated, it is not feasible to extend the taxable event to factual situations not contemplated by that section. Consequently, if the determining element for the subjection of an activity under the "industrial" category comes from the transformation or manufacturing of a raw material into a new product, and such circumstance does not occur in the activity performed by the plaintiff, the taxable event of the tax is not verified and therefore no tax obligation arises to its charge.

V.- For additional reasons, and without prejudice to what has already been analyzed regarding the taxable event of the tax in question, neither from the "International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities" is it possible to conclude that the activity developed by the plaintiff is subject to the patent tax in the canton of Parrita. In the criterion of the Trial Court: "In direct application of the text of the Municipal Tax Law of Parrita in its article fourteen, having been proven, that according to the most recent update of the 'International Standard Industrial Classification of all economic activities (ISIC)' (…) of the United Nations Organization (UN) corresponding to two thousand nine, as well as the adaptation to our nation included in the 'Classification of Economic Activities of Costa Rica' (CAERCR-2011) of the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses, the ordinary scope that the plaintiff company carries out as a lucrative economic activity in the use and exploitation of its farms for the cultivation of banana plants and the marketing of the fruit, corresponds to an 'agro-industrial activity', such circumstance alone would suffice to say that it is subject to the patent tax of the mentioned Municipality. (…) Thus, resorting to the international classification, it is clearly seen that (…) in the Third part of the document, on Detailed structure and explanatory notes, point A), it expressly refers to the inclusion in the classification of agriculture, livestock, forestry and fishing. All these activities are defined as industrial on its page 63". Having analyzed the reference document, the conclusion deduced from it is another. First, it does not define itself as a classification of industrial activities, as if all the activities included therein had that character. It is an international instrument for the classification by categories of the production units of an economy, for statistical and economic evaluation purposes. The classification into one or another category is made based on the similarity of the economic activity developed, taking into account the inputs, processes and production technology, the characteristics of the products and the uses for which they are intended. It contains a total of 21 individual categories, of which, in the specific case, two are of interest: "Agriculture, livestock, forestry and fishing" and "Manufacturing industries" (page 43). Among others, within the first, it includes "cultivation activities" and "production of agricultural products" (page 63). Contrary to what the Trial Court indicated, it does not indicate that those activities are defined as industrial, it does not even use that qualifier. Banana cultivation is found in category 01 "Agriculture", subcategory 012 "Cultivation of perennial plants", section 0122 "Cultivation of tropical and subtropical fruits" (page 66). Note that even within the "Agriculture" category, it includes the so-called "Post-harvest activities", for example: "preparation of the harvest for its marketing in primary markets: cleaning, trimming, classification, disinfection" (page 72). That classification coincides with the expert report rendered in this process, where the banana planting activity developed by the plaintiff and its subsequent tasks of collection, assistance and packing, without transformation processes of the fresh fruit into other types of products taking place, were classified by the expert as a purely agricultural activity; expressly differentiating it from agro-industrial type ones, where those types of fruit transformation processes do occur, for example into juices or toasts (according to the trial testimony of the expert agronomist engineer). If desired, even more conclusive, and moreover coinciding with the classification criterion as "industrial" followed by article 14 of law 7585, the ISIC defines the "Manufacturing industries" category as: "the physical or chemical transformation of materials, substances, or components into new products (…) The materials, substances or components transformed are raw materials from agriculture (…) (page 87). That is, it makes a clear differentiation between what is conceived as an eminently agricultural activity and as a manufacturing industry. For example, within the latter it places the elaboration of food products from fruits (page 90). Therefore, without prejudice to what is set forth in Considerando IV of this ruling, regarding that the taxable event of the tax in question is already expressly defined in sections 1 and 14 of law 7585, the truth is that the ISIC and the classification it contains supports the non-subjection of the activity developed by the plaintiff to the patent tax in the canton of Parrita, this under the criterion of being an industry. As analyzed, the determining criterion for defining an activity as industrial, both in law 7585 and in the ISIC, is the existence of a transformation process of a raw material into a new product, a scenario that does not occur in the present case. Hence the cassation appellant is correct regarding the substantive grievances formulated."

"III.- Sobre el impuesto de patente municipal. Hecho generador. En nuestro país, la facultad impositiva en materia tributaria está conferida en exclusiva a la Asamblea Legislativa, a quien el artículo 121 inciso 13) de la Constitución Política le reconoce la potestad de establecer los impuestos y contribuciones nacionales, así como de autorizar los municipales. Esta materia se encuentra entonces regida por el principio legalidad tributaria, según se colige de los mandatos 121 inciso 13) ibídem, 5 y 6 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios (CNPT). Ello significa que sólo mediante ley formal pueden crearse, modificarse o extinguirse los tributos. En esa inteligencia, el ordinal 5 inciso a) del CNPT califica como materia privativa de ley: “a) Crear, modificar o suprimir tributos; definir el hecho generador de la relación tributaria; establecer las tarifas de los tributos y sus bases de cálculo; e indicar el sujeto pasivo”. Es decir, la legalidad tributaria presupone un marco dentro del cual se establecen los componentes del tributo que necesariamente deber ser definidos por ley expresa; se trata de los componentes esenciales y determinantes del impuesto, dentro de los cuales destacan –ineludiblemente- el hecho generador, el sujeto pasivo, la base imponible, la tarifa y el período de cobro. Como excepción a la regla, la Sala Constitucional ha avalado la posibilidad de una delegación legislativa en cuanto a la definición de la tarifa, claro está, mediante una ley que establezca de antemano los límites en que este ejercicio puede realizarse; por ejemplo, el caso del impuesto selectivo de consumo. De ahí que la reserva de ley aludida pueda calificarse como “relativa”, según lo ha ratificado esa Sala en varios pronunciamientos (sentencias número 8271-2001, 8580-2001 y 5504-2002). Ahora bien, en lo que al caso concreto atañe, con fundamento en el cardinal 121 inciso 13) de la Carta Magna, y como manifestación de la autonomía concedida por el constituyente a los municipios (canon 170 constitucional), a éstos se les reconoce iniciativa en la formulación, creación, modificación y extinción de los tributos municipales (artículo 13 inciso b) del Código Municipal); potestad de la cual deriva la posibilidad de gravar las actividades lucrativas que tienen lugar en su jurisdicción territorial. En ese contexto, el precepto 88 del Código Municipal vigente (cuya numeración fue modificada por el artículo 1° de la ley N° 9542 "Ley de Fortalecimiento de la Policía Municipal", del 23 de abril del 2018, que lo trasladó del antiguo canon 79 al 88), establece: “Para ejercer cualquier actividad lucrativa, los interesados deberán contar con licencia municipal respectiva, la cual se obtendrá mediante el pago de un impuesto. Dicho impuesto se pagará durante todo el tiempo en que se haya ejercido la actividad lucrativa o por el tiempo que se haya poseído la licencia, aunque la actividad no se haya realizado”. Siendo que se trata de un impuesto cuya naturaleza, objetivos y fines provienen de la potestad tributaria de las municipalidades, será cada gobierno local quien, en ejercicio de su autonomía y de la iniciativa reconocida en esta materia, establezca los caracteres esenciales del sistema impositivo del tributo en su ámbito territorial, los cuales, como se dijo, ineludiblemente deben estar definidos de manera expresa por ley formal. Según se comentó, uno de los componentes estructurales de la obligación tributaria es el hecho generador o elemento material objetivo, aspecto que en el caso concreto es el punto medular de discordia entre las partes. Por ese motivo, las precisiones realizadas anteriormente revisten especial importancia en el presente asunto, pues el debate estriba en si la actividad económica ejercida por la actora (identificada como cultivo y exportación de banano) en sus fincas ubicadas en el cantón de Parrita puede o no considerarse gravada por el impuesto de patente y, en consecuencia, si el Municipio demandado se encuentra legitimado para cobrarlo. Dada la especial incidencia del principio de reserva legal en cuanto a la definición del hecho imponible, la sujeción de la actividad llevada a cabo por la empresa accionante pende de encontrarse expresamente incluida dentro de ese elemento objetivo previsto en la ley, pues de otro modo no podría afirmarse la existencia de un deber contributivo. En términos generales, según el criterio reiterado de la Sala Constitucional: “(…) Es en ejercicio de su potestad tributaria que se le reconoce a cada municipalidad, que se les faculta para que definan los parámetros y bases imponibles de este tributo, cuyo hecho generador siempre es el mismo, sea el ejercicio de una actividad lucrativa en una jurisdicción territorial determinada, esto es, un cantón específico. Por ello es que en cada municipalidad el impuesto a pagar es diferente” (Sentencia 3506-2014 de las 16 horas 01 minutos del 12 de marzo de 2014). En ese sentido, el propio Código Municipal, en su numeral 92, establece que el impuesto de patente se regulará por una ley especial. En el caso del cantón de Parrita, rige la Ley número 7585 del 14 de marzo de 1996. En consonancia con el régimen tributario general previsto en el Código Municipal, artículos 88 y 92, el ordinal 1 de la Ley 7585 dispone: “Obligatoriedad del pago del impuesto. Las personas físicas o jurídicas que se dediquen al ejercicio de actividades lucrativas en el cantón de Parrita, estarán obligadas a pagar a la Municipalidad de Parrita un impuesto de patentes, de conformidad con esta ley” (el énfasis es suplido). Acorde con el principio de reserva legal antes mencionado, en la frase subrayada, el precepto condiciona el pago del impuesto de patente a lo establecido en ese cuerpo normativo, sin que sean procedentes interpretaciones extensivas o analógicas que pudieran significar la modificación de los elementos esenciales del tributo en perjuicio del contribuyente. Entonces, para establecer la obligación tributaria deberá estarse al mandato expreso de su Ley especial (número 7585), quien en el artículo 1 impone el tributo por el ejercicio de una actividad lucrativa en el cantón de Parrita, pero que a su vez en el cardinal 14 enumera cuáles son las actividades que se entienden sujetas al impuesto. No es dable interpretar que, en sí misma, toda actividad lucrativa está gravada, pues ello implica una interpretación aislada del artículo 1 de la Ley 7585. El lucro, en sí mismo, no es determinante a los efectos de considerar una actividad como sujeta al impuesto de patente. El hecho imponible debe construirse a partir de una interpretación armónica y sistemática de la ley, en este caso para el cantón de Parrita, lo cual exige una lectura del artículo 88 del Código Municipal y del primero de la Ley 7585 en función del 14 de ésta última, que de forma taxativa enlista las actividades lucrativas gravadas por el tributo. Ese cardinal dispone: “Actividades afectas al impuesto. Todas las actividades lucrativas, que seguidamente se señalan, comprendidas en la clasificación internacional de actividades económicas; pagarán de conformidad con lo dispuesto en los artículos 3 y 4 de esta ley. a) Industria. Se refiere al conjunto de operaciones materiales ejecutadas para extraer, transformar o manufacturar uno o varios productos. Incluye el procesamiento de productos agrícolas y la transformación mecánica o química de sustancias orgánicas o inorgánicas en productos nuevos, mediante procesos mecanizados o no, en fábricas o domicilios. Implica tanto la creación de productos, como los talleres de reparación y acondicionamiento. Comprende la extracción y explotación de minerales, metálicos y no metálicos, en estado sólido, líquido o gaseoso; la construcción, reparación o demolición de todo tipo de edificios, las instalaciones y vías de transporte; las imprentas, las editoriales y los establecimientos similares. En general, se refiere a las mercaderías, construcciones, bienes muebles e inmuebles. b) Comercio. Comprende la compra y venta de toda clase de bienes, mercaderías, propiedades, títulos valores, moneda y otros. Además, los actos de valoración de los bienes económicos, según la oferta y la demanda, tales como casas de representación, comisionistas, agencias, corredores de bolsa, instituciones bancarias y de seguros, instituciones de crédito y, en general, todo lo que involucra transacciones de mercado de cualquier tipo. (Así reformado el inciso anterior por el artículo único de la ley N° 9491 del 25 de octubre del 2017) c) Servicios. Comprende los servicios prestados al sector privado, al sector público o a ambos, atendidos por organizaciones o personas privadas. Incluye el transporte, el almacenaje, las comunicaciones, el establecimiento de centros de esparcimiento y de enseñanza privada, excepto los semioficiales” (El énfasis es suplido). Analizado lo anterior, procede entonces determinar si la actividad económica desplegada por la accionante encuadra dentro del hecho imponible del tributo definido en la ley y, por ende, si está gravada por él. IV.- Según se señaló, el artículo 14 de la Ley de Impuestos Municipales de Parrita define tres categorías de actividades lucrativas afectas a ese tributo, sean industria, comercio y servicios. Por la motivación de los actos municipales cuestionados, para el caso concreto interesa la categoría industrial, definida por la norma a partir de las acciones materiales de “extraer, transformar o manufacturar uno o varios productos”; en general, refiriéndose a la transformación de materias primas en productos nuevos. Ahora, según el Tribunal lo tuvo como primer hecho probado, y además no controvertido en el proceso, Frutas Selectas del Trópico S.A. se dedica a la actividad del cultivo y comercialización del banano, a parte de la explotación de las fincas de su propiedad, contando con una infraestructura donde el producto cosechado pasa por las fases de limpieza, selección, empaque, y conservación. Ello además encuentra sustento en el informe pericial rendido en la especie (de folios 226 a 229 del expediente judicial), probanza contra la cual la parte demandada no manifestó objeción alguna. El ingeniero agrónomo nombrado al efecto detalló en su pericia la actividad desarrollada por la empresa accionante. En cuanto al proceso de cultivo y producción señaló “inicialmente se prepara el terreno con la respectiva nivelación, obras de infraestructura (…) para el drenaje; posteriormente (…) instalaciones para el transporte del producto e insumos. A continuación se procede a la siembra del banano (…) El cultivo inicia producción antes de el año (sic) durante el cual se da el proceso de fertilización, fumigaciones, deshijas, limpieza y demás labores culturales hasta el desembolse y cosecha. Cuando inicia la cosecha, los racimos son transportados a la planta (…). Cuando el banano ingresa a la planta, explica, sigue este proceso: a) Desflorado, remoción del raquis del racimo y desmane; b) Selección de la fruta según tamaño; c) Lavado; d) Clasificación de los gajos en bandejas según su tamaño; e) Colocación de calcomanía a los gajos; f) Aspersión con fungicida; g) Pesado, h) Empaque en cajas de cartón o bolsas; i) Carga y estibado en furgones para transporte y exportación. Finalmente, luego de la visita al sitio, el perito concluyó: 1) Que Frutas Selectas del Trópico S.A. se dedica al cultivo y exportación del banano, 2) La empresa cuenta con dos empacadoras del fruto, 3) La actora produce banano y lo comercializa como fruta fresca en su estado natural sin que sufra transformación alguna, 4) En las instalaciones de la empresa no se transforma el banano en otros subproductos como jugos, concentrados u otros. A partir de lo anterior, como acertadamente lo propone la actora, no es posible afirmar que el giro de su actividad sea agroindustrial como lo calificó el Tribunal. Según la prueba pericial, y sin que en juicio haya habido contención sobre el particular, la empresa Frutos Selectos del Trópico cultiva y exporta banano como fruta fresca, sin que éste sea sometido a algún tipo de transformación física y/o química, o a algún proceso de manufacturación, que le convierta en otro producto -distinto de la materia prima- (hecho cuarto de la demanda, admitido como cierto por la accionada en cuanto a que la fruta no se transforma ni se procesa en otro producto). Si bien el perito en su informe hace referencia al tratamiento de los cultivos con fertilizantes y fumigaciones, y del producto cosechado con fungicidas, ello no implica el procesamiento de la fruta con el objetivo de obtener productos nuevos, sino que corresponde a técnicas habituales tendientes a la preservación de la cosecha y de producto agrícola en sí. Considerando la naturaleza perecedera inmanente a un fruto, con más razón si éste va a ser exportado, lo lógico es que sea sometido a determinados procesos para su preservación en buen estado, sin que ello per se implique una mutación o alteración del estado natural como fue cosechado. Nótese que de acuerdo a la descripción realizada en el peritaje, ninguno de los procedimientos a los cuales es sometido el banano luego de ser cosechado en las fincas de la actora tienden a la obtención de productos nuevos, sino que más bien se orientan a su preservación como fruta fresca y al cumplimiento de los controles de calidad, empaque y etiquetado requeridos para su exportación, pero siempre en el mismo carácter de fruto en estado natural. Entonces, de acuerdo a la definición que la propia norma legal establece para la actividad gravada bajo el calificativo de “industria”, la labor desarrollada por la actora no podría considerarse inmersa en esa categoría, pues se limita al cultivo, cosecha y posterior exportación del fruto natural, sin que de por medio tenga lugar algún proceso de transformación o manufacturación que genere productos nuevos. A diferencia del criterio del Tribunal de instancia, al valorar si la actividad económica de la actora está o no sujeta al impuesto de patente, cobra total relevancia la discusión en torno a si en ella median o no procesos de transformación o manufactura del fruto; ello por cuanto la propia norma legal establece esa condición como un parámetro para definir cuándo se está en presencia de una actividad de tipo industrial gravada por el artículo 14 de la Ley de Impuestos Municipales de Parrita. No puede soslayarse que, de acuerdo a la doctrina de los cardinales 5 y 6 del CNPT, así como del principio de legalidad tributaria, está vedada la posibilidad de expandir el hecho generador de un tributo a situaciones fácticas no contempladas expresamente en la norma legal que define los componentes esenciales de ese impuesto; lo cual proscribe acudir al método analógico como fuente de creación o extensión de los tributos, o como un mecanismo para legitimar el ejercicio, en este caso, de potestades fiscales municipales que exceden el marco tributario fijado por ley formal. Por ello, discrepa esta Sala del criterio del Tribunal, para quien la definición que la norma especial (numeral 14 de la ley 7585) realiza acerca de la categoría “industria” es meramente ilustrativa, debiendo acudirse a fuentes extra legales (como la “Clasificación Industrial Internacional Uniforme de Todas las Actividades Económicas” y la “Clasificación de Actividades Económicas de Costa Rica”) para dotar de contenido al hecho generador del tributo. Al tratarse de materia privativa de ley, para establecer la existencia de una obligación tributaria obligatoriamente debe atenderse a lo dispuesto de forma expresa en la norma legal respectiva. Es cierto que el mandato de cita sujeta al pago del impuesto: “Todas las actividades lucrativas, que seguidamente se señalan, comprendidas en la clasificación internacional de actividades económicas (…)”. Más el sentido del precepto no es proveer una mera definición “ilustrativa” de las categorías gravadas (industria, comercio y servicios), de modo abierto e indeterminado, entendiendo que basta que una actividad lucrativa esté incluida en las Clasificaciones antes mencionadas para considerarse afecta al tributo –como si esa inclusión fuera el elemento determinante de la sujeción-. El razonamiento es en sentido inverso; esto es, de la vasta cantidad de actividades económicas existentes, de la que esos instrumentos estadísticos si resultarían ilustrativos, estarán gravadas aquellas que encuadren en la definición concreta y los parámetros que establece la norma legal respecto de cada una de las categorías que sujeta al impuesto –que sí es el aspecto determinante-. De otra manera, la concreción del hecho generador del impuesto estribaría en otras fuentes exógenas, mas no en la norma legal que lo crea y lo define, lo cual significaría atentar contra el principio de legalidad tributaria vigente en nuestro ordenamiento. En esa inteligencia, si la actividad de la empresa accionante se reduce al cultivo, cosecha, empaque, almacenamiento y posterior exportación del banano, sin que medie un proceso industrial en los términos definidos por el canon 14 de la Ley 7585, necesariamente habrá de concluirse que no se encuentra sujeta al impuesto de patente tal y como está regulado a nivel legal, específicamente para el cantón de Parrita. A tono con lo ya analizado en cuanto al hecho generador del tributo en esa localidad, devienen inconducentes las apreciaciones del Tribunal en cuanto al volumen de fruto cosechado, a la extensión de los terrenos de cultivo, a la infraestructura de la empacadora y a la cantidad de empleados que en ella laboran; ninguno de esos elementos está expresamente contemplado en el ordinal 14 ibídem como parámetro de calificación de la actividad como industrial, de manera que, según se dijo, no es dable extender el hecho generador a situaciones de hecho no contempladas por ese cardinal. Por consiguiente, si el elemento determinante de la sujeción de una actividad bajo la categoría de “industrial” viene dado por la transformación o manufacturación de una materia prima en un producto nuevo, y tal circunstancia no ocurre en la actividad realizada por la accionante, no se verifica el hecho imponible del impuesto y por ende no surge obligación tributaria a su cargo. V.- A mayor abundamiento de razones, y sin perjuicio de lo ya analizado en cuanto al hecho generador del tributo en cuestión, tampoco a partir de la “Clasificación Industrial Internacional Uniforme de Todas las Actividades Económicas” es posible concluir que la actividad desarrollada por la actora se encuentre gravada por el impuesto de patente en el cantón de Parrita. En criterio del Tribunal: “En aplicación directa del texto Ley de Impuestos Municipales de Parrita en su artículo catorce, habiéndose tenido por acreditado, que de acuerdo con la más reciente actualización de la "Clasificación Industrial Internacional Uniforme de todas las actividades económicas (CIIU)” (…) de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas (ONU) correspondiente al dos mil nueve, así como la adaptación a nuestra nación comprendida en la "Clasificación de actividades Económicas de Costa Rica" (CAERCR-2011) del Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos, el giro ordinario que despliega la empresa actora como actividad económica lucrativa en uso y explotación de sus fincas para la cultivo de plantas de banano y la comercialización del fruto, corresponde con una “actividad agroindustrial" , bastaría tal circunstancia para decir que se encuentra afecta al impuesto de patentes de la Municipalidad mencionada. (…) Así, recurriendo a la clasificación internacional, se tiene con claridad que (…) en la Tercera parte del documento, sobre Estructura detallada y notas explicativas, punto A), refiere expresamente a la inclusión en la clasificación de la agricultura, la ganadería, silvicultura y pesca. Todas estas actividades se encuentran definidas como industriales en su página 63”. Analizado el documento de referencia, es otra la conclusión que de él se deduce. En primer lugar, no se define a sí mismo como una clasificación de actividades industriales, como si todas las actividades en él incluidas tuvieran ese carácter. Se trata de un instrumento internacional de clasificación por categorías de las unidades de producción de una economía, con fines estadísticos y de evaluación económica. La clasificación en una u otra categoría se realiza atendiendo a la similitud de la actividad económica desarrollada, teniendo en cuenta los insumos, los procesos y la tecnología de producción, las características de los productos y los usos a los que se destinan. Contiene un total de 21 categorías individuales, de las cuales, en el caso concreto, interesan dos: “Agricultura, ganadería, silvicultura y pesca” e “Industrias manufactureras” (página 43). Entre otras, dentro de la primera, incluye las “actividades de cultivo” y “producción de productos de la agricultura” (página 63). Contrario a lo señalado por el Tribunal, no indica que esas actividades sean definidas como industriales, ni siquiera utiliza ese calificativo. El cultivo de banano se encuentra en la categoría 01 “Agricultura”, subcategoría 012 “Cultivo de plantas perennes”, sección 0122 “Cultivo de frutas tropicales y subtropicales” (página 66). Nótese que incluso, dentro de la categoría de “Agricultura”, incluye las llamadas “Actividades poscosecha”, por ejemplo: “preparación de la cosecha para su comercialización en los mercados primarios: limpieza, recorte, clasificación, desinfección” (página 72). Esa calificación coincide con la pericia rendida en este proceso, donde la actividad de siembra de banano desarrollada por la accionante y sus ulteriores labores de recolección, asistencia y empaque, sin que medien procesos de transformación de la fruta fresca en otro tipo de productos, fueron catalogados por el perito como actividad netamente agrícola; diferenciándola expresamente de las de tipo agroindustrial, donde sí ocurren ese tipo de procesos de transformación de la fruta, por ejemplo en jugos o tostadas (según declaración en juicio del perito ingeniero agrónomo). Si se quiere, aún más concluyente, y por demás coincidente con el criterio de calificación como “industrial” seguido por el artículo 14 de la ley 7585, la CIIU define la categoría de “Industrias manufactureras” como: “la transformación física o química de materiales, sustancias, o componentes en productos nuevos (…) Los materiales, sustancias o componentes transformados son materias primas procedentes de la agricultura (…) (página 87). Es decir, realiza una clara diferenciación entre lo que se concibe como actividad eminentemente agrícola y como industria manufacturera. Por ejemplo, dentro de esta última ubica la elaboración de productos alimenticios a partir de frutas (página 90). Entonces, sin perjuicio de lo expuesto en el Considerando IV de este fallo, en cuanto a que el hecho imponible del tributo en cuestión ya está definido expresamente en los cardinales 1 y 14 de la ley 7585, lo cierto es que la CIIU y la clasificación que contiene respalda la no sujeción de la actividad desarrollada por la actora al impuesto de patente en el cantón de Parrita, esto bajo el criterio de ser una industria. Según se analizó, el criterio determinante para definir una actividad como industrial, tanto en la ley 7585 como en la CIIU, es la existencia de un proceso de transformación de una materia prima en un producto nuevo, supuesto que no acontece en la especie. De ahí que lleve razón la casacionista en cuanto a los agravios sustantivos formulados."