CONAPE v. BCR: Exclusion of Subsidiary Profits from the 5% Parafiscal Contribution BaseCONAPE contra BCR: exclusión de utilidades de subsidiarias de la base del 5% parafiscal

III.- On the parafiscal contribution under debate. The object of the proceeding lies in the analysis of the taxable base (base imponible) for the calculation of the special contribution (contribución especial) of 5% in favor of CONAPE, which article 20 (canon 20) of Law No. 6041 imposes on the commercial banks of the national banking system. The specific issue is delimited by the inclusion or not, within that calculation parameter, of the profits of the enterprises or subsidiary companies of those financial entities. For such purposes, in light of the parties' allegations, it is necessary to refer to the text that creates the cited contribution. Through Law No. 6041 of January 18, 1977, CONAPE was created as a semi-autonomous institution whose powers are directed fundamentally at constituting itself as a financing vehicle for pre-university higher education (educación superior para universitaria) and university higher education studies, under a system based on personal merit and the socio-economic conditions of the beneficiary persons. This follows from article 2, subsection a) of that legislation. With respect to what is relevant to the issue, Chapter III of that norm regulates matters concerning the Commission's resources. Specifically, article 20 (canon 20) indicates the sources of financing for CONAPE, and, for the purposes of this ruling, what is indicated in subsection a) is of particular interest, which prescribes, in its literal tenor:

“ARTICLE 20.- The Commission shall have the following resources:

• a)A sum equivalent to five percent of the net annual profits of all the country's commercial banks, a sum that shall be deducted from the Income Tax that each bank must pay; (…)” It should be noted that this subsection was authentically interpreted by means of the sole article of Law No. 6319 of April 10, 1979, in the following sense:

“Sole article.- The authentic interpretation of article 20, subsection a), of Law No. 6041 of February 9, 1977, is that if any of the commercial banks, private ones and those that make up the National Banking System, with the exception of the Banco Central de Costa Rica, obtains net profits, it must necessarily contribute to forming CONAPE's resources with five percent of said profits. This contribution may be deducted from the taxable amount (imponible) of the Income Tax.” It is a contribution of a parafiscal nature (contribución de orden parafiscal), to the extent that it is directed at financing a public entity through economic collections that do not enter the State's Single Treasury System (Sistema de Caja Única del Estado), but rather directly nourish CONAPE's budgetary assets. Said economic burden, from the passive subjective plane, is imposed on the commercial banks that make up the National Banking System, a subjective parameter that is regulated in article 1 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System (Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional), No. 1644 and which includes the State Banks (Banco Central de Costa Rica, Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, Banco de Costa Rica, which merged by absorption the extinct Banco Crédito Agrícola de Cartago – according to Law No. 9605 of September 12, 2018), as well as any private banking financial entity that has been authorized for those activities, and the bank branches domiciled in Costa Rica of foreign banks. However, the same regulation excludes the Banco Central de Costa Rica from the application parameter. For its part, the taxable event (hecho generador) of that burden consists of obtaining net profits in the respective fiscal (annual) period, an element from which the taxable base (base imponible) is configured, consisting of the net profits of each period. The applicable rate is 5% on said taxable base. In order to define the taxable base, it is necessary to point out that net profits are understood as those obtained by applying to total income (gross operating profit), the non-operating expenses and income, respectively, and the legal reserve. That is, it is the economic benefit, after subtracting from total income the operating expenses necessary to obtain the income, as well as obligations to third parties and other capital outflows made in the respective accounting period. However, in Law No. 6319 of authentic interpretation, it is indicated that the tax quota derived from that contribution can be deducted from the taxable amount (imponible) of the income tax. For this, it is necessary to point out that, in accordance with article 14 of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta), No. 7092, the taxable base is defined as net income (renta neta), which, pursuant to what is regulated by article 7 (canon 7) of the same law, is defined as “… the result of deducting from gross income the useful, necessary, and pertinent costs and expenses to produce the profit or benefit, and the other expenditures expressly authorized by this law, duly supported by vouchers and recorded in the accounting.” This concept is different from the so-called DISPOSABLE INCOME (RENTA DISPONIBLE), which, in accordance with article 16 of the same legislation, is what results from applying the tax burdens to the net income, being, therefore, the remainder that the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) can dispose of. From that perspective, the reducing effect introduced by the payment of the contribution in favor of CONAPE, insofar as it is applied to the net income (or taxable amount), leads to the establishment that, regardless of the denomination NET PROFIT, and its accounting conceptual projection, the taxable base and calculation basis for that parafiscal contribution is configured from the profits of the commercial banks, before the payment of the respective taxes. The foregoing because, otherwise, it would make no sense for that contribution to be able to be deducted from the taxable base of the income tax.

IV.- Now, from the analysis of the content of that mandate, this Chamber considers that the cited contribution is imposed on commercial banks as legal entities, with respect to their annual net profits. These concepts allow establishing that the parafiscal burden falls on a particular legal entity (as taxpayer), and not on other legal entities that that financial entity may have created, within the framework of permissibility granted by the Legal System, entities that hold legal autonomy and, although linked, are understood as centers of legal imputation different from the commercial bank. The mere link that may arise between both entities from the capital contributions or investments that the Bank may make in the creation of that new legal entity as a business model, does not mean that, for the purposes of the contribution under examination, they are the same legal entity and therefore the same taxpayer. They are subjects that, although they may be considered part of a financial conglomerate, ultimately, from the plane of imputation and legal referability, are diverse legal entities, each with diverse legal obligations. In that sense, as the BCR rightly indicates, the Regulating Law of the Securities Market (Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores), No. 7732, in article 55, authorizes public banks to establish corporations (sociedades), for the purpose of operating their own brokerage house, or to establish investment fund management companies and pension operating companies. The economic functional independence of those entities is evidenced in the second paragraph of that precept, as it imposes independent handling of accounting and the operations regime. That norm indicates in the second paragraph:

“In such cases, the brokerage houses, investment fund management companies, and pension operating companies must maintain their operations and their accounting totally independent from the institution to which they belong. This provision shall apply equally to private brokerage houses, in relation to their partners and to other companies belonging to the same economic interest group. The State and public institutions and enterprises may acquire securities, make their investments, or place their issuances, through any brokerage house, without prejudice to the applicable provisions on administrative contracting.” Even the participation of State banks in the creation of other legal entities in the form of corporations (sociedades anónimas) can be total or partial, as is indeed inferred from article 47 of the Regulating Law of the Insurance Market (Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Seguros), No. 8653, insofar as it regulates the authorization for the Instituto Nacional de Seguros to establish, jointly with the public State banks, a single corporation for the exercise of insurance activity, as its sole corporate purpose. From this angle of understanding, the creation of those corporations by the BCR speaks of the legitimate exercise for those legal entities to carry out activities different from those specific to the financial intermediation carried out by the commercial bank. Ergo, they are persons different from the bank, even though it is clear that they belong to a conglomerate that presents common interests, an undeniable relationship based on the circumstance that the bank is the one that decides to create those companies and contributes the funds for their operation, whether under a scheme of total investment or shared with other entities, when the law so enables. However, it is insisted, that sole relationship or economic affinity does not mean that for the effects of article 20 of Law No. 6041, the companies created by the BCR must be understood as part of the same financial entity, and that, therefore, based on that (pseudo) economic material integration, the profits generated by those independent entities can be inserted within the bank's net profits. Nevertheless, the concept of net profits leads one to suppose that, when those corporations transfer financial benefits or profits to the financial flow and budget of the Bank that has established them, that is, when it concerns realized profits, said equity would indeed be part of the taxable base of the cited contribution, insofar as they would form part of the quantitative parameter regulated by the norm in question. But such a reference is different from the general and direct inclusion of the profits of those companies, apart from that effective transfer of net profits.

V.- Now, CONAPE argues that the BCR has violated the calculation base of the contribution in question by suppressing the net profits of its subsidiaries from that parameter, despite the fact that the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras (SUGEF) has already indicated that commercial banks must report their profits on a consolidated basis. The BCR argues that this practice is applied because it is required by SUGEF, but it violates International Accounting Standards (IAS). On the one hand, the object of this proceeding is not the analysis of the validity of any conduct regarding information records by SUGEF with respect to entities submitted or subject to its oversight and control competence. Such a claim has not been formulated by the BCR or any of the parties, which, pursuant to the procedural congruence regulated in article 119 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), prevents issuing a pronouncement or value judgment on that particular matter. On the other hand, any analysis of that aspect would require, as a derivation of due process, the integration into this litigation of both SUGEF and the Banco Central de Costa Rica, in accordance with the representation rules established by Law No. 7732. However, CONAPE mentions as a basis for its theory of the case that SUGEF has already established its criterion on this issue of net profits, for which purpose it cites official communication SUGEF-64-2001 of January 5, 2001. For those purposes, in its complaint, it refers to that opinion in the following sense relevant to this discussion:

“… The Superintendency maintains that, according to article 20 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System, reserves are an integral part of the net profit. It adds that semiannually, the System's banks must request authorization from the Superintendency to set aside the sums necessary for the formation of reserves to later determine the net profits for the period. Those reserves must be conceptualized as expenses, which are the decreases in economic benefits during the accounting period in the form of outflows or depletion of assets or incurrences of liabilities that result in a decrease in equity, different from those related to distributions of equity to partners. It adds that this definition of expenses covers losses such as expenses that arise in the course of the normal activities of an entity. Hence, it considers that they must be considered for determining the net profit of the Banco Nacional for purposes of the contribution to CONAPE. Regarding the distribution of net profits themselves, SUGEF adds that, apart from the provisions of article 12 of the LOSBN, the contribution to CONAPE must be computed on the net profit, pointing out that it cannot be interpreted that said sums are deductions from the net profit to calculate other taxes not contemplated in article 12, such as the contribution to CONAPE. Regarding the consolidation of profits, SUGEF points out that the net income generated by subsidiaries that consolidate financial statements with the Bank forms part of the net profit of the banking entity. It adds that investments in associated companies or subsidiaries must be recorded by the equity method, an accounting method by which the investment is initially recorded at cost and is subsequently adjusted for subsequent changes upon its acquisition in the investor's participation in the net assets of the company in which it invests. It adds that, if the associated company or subsidiary obtains a profit in its results, the investing entity reflects them in its income statement, computing in the net profit income for the proportional part of its participation in said company, and similarly, if the associate or subsidiary obtains losses, the investing entity will record a loss in its income statement for the proportional part of its participation in the associate or subsidiary. Hence, the Banco Nacional must reflect in its results or in the computation of the net profit the results of its associated companies or subsidiaries for the corresponding part of its participation. It considers that the investing entity has a certain degree of responsibility for the performance of its investment, which justifies the inclusion in its results of its participation in the profit or loss of the associated subsidiary. It clarifies that the effect of that accounting treatment 'is that the amounts of the net profit for the year and of the stockholders' equity at the end of the period are identical to the balances that would exist if the financial statements of the investing entity had been consolidated with its subsidiaries and associates.' (…)”. The highlighting is supplied.

Said citation refers to two specific issues; on the one hand, the need to include legal reserves within the net profit, an extreme regarding which express reference is made to the impact it has for the contribution to CONAPE. The other alludes to the consolidation in the financial statements of the net profit produced by the subsidiaries, so that they are reported as part of the bank's net profit, as a derivation of the application of data recording through the equity method (método de participación). Regardless of the specific reasons that supported that position, which, it is reiterated, is not part of this proceeding, the truth of the matter is that SUGEF's requirements regarding the presentation of consolidated financial statements for the activities of those economic conglomerates do not imply that such treatment defines that the net profits of commercial banks, for the purposes of the contribution regulated in article 20 of Law No. 6041, follow the same treatment. Indeed, the implications that this consolidation may have for the purposes of preventive control and oversight of the financial sector, with regard to the proper functioning of the financial conglomerate in which those banking entities participate, are not automatically transferable to tax manifestations such as the one being analyzed. As has been indicated, the regulation precisely and clearly establishes that the contribution falls on the net profits of commercial banks, specifying that the contribution to CONAPE was deductible from the taxable base of the tax regulated in Law No. 7092 – income tax (impuesto sobre utilidades). Thus, the mere reference to criteria on consolidated information contributions for SUGEF's oversight exercise does not say that this same treatment must be applied to the case under examination. In that sense, the taxable base of article 20 of Law 6041 is the net profit of the commercial bank as a legal entity, not that of its subsidiaries. It is reiterated, to the extent that the profits of those companies are transferred to the bank as profit from returns, those amounts must be considered part of that calculation parameter, but that does not speak to the necessary consideration, a priori, of the profits of those companies, in the debated taxable base. Nor can it be said that the bank's mere participation in those subsidiaries (by constitution and investment) supposes a profit that must be added to the calculation base of that contribution, since they are capital participations for investment that can only be considered earnings when those participations are disposed of, or there is a transfer of profits or dividends. [...]

Consequently, the differences that CONAPE claims are based on the inclusion, within that calculation, of the profits produced by the subsidiaries, an aspect that, according to what has been developed, does not follow from the reference law. The mere circumstance that in periods prior to 2016, the financial entity did not apply said methodology does not generate a criterion that can be opposed in this litigation. The actions of the BCR find support in the interpretation of the scope of the parafiscal relationship that follows from the content of article 20 of Law No. 6041, regarding the projection of the constitutive elements of the contribution regulated therein. Therefore, the claim to order the payment of those alleged differences turns out to be improper, because the fund transfers made by the BCR conform and correspond to the legal parameters of the debated contribution. By accessory nature, it is clear that the claim for payment of financial interest on those claimed sums is equally improper, being conditioned on and dependent upon the recognition of that principal amount.

Specifically, canon 20 sets forth the sources of financing for CONAPE, and for the purposes of this judgment, particular note is taken of the provision in subsection a), which literally states:

"ARTICLE 20.- The Commission shall have the following resources:

• a)A sum equivalent to five percent of the annual net profits (utilidades netas) of all commercial banks in the country, a sum that shall be deducted from the Income Tax that each bank must pay; (…)" It is worth noting that this subsection was given an authentic interpretation through the single article of Law No. 6319 of April 10, 1979, as follows:

"Single Article. - The authentic interpretation of Article 20, subsection a), of Law No. 6041 of February 9, 1977, is that if any of the commercial banks, both private and those that make up the National Banking System, with the exception of the Banco Central de Costa Rica, obtains net profits, it must necessarily contribute five percent of said profits to form the resources of CONAPE. This contribution may be deducted from the taxable base (imponible) of the Income Tax." This is a parafiscal contribution, to the extent that it is directed at financing a public entity through economic levies that do not enter the State's Single Treasury System, but rather directly nourish the budgetary assets of CONAPE. Said economic charge, from the passive subjective perspective, is imposed on the commercial banks that make up the National Banking System, a subjective parameter regulated in numeral 1 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System, No. 1644, which includes the State Banks (Banco Central de Costa Rica, Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, Banco de Costa Rica, which absorbed the extinct Banco Crédito Agrícola de Cartago by merger—pursuant to Law No. 9605 of September 12, 2018), as well as any private banking financial entity that has been authorized for such activities, and the bank branches domiciled in Costa Rica of foreign banks. However, the same regulations exclude the Banco Central de Costa Rica from the parameter of application. For its part, the taxable event (hecho generador) for this charge is the obtaining of net profits in the respective (annual) fiscal year, an element from which the taxable base (base imponible) is configured, consisting of the net profits for each period. The applicable rate is 5% on said taxable base. In order to define the taxable base, it is necessary to point out that net profits are understood to be those obtained by applying to total income (gross operating profit), the non-operating expenses and income, respectively, and the legal reserve. That is to say, it is the economic benefit, after subtracting from total income the operating expenses necessary to obtain that income, as well as obligations to third parties and other capital outflows made in the respective accounting period. However, in the authentic interpretation Law No. 6319, it is indicated that the tax quota derived from this contribution may be deducted from the taxable base of the income tax. For this, it is necessary to point out that, in accordance with ordinal 14 of the Income Tax Law, No. 7092, the taxable base is defined as net income (renta neta), which, pursuant to the provisions of canon 7 ejusdem, is defined as "… the result of deducting from gross income the useful, necessary, and pertinent costs and expenses to produce the profit or benefit, and the other outlays expressly authorized by this law, duly supported by vouchers and recorded in accounting." This concept is distinct from what is called DISPOSABLE INCOME, which, in accordance with Article 16 of the same legislation, is what results from applying the tax charges to net income, thus being the remainder that the passive subject may dispose of. From this perspective, the reducing effect introduced by the payment of the contribution in favor of CONAPE, insofar as it is applied to net income (or taxable base), leads to the establishment that, regardless of the designation NET PROFIT and its conceptual accounting projection, the taxable base and calculation of this parafiscal contribution is configured from the profits of the commercial banks, before the payment of the respective taxes. The foregoing, since otherwise, it would not make sense for this contribution to be able to reduce the taxable base of the income tax.

**IV.-** Now, from the analysis of the content of that mandate, this Chamber considers that the cited contribution is imposed on commercial banks as legal entities, with respect to their annual net profits. These concepts allow for establishing that the parafiscal charge falls on a particular legal entity (as the passive subject), and not on other legal entities that this financial entity may have created, within the framework of permissibility granted by the Legal System, entities which, although linked, possess legal autonomy and are understood as centers of imputation distinct from the commercial bank. The mere link that may be inferred between both entities based on the capital contributions or investments that the Bank may make in the creation of that new legal entity as a business model, does not mean that, for the purposes of the contribution under review, it is the same legal entity and therefore the same passive subject. These are subjects which, although they may be considered to form part of a financial conglomerate, definitively, from the standpoint of imputation and legal referability, are diverse legal entities, each with diverse legal obligations. In that sense, as BCR correctly indicates, the Securities Market Regulatory Law, No. 7732, in article 55, authorizes public banks to establish corporations, for the purpose of operating their own brokerage house, or to establish investment fund management companies and pension operators. The functional economic independence of those entities is evidenced in the second paragraph of that precept insofar as it imposes the independent management of accounting and operations regime. That provision states in the second paragraph:

"*In such cases, the brokerage houses, the investment fund management companies, and the pension operators must keep their operations and their accounting totally independent from the institution to which they belong. This provision shall also apply to private brokerage houses, in relation to their partners and with other companies belonging to the same economic interest group. The State and the public institutions and companies may acquire securities, make their investments or place their issuances, through any brokerage house, without prejudice to the applicable provisions regarding administrative contracting.*" Furthermore, the participation of State banks in the creation of other legal entities in the form of corporations (sociedades anónimas) may be total or partial, as is effectively inferred from article 47 of the Insurance Market Regulatory Law, No. 8653, insofar as it regulates the authorization for the Instituto Nacional de Seguros to constitute, jointly with the public banks of the State, a single corporation for the exercise of insurance activity, as its sole corporate purpose. From this angle of understanding, the creation of such corporations by BCR speaks of the legitimate exercise for those legal entities to carry out activities different from those characteristic of the financial intermediation exercised by the commercial bank. Therefore, they are entities distinct from the bank, even though it is clear that they belong to a conglomerate that presents common interests, an undeniable relationship arising from the circumstance that the bank is the one that decides to create those companies and contributes the funds for their operation, whether under a total investment scheme or one shared with other entities, when the law so enables. However, it is insisted, that mere relationship or economic affinity does not mean that, for the purposes of article 20 of Law No. 6041, the companies created by BCR must be understood as part of the same financial entity, and that, therefore, based on that (pseudo) material economic integration, the profits generated by those independent instances can be inserted into the bank's net profits. All in all, the concept of net profits leads one to suppose that, when those corporations transfer financial benefits or profits to the financial flow and budget of the Bank that established them, that is, when dealing with realized profits, said assets would indeed be part of the taxable base of the cited contribution, as they would form part of the quantitative parameter regulated by the provision in question. But such a reference is different from the general and direct inclusion of the profits of those companies, regardless of that effective transfer of net profits.

              **V.-** Now, CONAPE argues that BCR has violated the calculation basis of the contribution in question by removing from said parameter the net profits of its subsidiaries, even though the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras (SUGEF) has already indicated that commercial banks must report their profits on a consolidated basis. BCR argues that this practice is applied because it is required by SUGEF, but it contravenes International Accounting Standards (Normas Internacionales de Contabilidad, NIC). On the one hand, the analysis of the validity of any conduct regarding SUGEF's information registration practices concerning entities submitted or subject to its oversight and control authority is not the subject of this proceeding.

That claim has not been made by BCR or by any of the parties, which, pursuant to the procedural consistency regulated in numeral 119 of the Administrative Contentious Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), prevents issuing a pronouncement or value judgment on that particular matter. Moreover, any analysis of that aspect would require, as a derivation of due process, the joinder to this litigation of both SUGEF and the Central Bank of Costa Rica (Banco Central de Costa Rica), in accordance with the representation rules set forth by Law No. 7732. However, CONAPE mentions, as a basis for its case theory, that SUGEF has already established its criterion on this subject of net profits (utilidades netas), for which purpose it cites official communication SUGEF-64-2001 of January 5, 2001. To that end, in its lawsuit, it refers to that opinion in the following sense relevant to this discussion:

“*… The Superintendency maintains that pursuant to Article 20 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System (Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional), reserves are an integral part of net profit (utilidad neta). It adds that semi-annually the banks of the System must request authorization from the Superintendency to set aside the sums necessary for the formation of reserves in order to subsequently determine the net profits for the period. These reserves must be conceptualized as expenses, which are the decreases in economic benefits during the accounting period in the form of outflows or depletions of assets or incurrences of liabilities that result in a decrease in capital, different from those related to capital distributions to shareholders. It adds that this definition of expenses encompasses losses as expenses that arise in the course of an entity's normal activities. Hence, it deems that they must be considered for the determination of the net profit of the Banco Nacional for purposes of the contribution to CONAPE. In connection with the distribution of net profits (utilidades netas) per se, SUGEF adds that apart from the provisions of Article 12 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System (LOSBN), the contribution to CONAPE must be computed on the net profit, noting that it cannot be interpreted that such sums are deductions from the net profit for calculating other taxes not contemplated in Article 12, such as the contribution to CONAPE. **Regarding the consolidation of profits (consolidación de utilidades), SUGEF points out that the net income generated by subsidiaries that consolidate financial statements with the Bank form part of the net profit of the banking entity. It adds that investments in associate companies or subsidiaries must be recorded using the equity method (método de participación), an accounting method by which the investment is initially recorded at cost and is subsequently adjusted for changes subsequent to its acquisition in the investor's share of the net assets of the investee company. It adds that, if the associate or subsidiary company obtains a profit in its results, the investing entity reflects them in its income statement, computing in the net profit income for the proportional part of its participation in said company, and similarly if the associate or subsidiary obtains losses, the investing entity will record a loss in its income statement for the proportional part of its participation in the associate or subsidiary. Hence, the Banco Nacional must reflect in its results or in the computation of net profit the results of its associate or subsidiary companies for the corresponding part of its participation.** It deems that the investing entity has a certain degree of responsibility for the performance of its investment, which justifies the inclusion in its results of its participation in the profit or loss of the associate or subsidiary. It clarifies that the effect of this accounting treatment “is that the amounts of the net profit for the period and of the stockholders' equity at the end of the period are identical to the balances that would exist if the financial statements of the investing entity had been consolidated with its subsidiaries and associates”. (…)” The emphasis is supplied.

Said citation refers to two specific topics; on the one hand, the need to include legal reserves within the net profit, an extreme regarding which express reference is made to the impact it has on the contribution to CONAPE. The other alludes to the consolidation in the financial statements of the net profit produced by the subsidiaries, so that they are reported as part of the bank's net profit, as a derivation of the application of data recording through the equity method (sistema de participación). Regardless of the specific reasons that underpinned that position, which, it is reiterated, is not part of this proceeding, the truth of the matter is that SUGEF's requirements regarding the presentation of consolidated financial statements for the activities of those economic conglomerates do not imply that this treatment defines that the net profits (utilidades netas) of commercial banks, for the purposes of the contribution regulated in Article 20 of Law No. 6041, follow the same treatment. Indeed, the implications that such consolidation may have for the purposes of preventive control and oversight of the financial sector, with a view to the proper functioning of the financial conglomerate in which those banking entities participate, are not automatically transferable to tax manifestations such as the one under analysis.

As has been noted, the regulations set forth precisely and clearly that the contribution falls on the net profits of commercial banks, specifying that the payment to CONAPE was deductible from the taxable base of the tax regulated in Ley No. 7092 — the profits tax (impuesto sobre utilidades). Thus, the mere reference to criteria regarding consolidated information reporting for the supervisory (fiscalización) activities of SUGEF does not mean that the same treatment must be applied to the case under review. In that regard, the taxable base of Article 20 of Ley 6041 is the net profit of the commercial bank as a legal entity, not that of its subsidiaries. We reiterate that, to the extent that the profits of those companies are transferred to the bank as profit from returns (rendimientos), those amounts must be considered as part of that calculation parameter, but that does not imply the necessary, a priori consideration of the profits of those companies in the debated taxable base. Nor can it be said that the mere participation of the commercial bank in those subsidiaries (through incorporation and investment) constitutes a profit that must be added to the calculation base for that contribution, since these are capital participations for investment that can only be considered gains when those participations are disposed of or when there is a transfer of profits or dividends [...]

Consequently, the differences claimed by CONAPE are based on the inclusion, within that calculation, of the profits produced by the subsidiaries, an aspect which, as has been developed, does not arise from the referenced law. The mere circumstance that in periods prior to 2016, the financial entity did not apply that methodology does not generate a criterion that can be asserted against this litigation. The actions of BCR find support in the interpretation of the scope of the parafiscal relationship (relación parafiscal) derived from the content of section 20 of Ley No. 6041, regarding the projection of the constituent elements of the contribution regulated therein. Therefore, the claim to order payment of those supposed differences is improper (improcedente), since the transfers of funds made by BCR conform to and correspond with the legal parameters of the debated contribution. By accessoriness, it is clear that the claim for payment of financial returns (réditos financieros) on those claimed sums is equally improper, as they are conditioned upon and dependent on the recognition of that principal claim." Specifically, Article 20 indicates the sources of financing for CONAPE, and for the purposes of this ruling, particular interest lies in what is set forth in subsection a), which literally prescribes:

“ARTÍCULO 20.- The Commission shall have the following resources:

• a)A sum equivalent to five percent of the annual net profits (utilidades netas) of all the commercial banks of the country, a sum that shall be deducted from the Income Tax (Impuesto sobre la Renta) that each bank must pay; (…)” It should be noted that this subsection was authentically interpreted (interpretado de manera auténtica) through the sole article of Law No. 6319 of April 10, 1979, in the following sense:

“Sole Article.- Article 20, subsection a), of Law No. 6041 of February 9, 1977, is authentically interpreted to mean that if any of the commercial banks, both private and those that make up the National Banking System (Sistema Bancario Nacional), with the exception of the Central Bank of Costa Rica (Banco Central de Costa Rica), obtains net profits (utilidades netas), it must necessarily contribute to forming the resources of CONAPE with five percent of said profits. This contribution may be deducted from the taxable base (imponible) of the Income Tax (Impuesto sobre la Renta).” This is a parafiscal contribution (contribución de orden parafiscal), insofar as it is directed to financing a public entity through economic levies that do not enter the State’s Single Treasury System (Sistema de Caja Única del Estado), but rather directly nourish the budgetary assets of CONAPE. This economic charge, from the passive subjective perspective, is imposed on the commercial banks that make up the National Banking System (Sistema Bancario Nacional), a subjective parameter that is regulated in numeral 1 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System (Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional), No. 1644, and which includes the State Banks (Banco Central de Costa Rica, Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, Banco de Costa Rica, which merged by absorption with the defunct Banco Crédito Agrícola de Cartago – according to Law No. 9605 of September 12, 2018), as well as any private banking financial entity that has been authorized for these activities, and the bank branches of foreign banks domiciled in Costa Rica. However, the same regulation excludes the Banco Central de Costa Rica from the application parameter. For its part, the chargeable event (hecho generador) of this charge is the obtaining of net profits (utilidades netas) in the respective economic (annual) period, an element from which the taxable base (base imponible) is configured, which consists of the net profits (utilidades netas) of each period. The applicable rate (alícuota) is 5% on said taxable base (base imponible). In order to define the taxable base (base imponible), it is necessary to note that net profits (utilidades netas) are understood as those obtained by applying to total income (gross operating profit (utilidad operacional bruta)), the non-operating expenses and income respectively, and the legal reserve (reserva legal). That is, it is the economic benefit (beneficio económico), after subtracting from total income the operating expenses necessary to obtain the income, as well as obligations to third parties and other capital outflows made in the respective accounting period. However, in Law No. 6319 of authentic interpretation (interpretación auténtica), it is indicated that the tax quota derived from this contribution can be deducted from the taxable base (imponible) of the income tax. For this, it is necessary to point out that in accordance with ordinal 14 of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta), No. 7092, the taxable base (base imponible) is defined as the net income (renta neta), which, in order to what is regulated by Article 7 of the same law, is defined as: “…the result of deducting from the gross income (renta bruta) the useful, necessary, and pertinent costs and expenses to produce the profit or benefit, and the other outlays expressly authorized by this law, duly supported by receipts and recorded in the accounting.” This concept is distinct from what is called DISPOSABLE INCOME (RENTA DISPONIBLE), which, in accordance with Article 16 of the same legislation, is that which results from applying the tax charges to the net income (renta neta), being, therefore, the remainder that the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) can dispose of. From that perspective, the reducing effect introduced by the payment of the contribution in favor of CONAPE, insofar as it is applied to the net income (renta neta) (or taxable base (imponible)), leads to the establishment that regardless of the designation NET PROFIT (UTILIDAD NETA), and its conceptual accounting projection, the taxable base (base imponible) and calculation base for this parafiscal contribution is configured from the profits of the commercial banks, before the payment of the respective taxes. This is so because, otherwise, it would not make sense for this contribution to be able to reduce the taxable base (base imponible) of the income tax.

**IV.-** Now, from the analysis of the content of that mandate, this Chamber considers that the cited contribution is imposed on commercial banks as legal entities, with respect to their annual net profits. These concepts allow establishing that the parafiscal burden falls on a particular legal entity (as taxable person), and not on other legal entities that this financial entity may have created, within the framework of permissibility granted by the Legal System, entities that, although linked, possess legal autonomy and are understood as centers of imputation distinct from the commercial bank. The mere link that may arise between the two entities from the capital contributions or investments that the Bank may make in creating that new legal entity as a business model, does not mean that, for the purposes of the contribution under examination, they constitute the same legal entity and therefore the same taxable person. These are subjects that, although they can be considered part of a financial conglomerate, ultimately, from the standpoint of legal imputation and referability, are diverse legal entities, each with diverse legal obligations. In that sense, as BCR correctly indicates, the Securities Market Regulatory Law, No. 7732, in article 55, authorizes public banks to incorporate companies, for the purpose of operating their own brokerage house, or to incorporate investment fund management companies and pension operators. The functional economic independence of those entities is evidenced in the second paragraph of that provision as it requires the independent management of accounting and operations regime. That provision states in the second paragraph:

“*In such cases, the brokerage houses, investment fund management companies, and pension operators must keep their operations and their accounting totally independent from the institution to which they belong. This provision shall also apply to private brokerage houses, in relation to their partners and with other companies belonging to the same economic interest group. The State and public institutions and companies may acquire securities, make their investments, or place their issuances, through any brokerage house, without prejudice to the applicable provisions regarding administrative contracting.*” Furthermore, the participation of State banks in the creation of other legal entities in the form of corporations (sociedades anónimas) can be total or partial, as is indeed inferred from article 47 of the Insurance Market Regulatory Law, No. 8653, which regulates the authorization for the Instituto Nacional de Seguros to incorporate, jointly with the public banks of the State, a single corporation for the exercise of insurance activity, as its sole corporate purpose. From this perspective of understanding, the creation of those corporations by BCR speaks to the legitimate exercise for those legal entities to carry out activities different from those inherent to the financial intermediation carried out by the commercial bank. Therefore, they are entities distinct from the bank, even though it is clear that they belong to a conglomerate presenting common interests, an undeniable relationship arising from the circumstance that the bank is the one that decides to create those companies and provides the funds for their operation, whether under a scheme of total investment or shared with other entities, when the law so enables. However, it is reiterated, that sole economic relationship or affinity does not mean that for the purposes of article 20 of Law No. 6041, the companies created by BCR must be understood as part of the same financial entity, and that, therefore, based on that (pseudo) economic-material integration, the profits generated by those independent entities can be inserted within the net profits of the bank. All told, the concept of net profits leads to the assumption that, when those corporations transfer financial benefits or profits to the financial flow and budget of the Bank that has constituted them, that is, when they are realized profits, such assets would indeed be part of the taxable base of the cited contribution, as they would form part of the quantitative parameter regulated by the provision in question. But such reference is distinct from the general and direct inclusion of the profits of those companies, regardless of that effective transfer of net profits.

**V.-** Now, CONAPE argues that BCR has violated the calculation basis of the contribution in question by removing from said parameter the net profits of its subsidiaries, even though the Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras (SUGEF) has already indicated that commercial banks must report their profits on a consolidated basis. BCR argues that this practice is applied because it is required by SUGEF, but it violates International Accounting Standards (Normas Internacionales de Contabilidad, NIC). On one hand, the analysis of the validity of any conduct regarding information records by SUGEF with respect to entities submitted or subject to its supervisory and control competence is not the object of this process.

Such a claim has not been made by BCR or by any of the parties, which, in accordance with the procedural consistency regulated in Article 119 of the Contentious Administrative Procedural Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), prevents issuing a ruling or value judgment on that particular matter. On the other hand, any analysis of that aspect would require, as a derivation of due process (debido proceso), the joinder to this litigation of both SUGEF and the Banco Central de Costa Rica, in accordance with the rules of representation established by Law No. 7732. However, CONAPE mentions, as the basis for its case theory, that SUGEF has already issued its criterion on this matter of net profits (utilidades netas), for which purpose it cites official communication SUGEF-64-2001 of January 5, 2001. For those purposes, in its complaint, it refers to that opinion in the following sense relevant to this discussion:

“... The Superintendency maintains that pursuant to Article 20 of the Organic Law of the National Banking System (Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional), reserves are an integral part of net profits (utilidad neta). It adds that semiannually the banks of the System must request authorization from the Superintendency to set aside the sums necessary for the formation of reserves in order to subsequently determine the net profits (utilidades netas) of the period. Those reserves must be conceptualized as expenses, which are the decreases in economic benefits during the accounting period in the form of outflows or depletion of assets or incurrence of liabilities that result in a decrease in capital, different from those related to capital distributions to partners. It adds that this definition of expenses encompasses losses such as expenses that arise in the course of the normal activities of an entity. Hence, it considers that they must be taken into account for the determination of the net profits (utilidad neta) of the Banco Nacional for purposes of the contribution to CONAPE. In order of the distribution of net profits (utilidades netas) strictly speaking, SUGEF adds that apart from what is established in Article 12 of the LOSBN, the contribution to CONAPE must be calculated on net profits (utilidad neta), pointing out that it cannot be interpreted that said sums are deductions from the net profit to calculate other taxes not contemplated in Article 12, such as the contribution to CONAPE. In order of the consolidation of profits (consolidación de utilidades), SUGEF points out that the net income generated by subsidiaries that consolidate financial statements with the Bank form part of the net profit (utilidad neta) of the banking entity. It adds that investments in associated companies or subsidiaries must be recorded by the equity method (método de participación), an accounting method by which the investment is initially recorded at cost and is subsequently adjusted for the changes subsequent to its acquisition in the investor's participation in the net assets of the company in which it invests. It adds that, if the associated company or subsidiary obtains profit in its results, the investor entity reflects them in its income statement, computing in the net profit income for the proportional part of its participation in said company, and similarly if the associated company or subsidiary obtains losses, the investor entity will record a loss in its income statement for the proportional part of its participation in the associated company or subsidiary. Hence, the Banco Nacional must reflect in its results or in the computation of net profit the results of its associated companies or subsidiaries for the corresponding part of its participation. It considers that the investor entity has a certain degree of responsibility for the performance of its investment, which justifies the inclusion in its results of its participation in the profit or loss of the associated subsidiary. It clarifies that the effect of that accounting treatment "is that the amounts of the net profit for the year and of the accounting capital at the end of the period are identical to the balances that would be had if the financial statements of the investor entity had been consolidated with its subsidiaries and associated companies". (...)” The emphasis is supplied.

Said citation refers to two specific topics; on the one hand, the need to include within net profits (utilidad neta) the legal reserves, an extreme regarding which express reference is made to the impact it has for the contribution to CONAPE. The other, alludes to the consolidation (consolidación) in the financial statements of the net profit produced by the subsidiaries, in order for them to be reported as part of the bank's net profit, as a derivation of the application of data recording through the equity method (sistema de participación). Regardless of the concrete reasons that supported that position, which, it is reiterated, is not part of this proceeding, the truth of the matter is that SUGEF's requirements regarding the presentation of consolidated financial statements in respect of the activities of those economic conglomerates do not imply that said treatment defines that the net profits (utilidades netas) of commercial banks, for the purposes of the contribution regulated in Article 20 of Law No. 6041, follow the same treatment. Indeed, the implications that said consolidation (consolidación) may have for purposes of preventive control and supervision of the financial sector, with a view to the proper functioning of the financial conglomerate in which those banking entities participate, are not automatically transferable to tax manifestations such as the one being analyzed.

As indicated, the regulations establish with precision and clarity that the contribution is levied on the net profits of commercial banks, specifying that the contribution to CONAPE was deductible from the taxable base of the tax regulated under Law No. 7092 – income tax. Thus, the mere reference to criteria regarding consolidated information contributions for SUGEF’s supervisory function does not state that the same treatment must be applied to the case under examination. In that regard, the taxable base under Article 20 of Law 6041 is the net profit of the commercial bank as a legal entity, not that of its subsidiaries. It is reiterated that, to the extent that the profits of those companies are transferred to the bank as profit from returns, those amounts must be considered as part of that calculation parameter, but this does not imply the necessary consideration, a priori, of the profits of those companies in the disputed taxable base. Nor can it be said that the mere participation of the commercial bank in those subsidiaries (through incorporation and investment) represents a profit that must be added to the calculation base for that contribution, since these are capital participations for investment that can only be considered gains when those participations are sold or when there is a transfer of profits or dividends [...]

Consequently, the differences claimed by CONAPE are based on the inclusion, within that calculation, of the profits generated by the subsidiaries, an aspect that, as has been developed, does not derive from the reference law. The mere circumstance that in periods prior to 2016, the financial institution did not apply this methodology does not generate a criterion that can be invoked in this litigation. The actions of the BCR find support in the interpretation of the scope of the parafiscal relationship that derives from the content of Article 20 of Law No. 6041, regarding the projection of the constituent elements of the contribution regulated therein. Therefore, the claim to order payment of those alleged differences turns out to be unfounded, since the fund transfers made by the BCR conform to and correspond with the legal parameters of the disputed contribution. By accessoriness, it is clear that the claim for payment of financial interest on those claimed sums is equally unfounded, as it is conditioned upon and dependent on the recognition of that principal claim."

"III.- Sobre la contribución parafiscal debatida. El objeto del proceso estriba en el análisis de la base imponible para el cálculo de la contribución especial del 5% a favor de CONAPE, que se impone a los bancos comerciales del sistema bancario nacional impone el canon 20 de la Ley No. 6041. El tema en concreto se delimita por la inclusión o no dentro de ese parámetro de cálculo, de las utilidades de las empresas o sociedades subsidiarias de esos entes financieros. Para tales efectos, en orden a las alegaciones de las partes, es necesario referirse al texto que crea la citada aportación. Mediante la Ley No. 6041 del 18 de enero de 1977, se crea CONAPE, como una institución semiautónoma cuyas competencias se direccionan, fundamentalmente, a constituirse como una instancia de financiamiento para estudios de educación superior para universitaria y superior universitaria, bajo un sistema basado en el mérito personal y las condiciones socio-económicas de las personas beneficiarias. Así se desprende del ordinal 2 inciso a) de esa legislación. En lo que viene relevante al tema, el Capítulo III de esa norma regula lo relativo a los recursos de la Comisión. En concreto, el canon 20 señala las fuentes de financiamiento de CONAPE, siendo que, para los efectos de este fallo, interesa particularmente lo señalado en el inciso a) que preceptúa, en su tenor literal:

“ARTICULO 20.- La Comisión contará con los recursos siguientes:

• a)Una suma equivalente al cinco por ciento de las utilidades anuales netas de todos los bancos comerciales del país, suma que será deducida del Impuesto sobre la Renta que deba pagar cada banco; (…)” Cabe destacar que, ese inciso, fue interpretado de manera auténtica mediante el artículo único de la ley N° 6319 del 10 de abril de 1979, en el siguiente sentido:

“Artículo único. - Interprétase auténticamente el artículo 20, inciso a), de la ley Nº 6041 del 9 de febrero de 1977, en el sentido de que si cualquiera de los bancos comerciales, privados y los que integran el Sistema Bancario Nacional, con excepción del Banco Central de Cota Rica, obtuviere utilidades netas, debe contribuir necesariamente a formar los recursos de CONAPE con el cinco por ciento de dichas utilidades. Esta contribución podrá ser deducida del imponible del Impuesto sobre la Renta.” Se trata de una contribución de orden parafiscal, en la medida en que se direcciona a financiar un ente público mediante captaciones económicas que no ingresan al Sistema de Caja Única del Estado, sino que nutren de modo directo, el haber presupuestario de CONAPE. Dicha carga económica, desde el plano subjetivo pasivo, se impone a los bancos comerciales que integran el Sistema Bancario Nacional, parámetro subjetivo que se regula en el numeral 1 de la Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional, No. 1644 y que incluye a los Bancos del Estado (Banco Central de Costa Rica, Banco Nacional de Costa Rica, Banco de Costa Rica, mismo que fusionó por absorción al extinto Banco Crédito Agrícola de Cartago –según ley No. 9605 del 12 de septiembre del 2018), así como toda entidad financiera bancaria privada que haya sido habilitada para esas actividades, así como las sucursales bancarias domiciliadas en Costa Rica de bancos extranjeros. Empero, la misma normativa excluye del parámetro de aplicación al Banco Central de Costa Rica. Por su parte, el hecho generador de esa carga lo constituye la obtención de utilidades netas en el respectivo ejercicio económico (anual), elemento a partir del cual se configura la base imponible que consiste en las utilidades netas de cada período. La alícuota aplicable es de un 5% sobre dicha base imponible. De cara a definir la base imponible es necesario señalar que por utilidades netas se entienden aquellas que se obtienen de aplicar a los ingresos totales (utilidad operacional bruta), los gastos e ingresos no operacionales respectivamente y la reserva legal. Es decir, es el beneficio económico, luego de restar de los ingresos totales, los gastos de operación necesarios para obtener los ingresos, así como las obligaciones con terceros y otras salidas de capital realizadas en el respectivo período contable. Empero, en la Ley No. 6319 de interpretación auténtica, se indica que la cuota fiscal derivada de esa contribución, puede deducirse del imponible del impuesto sobre la renta. Para ello, es necesario señalar que de conformidad con el ordinal 14 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, No. 7092, la base imponible se define como la renta neta, misma que, en orden a lo regulado por el canon 7 ejusdem, se define como “… el resultado de deducir de la renta bruta los costos y gastos útiles, necesarios y pertinentes para producir la utilidad o beneficio, y las otras erogaciones expresamente autorizadas por esta ley, debidamente respaldadas por comprobantes y registradas en la contabilidad.” Este concepto es diverso a la denominada RENTA DISPONIBLE, que, de conformidad con el artículo 16 de la misma legislación, es la que resulta de aplicar a la renta neta las cargas tributarias, siendo, por ende, el remanente del cual puede disponer el sujeto pasivo. Desde ese plano, el efecto reductor que introduce el pago de la contribución a favor de CONAPE, en tanto se aplica a la renta neta (o imponible), lleva a establecer que al margen de la denominación UTILIDAD NETA, y su proyección conceptual contable, la base imponible y de cálculo de esa aportación parafiscal se configura a partir de las utilidades de los bancos comerciales, antes del pago de los tributos respectivos. Lo anterior ya que, de otro modo, no tendría sentido que se esa contribución pueda deducir la base imponible del impuesto sobre la renta.

IV.- Ahora bien, del análisis del contenido ese mandato, esta Cámara estima que la citada contribución se impone a los bancos comerciales como entidades jurídicas, en lo que corresponde a sus utilidades netas anuales. Esos conceptos permiten establecer que la carga parafiscal recae sobre una persona jurídica en particular (como sujeto pasivo), y no sobre otras personas jurídicas que ese ente financiero pudo haber creado, dentro del marco de permisibilidad que le otorga el Ordenamiento Jurídico, personas que, ostentan autonomía jurídica y aunque vinculados, se entienden como centros de imputación diversos al banco comercial. La sola vinculación que pueda desprenderse entre ambas entidades a partir de los aportes de capital o inversiones que el Banco pueda realizar en la creación de ese nuevo ente jurídico como modelo de negocio, no hace que, para los efectos de la contribución bajo examen, se trate de la misma persona jurídica y por tanto del mismo sujeto pasivo. Se trata de sujetos que si bien, puede estimarse que forman parte de un conglomerado financiero, en definitiva, desde el plano de la imputación y referibilidad jurídica, son personas jurídicas diversas, cada una con obligaciones jurídicas diversas. En ese sentido, como bien indica el BCR, la Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores, No. 7732, en el ordinal 55, autoriza a los bancos públicos la constitución de sociedades, con el fin de operar su propio puesto de bolsa, o bien constituir sociedades administradoras de fondos de inversión y operadoras de pensiones. La independencia funcional económica de esas entidades, se pone en evidencia en el párrafo segundo de ese precepto en cuanto impone el manejo independiente de la contabilidad y régimen de operaciones. Señala esa norma en el párrafo segundo:

“En tales casos, los puestos, las sociedades administradoras de fondos de inversión y las operadoras de pensiones, deberán mantener sus operaciones y su contabilidad totalmente independientes de la institución a la que pertenezcan. Esta disposición se aplicará igualmente a los puestos de bolsa privados, en relación con sus socios y con otras sociedades pertenecientes al mismo grupo de interés económico. El Estado y las instituciones y empresas públicas podrán adquirir títulos, efectuar sus inversiones o colocar sus emisiones, por medio de cualquier puesto de bolsa, sin perjuicio de las disposiciones aplicables en materia de contratación administrativa.” Incluso, la participación de los bancos del Estado en la creación de otras personas jurídicas bajo la forma de sociedades anónimas, puede ser total o parcial, como en efecto se infiere del ordinal 47 de la Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Seguros, No. 8653 en cuanto regula la autorización para que el Instituto Nacional de Seguros constituya, conjuntamente con los bancos públicos del Estado, una única sociedad anónima para el ejercicio de la actividad aseguradora, como único objeto social. Desde esa arista de comprensión, la creación de esas sociedades anónimas por parte del BCR, dice del ejercicio legítimo para que esos entes jurídicos realicen actividades diversas a las que son propias de la intermediación financiera que ejerce el banco comercial. Ergo, son personas distintas al banco, aún y cuando es claro que pertenecen a un conglomerado que presenta intereses comunes, relación innegable a partir de la circunstancia de que el banco es quien decide crear esas sociedades y aporta los fondos para su funcionamiento, sea bajo un esquema de inversión total o compartida con otros entes, cuando la ley así lo habilite. Sin embargo, se insiste, esa sola relación o afinidad económica, no hace que para los efectos del artículo 20 de la Ley No. 6041, las sociedades creadas por el BCR, deban entenderse como parte del mismo ente financiero, y que, por tanto, a partir de esa (pseudo) integración material económica, pueda insertarse dentro de las utilidades netas del banco, las utilidades que son generadas por aquellas instancias independientes. Con todo, el concepto de utilidades netas lleva a suponer que, cuando esas sociedades anónimas trasladen beneficios financieros o utilidades al flujo financiero y presupuesto del Banco que las ha constituido, es decir, cuando se trate de utilidades realizadas, dicho patrimonio sí sería parte de la base imponible de la citada contribución, en tanto formarían parte del parámetro cuantitativo regulado por la norma en cuestión. Pero tal referencia es diversa a la inclusión general y directa de las utilidades de esas sociedades, al margen de ese traslado efectivo de utilidades netas.

V.- Ahora bien, CONAPE aduce que el BCR ha vulnerado la base de cálculo de la contribución de marras al suprimir de dicho parámetro las utilidades netas de sus subsidiarias, pese a que la Superintendencia General de Entidades Financieras (SUGEF), ya ha indicado que los bancos comerciales deben reportar sus utilidades de manera consolidada. El BCR aduce que esa práctica se aplica por ser requerida por la SUGEF, pero atenta contra las Normas Internacionales de Contabilidad (NIC). Por un lado, no es objeto de este proceso el análisis de validez de conducta alguna de registros de información de la SUGEF respecto de las entidades sometidas o sujetas a su competencia de fiscalización y control. Tal pretensión no ha sido formulada por el BCR ni por ninguna de las partes, lo que en orden a la congruencia procesal regulada en el numeral 119 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, impide verter pronunciamiento o juicio de valor sobre ese particular. Por otro lado, cualquier análisis de ese aspecto exigiría, como derivación del debido proceso, la integración a esta litis tanto de la SUGEF como del Banco Central de Costa Rica, acorde a las reglas de representación fijadas por la Ley No. 7732. Sin embargo, CONAPE menciona como base de su teoría del caso, que la SUGEF ya ha establecido su criterio sobre este tema de las utilidades netas, a efecto de lo cual cita el oficio SUGEF-64-2001 del 05 de enero del 2001. Para esos efectos, en su demanda, refiere a ese dictamen en el siguiente sentido relevante para esta discusión:

“… Sostiene la Superintendencia que conforme el artículo 20 de la Ley Orgánica del Sistema Bancario Nacional, las reservas son parte integrante de la utilidad neta. Agrega que semestralmente los bancos del Sistema deben solicitar autorización a la Superintendencia para apartar las sumas necesarias para la formación de las reservas para luego determinar las utilidades netas del período. Esas reservas deben conceptuarse como gastos, que son las diminuciones de los beneficios económicos durante el período contable en forma de salidas o agotamiento de activos o incurrencias de pasivos que resultan en disminución de capital, diferentes a las relacionadas con distribuciones de capital a los socios. Añade que esa definición de gastos abarca pérdidas como gastos que surjan en el curso de las actividades normales de una entidad. De allí que estime que deben considerarse para la determinación de la utilidad neta del Banco Nacional para efectos del aporte a CONAPE. En orden a la distribución de las utilidades netas propiamente dichas, la SUGEF agrega que aparte de lo dispuesto en el artículo 12 de la LOSBN, debe computarse sobre la utilidad neta el aporte a CONAPE, señalando que no puede interpretarse que dichas sumas son deducciones a la utilidad neta para calcular otros impuestos no contemplados en el artículo 12, como es el aporte a CONAPE. En orden a la consolidación de utilidades, la SUGEF señala que forman parte de la utilidad neta del ente bancario, los ingresos netos que hayan generado las subsidiarias que consolidan estados financieros con el Banco. Agrega que las inversiones en empresas asociadas o subsidiarias deben registrarse por el método de participación, método de contabilidad por el cual la inversión se registra inicialmente al costo y se ajusta posteriormente por los cambios subsecuentes a su adquisición en la participación del inversionista en los activos netos de la compañía en que se invierte. Agrega que, si la compañía asociada o subsidiaria obtiene utilidad en sus resultados, la entidad inversionista los refleja en su estado de resultados, computando en la utilidad neta ingresos por la parte proporcional de su participación en dicha compañía y similarmente sí la asociada o subsidiaria obtiene pérdidas, la entidad inversionista registrará una pérdida en su estado de resultados por la parte proporcional de su participación en la asociada o subsidiaria. De allí que el Banco Nacional deba reflejar en sus resultados o en el cómputo de la utilidad neta los resultados de sus compañías asociadas o subsidiarias por parte correspondiente de su participación. Estima que la entidad inversionista tiene cierto grado de responsabilidad por el rendimiento de su inversión, lo que justifica la inclusión en sus resultados de su participación en la utilidad o pérdida de la asociada subsidiaria. Aclara que el efecto de ese tratamiento contable "es que los importes de la utilidad neta del ejercicio y del capital contable al final del período son idénticos a los saldos que se tendría si se hubieran consolidado los estados financieros de la entidad inversionista con sus subsidiarias y asociadas". (…)”. El resaltado es suplido.

Dicha cita refiere a dos temas concretos; por un lado, la necesidad de incluir dentro de la utilidad neta las reservas legales, extremo respecto del cual se hace expresa referencia al impacto que tiene para la contribución a CONAPE. La otra, alude a la consolidación en los estados financieros de la utilidad neta producidas por las subsidiarias, a fin de que se reporten como parte de la utilidad neta del banco, como derivación de la aplicación del registro de datos mediante el sistema de participación. Al margen de las razones concretas que sustentaron esa postura, misma que, se reitera, no es parte de este proceso, lo cierto del caso es que las exigencias de la SUGEF en cuanto a la presentación de estados financieros consolidados respecto de las actividades de esos conglomerados económicos, no implica que ese tratamiento defina que las utilidades netas de los bancos comerciales, para los efectos del aporte regulado en el artículo 20 de la Ley No. 6041, siga el mismo tratamiento. En efecto, las implicaciones que para efectos del control preventivo y fiscalización del sector financiero pueda tener esa consolidación, de cara al debido funcionamiento del conglomerado financiero del que participan esas entidades bancarias, no son trasladables de manera automática a manifestaciones impositivas como la que se analiza. Como se ha señalado, la normativa fija con precisión y claridad que la contribución recae sobre las utilidades netas de los bancos comerciales, precisando que, el aporte a CONAPE era deducible de la base imponible del impuesto regulado en la Ley No. 7092 –impuesto sobre utilidades-. De esa manera, la sola referencia a criterios sobre aportes de información consolidada para el ejercicio de fiscalización de la SUGEF, no dice que ese mismo tratamiento deba aplicarse al caso bajo examen. En ese sentido, la base imponible del artículo 20 de la Ley 6041 es la utilidad neta del banco comercial como entidad jurídica, no así la de sus subsidiarias. Se insiste, en la medida en que las utilidades de esas sociedades sean trasladadas al banco como utilidad por rendimientos, esos montos deben ser considerados como parte de ese parámetro de cálculo, pero ello no dice de la necesaria consideración, a priori, de las utilidades de esas sociedades, en la base imponible debatida. Tampoco puede decirse que la sola participación del banco comercial en esas subsidiarias (por constitución e inversión), suponga una utilidad que deba agregarse a la base de cálculo de esa contribución, ya que se trata de participaciones de capital para inversión que solamente pueden considerarse ganancias cuando esas participaciones sean enajenadas o bien, exista traslado de utilidades o dividendos [...]

En consecuencia, las diferencias que reclama CONAPE se sustentan en la inclusión, dentro de ese cálculo, de las utilidades producidas por las subsidiarias, aspecto que, según se ha desarrollado, no se desprende de la ley de referencia. La sola circunstancia de que en períodos previos al 2016, el ente financiero no haya aplicado dicha metodología, no genera un criterio oponible a este litigio. Las acciones del BCR encuentran respaldo en la interpretación de los alcances de la relación parafiscal que se desprende a partir del contenido del ordinal 20 de la Ley No. 6041, en cuanto a la proyección de los elementos constitutivos de la contribución ahí regulada. Por ende, la pretensión de ordenar el pago de esas supuestas diferencias resulta ser improcedente, por cuanto los traslados de fondos realizados por el BCR se ajustan y corresponden a los parámetros legales de la contribución debatida. Por accesoriedad, es claro que el reclamo de pago de réditos financieros sobre esas sumas reclamadas, resulta igualmente improcedente, al estar condicionados y ser dependientes del reconocimiento de aquel principal".