Municipalities as tax authorities to set default interest ratesMunicipalidades como administraciones tributarias para fijar intereses moratorios

IV.- On the merits of the grievances. The appellant's protests are admissible. This Civil Appeals Chamber considers that in issuing her denial, the lower court omitted the necessary in-depth analysis regarding the origin and temporal validity of the interest rates she specifically demands be applied to the collection of the various components claimed as owed, and furthermore, she does not systematically assess the regulatory provisions on which her decision was based.

Article 77 of the Municipal Code, Law 7794, empowers municipalities, among other things, to propose their taxes to the Legislative Assembly and to set the rates and prices of municipal services. In accordance with the foregoing, Article 78 of that legal body, in its final paragraph, provides that late payments will generate fines and moratory interest (intereses moratorios), which shall be calculated according to the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios). This regulatory reference leads us to Article 57 of Law 4755, which provides: “Interest payable by the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo).

Without any action required by the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), payment made outside the term creates the obligation to pay interest together with the tax owed. This obligation also arises when partial payments are not made in accordance with Article 22 of Law No. 7092, Income Tax Law, of April 21, 1988, and its amendments. By resolution, the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) shall set the interest rate, which must be equivalent to the simple average of the active rates of state banks for commercial sector loans and, in no case, may it exceed the basic passive rate fixed by the Central Bank of Costa Rica by more than ten points.

Said resolution must be issued at least every six months. The interest must be calculated taking as reference the rates in force from the moment the tax should have been paid until its effective payment. Forgiveness of the payment of this interest is not applicable, except when an error by the Administration is demonstrated.

(Thus amended by Article 1 of Law No. 8981 of August 25, 2011).” The articulation of all these rules allows us to determine that municipal governments may establish a charge for their services which, upon non-timely payment by the administered party or recipient, generates the claim for fines and moratory interest (intereses moratorios) to be borne by the debtor of the obligation. In the case of the latter, their percentage setting must respond to the legality framework or principle of specificity (principio de tipicidad) (Article 39 of the Political Constitution) and to the regulations contained in Article 57 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) transcribed, and regarding which we highlight that it is the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) which shall set the interest rate under the rules of said regulations and whose administrative resolution must be reviewed every semester.

The determining point of this provision and what generates the substance of the appeal's claim rests on the figure of the “Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria)”, which the lower court seems to understand applies in this specific case only to the administrative bodies attached to the Ministry of Finance; this by stating in her resolution that the percentage charge of interest contained in the base document differs from the rates established and published by the Dirección General de Hacienda and the Dirección General de Aduanas. Such referral made by the lower court is incorrect and lax, as the Court of First Instance failed to determine the correct personification and functional conceptualization of the term “Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria)” for this specific case, which is necessary to develop.

Article 99 of Law 4755 conceptualizes it as follows: “Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) is understood to be the administrative body responsible for managing and overseeing taxes, whether it be the treasury (fisco) or other public entities that are active subjects (sujetos activos), in accordance with Articles 11 and 14 of this Code.

Said body may issue general rules for the purpose of the correct application of tax laws, within the limits set by the pertinent legal and regulatory provisions.” The Article 11 to which it refers states: “Concept. The tax obligation (obligación tributaria) arises between the State or other public entities and the taxpayers (sujetos pasivos) as soon as the taxable event (hecho generador) provided by law occurs; and constitutes a personal bond, although its compliance is ensured through a real guarantee or with special privileges.” For its part, Article 14 explains: “Concept. The creditor entity of the tax is the active subject (sujeto activo) of the legal relationship.” From the foregoing, we observe that the term "Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria)" is not defined by a specific express normative provision, but rather in our country it is conceptualized based on material elements in the functionality of the body or entity that can legally assume certain tasks, specifically: The exercise of certain tax functions together with the presence of an objective condition determined by law. This material criterion is clearly present in the essence of Article 99 ibidem partially transcribed, which points out that the function of the tax administration falls not only upon the central treasury (fisco) but also upon other public entities that are active subjects (sujetos activos). Note also that, in its last paragraph, it exemplifies the Tax Administration of the Ministry of Finance as a special faculty or power that falls upon the Dirección General de Tributación and is also extended to the Dirección General de Aduanas, Dirección General de Hacienda, and the Dirección General de la Policía de Control Fiscal, within their areas of competence, without limiting this rule to these dependencies being the only Tax Administrations that our public order recognizes as such.

Thus, to determine if we are in the presence of a "Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria)" one must analyze whether it presents the condition of active subject (sujeto activo) of a tax and the performance of specific tax functions, understanding such functions as the power to collect and oversee that same tax, which necessarily implies being a party in the tax procedure that tends to determine, liquidate, and review a specific tax.

These elements, as explained, may be present in bodies not belonging to the Executive Branch, which implies, and we reiterate, that the "Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria)" is not identified with a specific administrative body, to the point that there is a single "tax administration." On the contrary, there exists the possibility that various public entities may be constituted as "Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria)", exercising the corresponding functions and being subject to the duties and limits that regulate the action of the tax function. Note even that Article 99 under study employs the term “treasury (fisco)”, which is traditionally used to refer to the State or competent public authority in economic and fiscal matters. Consequently, with respect to a specific tax, the administrator will only be the body that combines the power to collect and oversee it, as well as to regulate it, in addition to the condition of active subject (sujeto activo).

From all the above, without a doubt, municipal governments are constituted as “Tax Administrations (Administraciones Tributarias)” in the exercise and collection of the taxes and services they provide within their territorial jurisdiction, an assertion that is in any case supported by Article 77 bis of the Municipal Code, which, as relevant, states: “The municipalities of the country are constituted as tax administrations and, consequently, shall have the faculties to exercise oversight and control in the collection of the various taxes assigned to them, and may intervene at any time after notification to the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo), within the time limits established in Law No. 4755, Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), of May 3, 1975, to ensure strict compliance with the legal provisions that grant them economic resources.

The municipalities, in their capacity as Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), shall have the faculties established in the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios). Regarding tax offenses, they shall also have the faculties established in Title III of said Code, concerning administrative infractions and sanctions. When a municipality, in the oversight phase of the taxes it administers, becomes aware that an alleged crime has been committed, it shall proceed to report it to the Public Ministry.” Let us observe how the legislator expressly grants the municipalities the status of Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) and the powers inherent to such status, namely: collection and administration of municipal taxes in its territory.

This understanding is of vital importance to be clear on the power of municipal governments to set, in accordance with the parameters of the regulatory integration of Articles 78 of the Municipal Code and 57 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), the rates to be charged for the moratory interest (intereses moratorios) arising from the non-payment of the corresponding municipal service or tax. Municipal autonomy prevails also in this field, where it is the corresponding and special “Municipal Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria Municipal)” that is responsible for setting the interest rates to apply in the collection that corresponds to it by law within its competence under the principle of specificity (principio de tipicidad) as a manifestation of the legality framework or principle that shelters the public administration. In this context, municipal entities cannot resort to analogical interpretation or the supplementary application of other regimes regarding the matter under study, since precisely Article 70 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) provided that: “The provisions of this Code apply to all tax infractions, except as expressly provided by the rules specific to each tax.” As a consequence of the above explanation, dealing with the calculation of interest on the collection carried out by the Municipality of Alajuela for the alleged non-payment of garbage collection services, storm sewer (alcantarillado pluvial) services, and terminal use (in the item for professional fees, no interest is charged), contained in the base document of the process, they cannot correspond to the parameters that the lower court asserts are predetermined by the Dirección General de Hacienda, much less by the Dirección General de Aduanas, settings that said bodies established and published in the Gazette (Gaceta) of March 27, 2019, with the aggravating factor that in her exposition she seeks to apply the validity of said rates to items that were generated long before their publication.

Indeed, given that she bases the rejection of the process on the non-application of these rates published in March 2019, the lower court carelessly ignores that the plaintiff established in the base document the collection of monetary obligations that were generated previously. Regarding the garbage collection item, since September two thousand fifteen; for the storm sewer (alcantarillado pluvial) item, since the month of January two thousand sixteen; and for terminal use, since the month of August two thousand fifteen.

Added to the above is that due process has also been affected, given the rejection at the outset (ad portas) of the process. The spirit that shelters the entire Civil Procedure Code imposes a right to correction to facilitate access to justice (Articles 2.5, 4.1.1, and 5.2 ibidem), so if the Judge detected some pathology in the process such as the interest calculation, before its rejection, she should have formally and with adequate regulatory support, ordered its prior correction within a period of five days (Articles 28.1 and 35.2 of Law 9342). Furthermore, she omits evaluating the right to an adversarial process that the defendant has to formulate, if applicable, the objections it considers pertinent to the collection presented, both for its principal and its accessories (Article 110.2 ibidem). Likewise, it must be considered that within the regulation of the Civil Procedure Code, the rejection at the outset (ad portas) of a process is not contemplated, so it turns out to be a plainly illegal rejection. If the Judge determines the existence of elements that make the action unproposable, then she must follow the procedure indicated in Article 35.5 ejusdem and not simply deny the process without a right to rectify by the plaintiff.

In any case, a possible error in the interest calculation contained in the base document of the process in no way affects its suitability, whatever the base title presented may be, since what the law orders for these cases processed in this procedural track is the existence of a liquid and enforceable obligation (Article 110.1.1 ejusdem), understanding by that the principal amount or amounts that are claimed as breached by the defendant debtor, not the interest, which turns out to be accessory to these (an example of this is found in Articles 288 as civil fruit, 706, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165, and 1166, all of the Civil Code; 496 to 502 of the Commerce Code; 50, 55, 57 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) and 78 of the Municipal Code).

For all the foregoing, the appealed resolution is revoked so that, in its place, the lower court analyzes the enforceability of the title presented and, if appropriate, assesses the issuance of the payment order resolution without prejudice to there being any other element subject to prevention and correction.

In that context, municipal entities cannot resort to analogical interpretation or the supplementary application of other regimes regarding what is under study, precisely because article 70 of the Tax Code (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) provides that: "The provisions of this Code apply to all tax violations, unless expressly provided otherwise by the specific rules of each tax." As a consequence of the foregoing, regarding the calculation of interest on the collection made by the Municipality of Alajuela for the alleged non-payment of garbage collection, storm sewer, and terminal use services (in the line item for professional fees, no interest is charged), contained in the base document of the proceeding, they cannot correspond to the parameters that the lower court (a quo) asserts are predetermined by the Dirección General de Hacienda, much less by the Dirección General de Aduanas, determinations that said bodies established and published in the Official Gazette of March 27, 2019, with the aggravating factor that its exposition seeks to apply the validity of said rates to items that were generated long before their publication.

Indeed, given that it bases the rejection of the proceeding on the non-application of these rates published in March 2019, the lower court (a quo) carelessly ignores that the plaintiff established, in the base document, the collection of monetary obligations that were generated earlier. Regarding the garbage collection item, from September two thousand fifteen; the storm sewer item, from the month of January two thousand sixteen; and for terminal use, from the month of August two thousand fifteen.

Added to the above is that due process has also been affected, given the rejection of the proceeding at the threshold (ad portas). The spirit that encompasses the entire Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil) imposes a right to cure defects to facilitate access to justice (articles 2.5, 4.1.1, and 5.2 of the same code), so if the Judge detected any pathology in the proceeding, such as the calculation of interest, before its rejection, she should have, through a reasoned order based on adequate normative support, provided notice for its prior correction within a period of five days (articles 28.1 and 35.2 of Law 9342). Furthermore, she fails to assess the right to an adversarial proceeding held by the defendant to formulate, if applicable, the objections it deems pertinent to the collection presented, both for its principal and its accessories (article 110.2 of the same code). Likewise, it must be considered that within the regulation of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), the rejection of a proceeding at the threshold (ad portas) is not contemplated, so its decided rejection is outright illegal. If the Judge determines the existence of elements that make the action unenforceable, then she must follow the procedure indicated in article 35.5 of the same code and not simply deny the proceeding without a right to rectify on the part of the plaintiff.

In any case, a potential error in the calculation of interest contained in the base document of the proceeding does not in any way affect its suitability, regardless of the base title presented, since what the law orders for these cases processed in this procedural track is the existence of a liquid and enforceable obligation (article 110.1.1 of the same code), meaning by that the principal amount or amounts that are alleged as unfulfilled by the defendant debtor, not the interest, which are accessory to these (an example of this is found in articles 288 as civil fruit, 706, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165, and 1166, all of the Civil Code; 496 to 502 of the Commercial Code; 50, 55, 57 of the Tax Code (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) and 78 of the Municipal Code).

For all the reasons stated, the appealed resolution is reversed so that, in its place, the lower court (a quo) may analyze the enforceability of the title presented and, if appropriate, assess the issuance of the payment order (resolución intimatoria) without prejudice to the existence of any other element subject to a notice of defect and correction.

In that context, municipal entities cannot resort to analogical interpretation or the supplementary application of other regimes regarding the matter under study, since precisely numeral 70 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios provided that: "The provisions of this Code apply to all tax infractions, unless expressly provided otherwise by the rules specific to each tax." As a consequence of the foregoing, regarding the calculation of interest on the charge made by the Municipalidad de Alajuela for the alleged non-payment of trash collection services, storm sewer (alcantarillado pluvial), and terminal use (in the line item for professional fees no interest is charged), contained in the founding document of the proceeding, they cannot correspond to the parameters that the lower court claims are predetermined by the Dirección General de Hacienda, much less by the Dirección General de Aduanas, fixings that said bodies established and published in the Gaceta of March 27, 2019, with the aggravating factor that in its exposition it seeks to apply the validity of said rates to items that were generated long before their publication.

Indeed, given that it bases the rejection of the proceeding on the non-application of these rates published in March 2019, the lower court carelessly ignores that the plaintiff established, in the founding document, the claim for monetary obligations that arose previously. Regarding the trash collection item, since September two thousand fifteen; storm sewer since the month of January two thousand sixteen; and for terminal use since the month of August two thousand fifteen.

To the above is added that due process has also been affected, given the rejection at the threshold (ad portas) of the proceeding. The spirit that shelters the entire Código Procesal Civil imposes a right of correction (subsanación) to facilitate access to justice (articles 2.5, 4.1.1, and 5.2 thereof), such that if the Judge detected some pathology in the proceeding, such as the calculation of interest, before its rejection, she should have provided a prior, substantiated warning, with adequate regulatory backing, for its correction within the term of five days (articles 28.1 and 35.2 of Law 9342). Furthermore, she omits to weigh the right to an adversarial process that the defendant has to formulate, if applicable, the objections it deems pertinent to the claim presented, both as to its principal and its accessories (numeral 110.2 thereof). Likewise, it must be considered that within the regulation of the Código Procesal Civil, the rejection at the threshold of a proceeding is not contemplated, such that the decision made is an outright illegal rejection. If the Judge determines the existence of elements that make the action untenable, then she must follow the procedure indicated in numeral 35.5 ejúsdem and not simply deny the proceeding without a right to rectify on the part of the plaintiff.

In any case, an eventual error in the calculation of interest contained in the founding document of the proceeding in no way affects its suitability, whatever the foundational title presented, since what the law orders for these cases processed in this procedural track is the existence of a liquid and enforceable obligation (ordinal 110.1.1 ejúsdem), understanding by this the principal amount or amounts claimed as unfulfilled by the defendant debtor, not the interest that is accessory to these (an example of this we have in numerals 288 as civil fruit, 706, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165, and 1166, all of the Civil Code; 496 to 502 of the Commercial Code; 50, 55, 57 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, and 78 of the Código Municipal).

For all the foregoing, the appealed ruling is overturned so that, in its place, the lower court shall analyze the enforceability (ejecutividad) of the title presented and, if applicable, evaluate the issuance of the payment order (resolución intimatoria) without prejudice to the existence of any other element subject to warning and correction."

"IV.- Sobre el fondo de los agravios. Las protestas de la apelante son admisibles. Esta Cámara de Apelaciones Civiles considera que al dictar la a quo su resolución denegatoria, omite el análisis de profundidad necesario respecto al origen y la vigencia temporal de las tasas de interés que exige puntualmente aplicar al cobro de los distintos componentes que se acusan como adeudados y además, no valora sistemáticamente las disposiciones normativas en que se fundamentó su decisión.

El numeral 77 del Código Municipal, Ley 7794, faculta a las municipalidades entre otras cosas, para que propongan sus tributos a la Asamblea Legislativa y fijar las tasas y precios de los servicios municipales. En concordancia con lo anterior, el numeral 78 de ese cuerpo legal, en su párrafo final dispone que el atraso en los pagos generará multas e intereses moratorios, los que se calcularán según el Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios. Esta remisión normativa nos conduce al artículo 57 de la ley 4755, que dispone: “Intereses a cargo del sujeto pasivo.

Sin necesidad de actuación alguna de la Administración Tributaria, el pago efectuado fuera de término produce la obligación de pagar un interés junto con el tributo adeudado. Esta obligación también se produce cuando no se realicen pagos parciales conforme al artículo 22 de la Ley N.º 7092, Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta, de 21 de abril de 1988, y sus reformas. Mediante resolución, la Administración Tributaria fijará la tasa del interés, la cual deberá ser equivalente al promedio simple de las tasas activas de los bancos estatales para créditos del sector comercial y, en ningún caso, no podrá exceder en más de diez puntos de la tasa básica pasiva fijada por el Banco Central de Costa Rica.

Dicha resolución deberá hacerse cada seis meses por lo menos. Los intereses deberán calcularse tomando como referencia las tasas vigentes desde el momento en que debió cancelarse el tributo hasta su pago efectivo. No procederá condonar el pago de estos intereses, excepto cuando se demuestre error de la Administración.

(Así reformado por el artículo 1° de la ley N° 8981 del 25 de agosto del 2011).”. La articulación de todas estas las normas, nos permite determinar que los gobiernos municipales, pueden establecer un cobro por sus servicios los cuales, y ante el no pago oportuno por parte del administrado o destinatario, generan el reclamo de multas e intereses moratorios a cargo del deudor de la obligación. Tratándose de estos últimos, su fijación porcentual debe responder al del bloque de legalidad o principio de tipicidad (artículo 39 de la Constitución Política) y a las regulaciones contenidas en el numeral 57 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios transcrito, y sobre el cual resaltamos que es la Administración Tributaria quien fijará la tasa de interés bajo las reglas de dicha normativa y cuya resolución administrativa, deberá revisarse cada semestre.

El punto determinante de esta disposición y sobre lo que genera el fondo del reclamo de la apelación, descansa sobre la figura de la “Administración Tributaria”, la cual parece entender la a quo que responde para el caso concreto únicamente a los órganos administrativos adscritos al Ministerio de Hacienda; ello al señalar en su resolución que el cobro porcentual de intereses que contiene el documento base difiere de las tasas establecidas y publicada por la Dirección General de Hacienda y la Dirección General de Aduanas. Tal remisión efectuada por la a quo, resulta incorrecta y laxa, al no determinar el Juzgado de primera instancia la personificación y conceptualización funcional correcta del término “Administración Tributaria” para este caso concreto, mismo que es necesario desarrollar.

El artículo 99 de la ley 4755, lo conceptualiza de la siguiente forma: “Se entiende por Administración Tributaria el órgano administrativo encargado de gestionar y fiscalizar los tributos, se trate del fisco o de otros entes públicos que sean sujetos activos, conforme a los artículos 11 y 14 del presente Código.

Dicho órgano puede dictar normas generales para los efectos de la aplicación correcta de las leyes tributarias, dentro de los límites fijados por las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias pertinentes.”. El numeral 11 al que hace referencia refiere: “Concepto. La obligación tributaria surge entre el Estado u otros entes públicos y los sujetos pasivos en cuanto ocurre el hecho generador previsto en la ley; y constituye un vínculo de carácter personal, aunque su cumplimiento se asegure mediante garantía real o con privilegios especiales.”. Por su parte, el ordinal 14 explica: “Concepto. Es sujeto activo de la relación jurídica el ente acreedor del tributo.”.

De lo anterior observamos que el término "Administración Tributaria" se define no por una disposición expresa normativa concreta, si no que en nuestro país se conceptualiza a partir de elementos materiales en la funcionalidad del órgano u ente que pueda legalmente asumir ciertas tareas, en concreto: El ejercicio de determinadas funciones tributarias junto con la presencia de una condición objetiva determinada por ley. Este criterio material está claramente presente en la esencia del artículo 99 ibídem transcrito parcialmente, el cual apunta que la función de la administración tributaria, no solo recae en cabeza del fisco central, sino también en otros entes públicos que sean sujetos activos. Véase que además, en su último párrafo, ejemplifica a la Administración Tributaria del Ministerio de Hacienda, como una facultad o potestad especial que recae en la Dirección General de Tributación y que es extensivo además a la Dirección General de Aduanas, Dirección General de Hacienda y a la Dirección General de la Policía de Control Fiscal, en sus ámbitos de competencia, sin limitar dicha norma a que estas dependencias sean las únicas Administraciones Tributarias que nuestro ordenamiento público reconoce como tal.

Así, para determinar si estamos en presencia de una "Administración Tributaria" se debe analizar si presenta la condición de sujeto activo de un tributo y la realización de funciones tributarias específicas, entendiendo como dichas funciones el poder recaudador y fiscalizador de ese mismo tributo, lo que implica necesariamente el ser parte en el procedimiento tributario que tienda a determinar, liquidar y revisar un tributo determinado.

Esos elementos, como se ha explicado, pueden estar presentes en órganos no pertenecientes al Poder Ejecutivo, lo que implica y recalcamos que la "Administración Tributaria" no se identifica con un determinado órgano administrativo, al punto que existe una única "administración tributaria". Por el contrario, existe la posibilidad de que varios entes públicos se constituyan como "Administración Tributaria", ejerciendo las funciones correspondientes y estando sujetos a los deberes y límites que regulan el accionar de la función tributaria. Véase inclusive que el numeral 99 de estudio, emplea el término “fisco”, el cual es tradicionalmente empleado para referirse al Estado o autoridad pública competente en materia económica y fiscal. En consecuencia, respecto de un concreto tributo, será administrador solamente el órgano que reúna el poder de recaudarlo y fiscalizarlo, así como de normarlo, además de la condición de sujeto activo.

De todo lo expuesto, sin lugar a dudas los gobiernos municipales se constituyen en “Administraciones Tributarias” en el ejercicio y cobro de los tributos y servicios que brinden dentro de su circunscripción territorial, afirmación que en todo caso está respaldada en el artículo 77 bis del Código Municipal, que en lo que interesa señala: “Se constituye a las municipalidades del país como administraciones tributarias y, en consecuencia, tendrán facultades para ejercer fiscalización y control en la recaudación de los diversos tributos a ellas asignados, y podrán intervenir en cualquier momento previa notificación al sujeto pasivo, dentro de los plazos establecidos en la Ley N.° 4755, Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, de 03 de mayo de 1975, para asegurar el estricto cumplimiento de las normas legales que les otorgan recursos económicos.

Las municipalidades, en su condición de Administración Tributaria, tendrán las facultades establecidas en el Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios. En cuanto a ilícitos tributarios dispondrán también de las facultades establecidas en el título III de dicho Código, en lo que se refiere a infracciones y sanciones administrativas. Cuando una municipalidad, en la fase de fiscalización de los tributos que administra, tenga noticia de que se ha cometido un presunto delito, procederá a denunciarlo al Ministerio Público.”.

Observemos como el legislador le otorga expresamente a las municipalidades la condición de Administración Tributaria y las competencias inherentes a tal condición, a saber: recaudación y administración de impuestos municipales en su territorio.

Este entendimiento es de vital importancia para tener clara la potestad de los gobiernos municipales para fijar, conforme a los parámetros de la integración normativa de los artículos 78 del Código Municipal y 57 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, las tasas a cobrar por los intereses moratorios que originen el no pago del servicio o el impuesto municipal correspondiente. La autonomía municipal se impone también en este campo, en donde es la correspondiente y especial “Administración Tributaria Municipal” la encargada de fijar las tasas de interés para aplicar en el cobro que le corresponde por ley dentro de su competencia bajo el principio de tipicidad como una manifestación del bloque o principio de legalidad que cobija a la administración púbica. En ese contexto, no pueden las entidades municipales recurrir a la interpretación analógica o a la aplicación supletoria de otros regímenes en cuanto a lo que es objeto de estudio, pues precisamente el numeral 70 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, dispuso que: “Las disposiciones de este Código se aplican a todas las infracciones tributarias, salvo disposición expresa de las normas propias de cada tributo.”.

Consecuencia de lo explicado, tratándose del cálculo de intereses sobre cobro que realiza la Municipalidad de Alajuela por el supuesto no pago de los servicios de recolección de basura, alcantarillado pluvial y uso de terminal (en el renglón del cobro de honorarios profesionales no se cobran intereses), contenidos en el documento base del proceso, no pueden responder a los parámetros que asegura la a quo corresponden como predeterminados por la Dirección General de Hacienda ni mucho menos por la Dirección General de Aduanas, fijaciones que dichos órganos establecieron y publicaron en la Gaceta del 27 de marzo del 2019, con el agravante de que en su exposición busca aplicar la vigencia de dichas tasas sobre rubros que se han generado mucho antes de su publicación.

En efecto, siendo que fundamenta el rechazo del proceso por la no aplicación de estas tasas publicadas en marzo del 2019, la a quo ignora en forma descuidada, que el actor estableció en el documento base, el cobro de obligaciones dinerarias que se generaron anteriormente. Tratándose del rubro de recolección de basura desde setiembre del dos mil quince; del alcantarillado pluvial desde el mes de enero del dos mil dieciséis y por el uso de terminal desde el mes de agosto del dos mil quince.

A lo anterior se le suma a que el debido proceso también se ha visto afectado, dado el rechazo ad portas del proceso. El espíritu que cobija todo el Código Procesal Civil, impone un derecho de subsanación para facilitar el acceso a la justicia (artículos 2.5, 4.1.1 y 5.2 ibídem), por lo que si la Juzgadora ha detectado alguna patología en el proceso como lo es el cálculo de intereses, antes de su rechazo, debió prevenir en forma fundada y con respaldo normativo adecuado, su corrección previa en el plazo de cinco días (artículos 28.1 y 35.2 de la ley 9342). Además, omite valorar el derecho al contradictorio que tiene la parte demandada para que formule, si fuese el caso, las oposiciones que considere pertinente al cobro presentado, tanto de su principal como de sus accesorios (numeral 110.2 ibídem). Igualmente, debe de considerarse que dentro de la regulación del Código Procesal Civil, no está contemplado el rechazo ad portas de un proceso, por lo que decidido resulta ser un rechazo de plano ilegal. Si la Juzgadora determina la existencia de elementos que hacen que la acción sea improponible, entonces debe de seguir el procedimiento señalado en el numeral 35.5 ejúsdem y no simplemente denegar el proceso sin un derecho a rectificar por parte del actor.

En todo caso, un eventual error en el cálculo de intereses contenido en el documento base del proceso, no afecta de ninguna forma la idoneidad del mismo, sea cual sea el título base presentado, ya que lo que ordena la ley para estos casos tramitados en esta vía, es la existencia de una obligación líquida y exigible (ordinal 110.1.1 ejúsdem), entendiendo por ello el monto o los montos capitales que se acusan como incumplidos por el deudor demandado, no los intereses que resultan ser accesorios a estos (ejemplo de ello lo tenemos en los numerales 288 como fruto civil, 706, 1162, 1163, 1164, 1165 y 1166, todos del Código Civil; 496 a 502 del Código de Comercio; 50, 55, 57 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios y 78 del Código Municipal).

Por todo lo expuesto, se revoca la resolución impugnada para que, en su lugar, analice la a quo la ejecutividad del título presentado y si es del caso, valorar el dictado de la resolución intimatoria sin perjuicio de que exista algún otro elemento objeto de prevención y corrección."