Validity of agrarian stamp tax on share capital in merger by absorptionValidez del cobro del timbre agrario sobre capital social en fusión por absorción

VII.- On the defense of lack of standing of the State and INDER. The State has argued that the conduct subject to this proceeding is attributable to the National Registry (Registro Nacional), and therefore, since there is no attributable action, it lacks standing (legitimación ad causam) in this dispute. In this regard, it should be noted that for the purposes of Article 12 of the Contentious Administrative Procedural Code (CPCA) in relation to Article 21.1 of the Civil Procedural Code, standing is determined based on the link to the object of the proceeding, demarcated fundamentally by the claim asserted. In this sense, the legitimate party will be the one to which a specific legal relationship can be associated or attributed with the claim. This puts into perspective the relevance that the claim holds for determining the subjective links that determine procedural standing. From the passive standpoint, the legitimate party will be the subject or set of subjects against whom the exercise or enforceability of the (material) legal effect that is inserted within the petitionary framework is sought, and who have a relationship with that object. Thus, for example, pursuant to Article 12.1 of the CPCA, in nullification claims, the lawsuit must be brought (passive standing) against the Public Administration that authored that conduct. In requests for administrative provision, that subjective link entails having as the passive party the Administration upon which the obligation to provide is sought to be imposed. The same occurs in indemnification claims, in which it is clear that passive standing would be determined by a specific public entity's relationship with the claimed damage and the correlative duty of reparation by equivalence. Hence, it is the claim asserted that is the relevant reference from which such procedural prerequisite must be examined.

In this sense, the object of this proceeding was delimited in the preliminary hearing phase as follows:

"- The nullity of circular D.R.P.J.008-2012 be declared. - The nullity of circular DPJ-019-2016 be declared. - The nullity of the detail of defects issued by the assigned registrar with number 455, relating to the deed filed under volume 2016, entry 658319, consecutive 1, be declared. - The nullity of the unnumbered official letter whose reference states 'Qualification Doc. 2016-658319' dated December 12, 2016, be declared. - The nullity of the formal Qualification DPJ-FC-036-2016 dated December 23, 2016, be declared. - The nullity of the new detail of defects corresponding to volume 2016, entry 658319, consecutive 1 dated December 23, 2016, be declared. - The nullity of the Resolution of 9:00 a.m. on March 22, 2017, be declared. - The Instituto de Desarrollo Rural be ordered to fully return to my client the amount of ¢63,268,452.52 (sixty-three million two hundred sixty-eight thousand four hundred fifty-two colones and fifty-two céntimos), corresponding to the overpayment made under protest for the agrarian stamp (timbre agrario) concept; as well as the interest accrued up to the time of payment. - The National Registry (Registro Nacional) be ordered to pay the procedural and personal costs." The analysis of the content of these claims allows this Chamber to deduce that none of the formulated requests involves any relationship of the State with the claim, such that it could be considered as a passive party in this dispute. Upon closer examination, the core object of the lawsuit is a declaration that the actions of the National Registry (Registro Nacional) in the qualification of the merger by absorption transaction entered into by the plaintiff are contrary to law, regarding the criteria expressed and applied concerning the amount of the tax obligation derived from the so-called agrarian stamp (timbre agrario), regulated in Articles 13 and 14 of Law No. 5792. Furthermore, as a derivation of that invalidity, that INDER be obligated to refund the sums that the plaintiff estimates it has unduly paid. As can be observed, neither of these two thematic axes seeks to impose any effect on the State as a procedural subject; rather, the implications of the object of the proceeding involve conduct and provisions that are inherent to the National Registry (Registro Nacional) and INDER. The analysis performed leads to the conclusion that the actions giving rise to the liability are attributable to the National Registry (Registro Nacional) and by extension, as the specific recipient of the tax, to INDER, which, although it has not issued any conduct subject to judicial review, by having received the funds under debate, becomes the Administration upon which the obligation of restitution is sought to be imposed, based on canon 205 of the Tax Procedures Regulation, in relation to Article 43 of the Tax Rules and Procedures Code (CNPT).

In this regard, although the National Registry (Registro Nacional) is an administrative unit that, from an organizational standpoint, is part of the Central Administration (Ministry of Justice and Peace), the fact is that, in accordance with the Law Creating the National Registry, No. 5695 of May 28, 1975, Article 3, the Administrative Board of the National Registry (Junta Administrativa del Registro Nacional) is an organ with instrumental legal personality for the fulfillment of its purposes. Even Article 22 of that same legal framework obligates it to indemnify users for the damages and losses that the exercise of registry powers in processing documents may cause. Such an organizational condition places it within the factual scenario foreseen in Article 12.2 of the Contentious Administrative Procedural Code, in which it is necessary to join to the proceedings the entity to which it belongs, in this case, the State. Regardless of the analysis of the merits of such joinder of parties, a matter not debated in this case, the fact is that when the cause of liability is not attributable or referable, even partially, to the entity to which the personified organ belongs, the liability must fall upon the latter, given the ownership of a budget with which the imposed condemnation must be met. In cases where the administrative conduct subject to challenge originates from the exercise of an exclusive power of the organ granted instrumental personality, the passive standing in the case falls directly and exclusively against the personified organ, from which it is improper to extend the imputation to the public entity, greater or lesser, to which it is attached. In this proceeding, the object of the proceeding, as delimited by the plaintiff, allows for determining that the questioned conduct is only referable to the National Registry (Registro Nacional), in the exercise of its special power of document qualification, while those for restitution are undertaken against INDER. No factual element whatsoever pertaining to the State that can be related to the substantive object emerges in this proceeding, neither at the level of the conduct subject to the proceeding, nor of the civil remedies sought. Consequently, pursuant to the foregoing, regarding the State, aside from its joinder to this proceeding as provided by Article 12.2 of the Contentious Administrative Procedural Code, no link or relationship with the object of the proceeding can be said to exist; therefore, the proper course is to uphold the defense of lack of passive standing (legitimación ad causam pasiva) regarding the State and, consequently, order the dismissal of the lawsuit in all its aspects regarding this party. A different matter occurs with INDER. Indeed, in accordance with Article 13 of Law No. 5792, the agrarian stamp (timbre agrario) is constituted as a tax burden directed at financing that institute. Thus, it is clear that, although the questioned conduct was not issued by that public entity, part of the petitionary framework is aimed at obtaining the refund of the amounts paid under protest for that concept. This plea is formulated directly and specifically against INDER, an aspect that, per se, evidences a nexus with the object of the proceeding insofar as it seeks to impose a direct effect against that party. The foregoing generates the subjective link that is characteristic of passive standing. Therefore, its defense in that sense must be rejected [...]

IX.- On the content of the questioned circular. Legal parameters. As a primary aspect, it is decisive to refer to the legal regime that creates the so-called agrarian stamp (timbre agrario), in order to establish the referential parameter that will allow defining whether the content of circular DPJ-0019-2016 incurs the excesses upon which the plaintiff company bases its objections. On this matter, Law No. 5792 of September 1, 1975, in its Article 13, creates the agrarian stamp (timbre agrario), which is imposed on the execution of a series of acts or contracts specified in Article 14 of that same legal body. Given its relevance in the present matter, the literal transcription of both mandates is necessary, as the claimant postulates defects in the interpretation of these mandates, making it imperative to start from the grammatical scope of the rules in question to establish whether that semantic development allows for a plurality of possible interpretations or whether, on the contrary, that content does not support potential polysemies of possible content. The cited mandates state in their current version, since both articles were amended by subsection a) of Article 37 of Law No. 9036 of May 11, 2012, "Transforms the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (IDA) into the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural (INDER)":

"Article 13.- The agrarian stamp (timbre agrario) is created, which shall be covered by the individuals and legal entities that are the holders of the acts or contracts indicated in the following article. The funds coming from said tax shall be allocated to INDER, which shall collect, administer, and use its proceeds for the fulfillment of the purposes of its constitutive law.

The issuance, custody, sale, and distribution of the stamp shall be in charge of INDER, which is empowered to establish the channels deemed convenient to expedite its sale, using for this purpose the entities of the National Banking System and the electronic means that may be established by regulation.

Sales of this stamp, in amounts greater than five thousand colones (¢5,000.00), shall have the discount that fiscal species usually have. Said amount shall be updated every five years according to the inflation index established by the Central Bank of Costa Rica (BCCR).

For its part, Article 14 subsection d) regulates the taxable event analyzed in this proceeding, namely, the tax burden imposed on corporate merger transactions. That rule states in that subsection:

"Article 14.- The following acts or contracts shall be subject to the payment of the agrarian stamp (timbre agrario) and those who carry them out must cover the amount indicated in each case: a) (...) d) One colon and fifty céntimos (¢1.50) shall be paid for every thousand or fraction thereof, on the capital of commercial companies, in the constitution, merger, transformation, dissolution, and increases of capital.

Likewise, on the protocolizations that imply the modification of bylaws regarding the composition of the Board of Directors, corporate name, or domicile, ten thousand colones (¢10,000.00) shall be paid. This amount shall be updated every five years according to the inflation index established by the BCCR, starting from January 1 of the year following the publication of this law. Said increase must be published by means of a provision of general scope issued by INDER.

The respective tax must be paid upon registering the certification of the corresponding deed." Each of the parties presents its position regarding the components of the tax, which leads to clarifying this aspect. Regarding the subjective element, both active and passive, there is no major controversy, insofar as it is clear that the tax is created in favor of INDER, which in this dynamic becomes the Active Administration. For its part, the tax falls on the subjects who constitute and grant the businesses or contracts referred to in Article 14. In the specific case of the cited subsection d), it is evident that it is imposed on the commercial companies that participate in the procedures that subsection inventories.

Regarding the taxable event (generating event, hecho generador) (objective element), taxable base (base imponible), and tax rate, that mandate refers to two taxable events (hechos imponibles) upon which it imposes different rates. In the first scenario, it subjects acts of constitution, merger, transformation, dissolution, and capital increases. In this case, a tax burden of ¢1.50 per each ¢1,000.00 or fraction thereof is set, with the taxable base (base imponible) to which that rate is applied being THE CAPITAL OF COMMERCIAL COMPANIES. In the other scenario, the tax burden is imposed on the protocolizations of modifications to corporate bylaws relating to the composition of the Board of Directors, corporate name, or domicile. For these purposes, a fixed rate of ¢10,000.00 is imposed, updatable in five-year intervals. Relevant to this instance is the case of the first scenario, referring to acts of constitution, merger, transformation, dissolution, and capital increases. As has been indicated, the rule defines that the agrarian stamp (timbre agrario) is calculated on the capital of commercial companies, without making any difference as to the type of act or contract upon which the tax falls, nor does it set distinction criteria depending on the capital increase derived from mergers. From this perspective, the rule under discussion does not allow for distinguishing mergers by absorption from mergers from which a new corporate entity is constituted, as an element that has an impact on differentiated taxable bases (bases imponibles) depending on these types of transactions. Likewise, the rule does not specify, nor does it allow for this to be done, that the taxable base (base imponible) is the capital increase produced from the merger. Note that the generating event (hecho generador) refers to the acts or contracts (Art. 13) of constitution, merger, transformation, dissolution, and capital increases, based on which it establishes, as a generic calculation base, the capital of the commercial companies that participate in granting such acts. Under the shelter of that legal precept, the capital increase is one of the taxable events (hechos imponibles), but it does not constitute, within the framework of that tax relationship, a taxable base (base imponible).

The analysis of the mandate in question does not allow for deducing the existence of separate treatments according to the type of legal transaction upon which the tax manifestation falls, such that it cannot be sustained that categorizations that the law creating the tax does not establish are set. Strictly, the alluded rule takes as a generic calculation parameter, pertaining to each and every one of the taxed events, the capital of commercial companies, regardless of whether it concerns a capital increase, dissolution, transformation, constitution, or whether it is the result of a merger by absorption or by constitution. In this way, the typology of mergers, although it could generate implications in the context of the regime specific to the involved companies, from the perspective of the tax obligation imposed by Article 14 subsection d) of Law No. 5792, the specifications of those categories do not introduce distinction criteria for the purposes of the taxable base (base imponible) of the agrarian stamp (timbre agrario), which, it is insisted, falls on the capital of the corporate entity. If the legislator's intention had been that, in the concrete and specific case of business mergers, the object of the stamp would fall on the increase in equity, it would have been expressed as such; however, such specificity finds no support in that rule in question. For these purposes, by virtue of the provisions of Article 5 of the CNPT, the definition of the essential components of the tax is reserved to the law, within which the taxable base (base imponible) is a determining element, insofar as it constitutes the reference to which the tax rate is applied to obtain the quota or contribution of the passive subject. Thus, it is indicated with total clarity by subsection a) of the cited Article 5 of the CNPT, insofar as it imposes that: "In tax matters, only the law can: a) Create, modify, or suppress taxes; define the generating event of the tax relationship; establish the tax rates and their calculation bases; and indicate the passive subject; (...)". Of course, the prevalence of the principle of legal reserve in fiscal matters does not deprive the possibility that the tax rule must be subjected to interpretive analysis to infer its material scope in the context of the configuration of tax relationships within which the tax obligations are composed (Art. 6 ejusdem); however, interpretation cannot become a means of disapplication, derogation, or reform of the law, but rather a means that defines and specifies the manner in which the legal source must be applied. Consequently, just as the fundamental elements of the tax could not be covered or modified through interpretation, nor could the taxable event (hecho imponible) be extended to cases not foreseen by the rule, neither is it appropriate to pretend through this same means the inclusion of distinction criteria that the law does not directly impose. Now, as well postulated by Article 8 of the CNPT, when the generating event (hecho generador) refers to situations defined by other legal branches, the interpreter of the fiscal rule can assign the meaning that best adapts to the reality considered by the law when creating the tax. This means that the substantive content of what must be understood as merger, constitution, transformation, dissolution, or capital increase must be integrated with the regulations that the Commercial Code establishes for each of those transactions. However, that sole complementation does not lead to establishing criteria of distinction to apply to the taxable base (base imponible), when the law that creates the tax does not make that remission. There is no doubt that the taxable event (hecho imponible) falls on that type of act, as it is equally clear that the taxable base (base imponible) applicable to those actions was defined by law without inserting differences in consideration of the type of act taxed. Finally, regarding the period and payment of the tax, the same rule under discussion states that "The respective tax must be paid upon registering the certification of the corresponding deed." With this, it is undeniable that it is an instantaneous tax that must be satisfied at the moment of managing the registration of the certification of the respective deed. The very definition of this element allows establishing the role of the National Registry (Registro Nacional) in these fiscal relationships, insofar as, by holding the power for the registration of these acts, it becomes a collection agent for the cited stamp, which it carries out by verifying compliance with the legal requirements that are specific to each of the registrable acts. Precisely one of the legal conditions is the payment of this agrarian stamp (timbre agrario), such that it is that administrative authority that must verify compliance with this burden, after which it must transfer the corresponding amounts to INDER, as the recipient and administrator of the tax in question.

X.- Content of the circular. Now then, for the analysis of the objections that support the plaintiff's theory of the case, given that it alleges a series of abuses and incorrectness in the circular issued by the National Registry (Registro Nacional), it is necessary to specify the content of this general act, in order to establish whether it incurs the excesses and contradictions that the plaintiff asserts. In this sense, from the list of proven facts, it is established that on December 22, 2016, circular DPJ-019-2016 was issued, related to the Collection of the Agrarian Stamp (Timbre Agrario), a topic on which it is indicated:

"... In pursuit of giving proper application to the rule and thereby avoiding erroneous interpretations, it is clarified that when the contract being processed is a merger, the stamp amount must be calculated on the capital established for the prevailing or resulting entity, which will be registered and publicized as a product of said merger in this Registry. In cases of capital increase, for the amount corresponding to the increase to be made; and in the other cases (constitution, transformation, and dissolution) for the amount of the capital of the respective legal entity. (...) In accordance with the stipulated, Administrative Circular D.R.P.J. 008-2012, of November 28, 2012, is rendered without effect." (Images 390-391 of the main file) The analysis of the content of that circular reveals that it is limited to specifying a series of parameters it deemed proper and necessary for the correct application of the tax burden provided for in Article 14 subsection d) of Law No. 5792. On the one hand, it indicates that, for merger acts, the stamp amount was to be calculated on the capital established for the prevailing entity; for capital increases, the amount corresponding to the increase; and for the other taxed acts, again, the amount of the capital of the legal entity. Strictly, that act establishes guidelines of clarity according to the type of taxed transaction. However, from the comparison of that administrative conduct, it emerges with meridian clarity that its content is but a reproduction of the calculation base parameters set by the mentioned law. As has been indicated, the law states that, regarding those transactions, a tax burden of ¢1.50 per each ¢1,000.00 or fraction will be paid, on the basis of the capital of commercial companies. For its part, the cited circular indicates that, in the case of mergers, the calculation must be made on the capital established for the prevailing entity. The contrast between both regulatory sources allows concluding, without a doubt, the full and complete harmony of the circular with the rules legally imposed for the matter it develops, insofar as it alludes to the company's capital as the reference for calculating the tax. That administrative act has neither innovative nor modifying content regarding the legal treatment of that component of the tax, nor of its other constituent elements. From this perspective of examination, insofar as it is limited to reiterating the legal regulations, it cannot be affirmed that it has invaded the field reserved to the law in the tax sphere. Such compatibility between the circular and the law it seeks to apply generates a decisive impact in the context of the plaintiff's allegations, since the defects it reproaches the act in question are, in reality, formulated against the treatment that the law assigns to the contracts upon which the agrarian stamp (timbre agrario) falls, rather than against the content of the circular. In this sphere, aside from the subjective considerations one might have regarding that legal order, the fact is that it is not for this Court to make that type of assessment, due to the concentrated constitutional review model imposed by Article 10 of the Political Constitution and because it is an aspect outside the powers of this Contentious Administrative Jurisdiction, defined by Article 49 of the Magna Carta and developed by Law No. 8508. In this facet of analysis, no invalidity exists when the content of an administrative act conforms to the legal framework that enables it, such that considerations relating to the legitimacy of the law, as enacted, are matters triable in constitutional court. Thus, the allegations referring to supposed violations of the principle of non-confiscation, prohibition of double taxation, proportionality, and reasonableness, ability to pay, and equality, seek to make visible what the plaintiff considers are inequities and parameters of illegitimacy in the exercise of the tax power. Nevertheless, it is reiterated, the circular under analysis is limited to reproducing the calculation parameters given by the law, and therefore, these claims must be rejected insofar as the questioned act finds full support in the law it instrumentalizes. Unlike what the lawsuit postulates, the content of the cited circulars does not speak of an interpretive exercise of the parameters given by the law but is limited to reproducing what the law regulates. Hence, the defects alleged regarding injuries to tax principles are not referable to those acts. It must be insisted, if the promoting party considers that the tax structure violates the set of tax principles already cited, such debate must be directed against the legal source that gives genesis to the tax. It has not been established that the circular regulated anything different from, or in excess of, the law, such as to sustain the injury to the maxim of fiscal legal reserve that is reproached. Thus, regarding what has been the subject of challenge, the rejection of the nullity claim formulated against circular DPJ-019-2016 must be ordered.

XI.- Analysis of the specific acts challenged. On the other hand, the plaintiff company claims the invalidity of the conduct that materialized the qualification of its registry proceeding and in which the debt related to the payment of the agrarian stamp (timbre agrario) was set [...]

In this way, the content of that administrative conduct finds full support in the application of the calculation guidelines imposed for the agrarian stamp (timbre agrario), in accordance with the regulations discussed, and therefore, the irregularities claimed by the plaintiff do not occur. On the other hand, consequently, the payment of that difference made by the passive subject cannot be considered an undue payment, since it is protected by a legal requirement that conforms, in all respects, to the content of the law giving rise to the applied tax, without it being possible to derive that the circular issued by the National Registry (Registro Nacional) improperly interpreted those parameters or regulated something different from or additional to what the law establishes. The plaintiff's claims seek to equate the tax effect of its acts to a simple capital increase. However, it is clear that even when during the merger by absorption subject to controversy, one of its effects was the increase in share capital by ¢21,347,651.00, the fact is that the transaction entered into was not merely a capital increase, but a merger. This entails that, in the scope of application of Article 14 subsection d) of Law No. 5792, the applicable base for calculating the tax is the share capital and not the increase to said capital produced by virtue of the merger. Thus, the estimate made by the National Registry (Registro Nacional) is in accordance with the rules pertaining to the debated legal relationship. From the foregoing, it follows that the deficiencies in the grounds, content, or motivation are not present in the context of the questioned acts. Those formal conducts substantially conform to the Legal System, in what has been the subject of challenge. In summary, since the claimed deficiencies are not present, the rejection of the nullification claim formulated against those registry objections and decisions must be ordered. As a derivation of the foregoing, it is evident that the indemnification claim, which seeks the refund of the sums paid under protest, must be equally dismissed, since its viability, for logical reasons, is inextricably linked to the nullification claims. In this way, the rejection of the latter entails the inadmissibility of the former, and it is so ordered.

The representation of the State has indicated that the conduct subject to this proceeding is referable to the National Registry (Registro Nacional), and therefore, since there is no action attributable to it, it lacks standing (legitimación ad causam) in this dispute. In that regard, it should be noted that for the purposes of Article 12 of the CPCA in relation to Article 21.1 of the Civil Procedure Code (Código Procesal Civil), standing is determined based on the link to the object of the proceeding, fundamentally demarcated by the claim (pretensión) brought. In that sense, a legitimate party will be one to whom a specific legal relationship can be associated or attributed regarding the claim. This puts into perspective the relevance that the claim holds in determining the subjective links that determine procedural standing. From the passive standpoint, the legitimate party will be the subject or group of subjects against whom the exercise or enforceability of the (material) legal effect is sought, which is inserted within the petitionary framework and who present a relationship with that object. Thus, for example, in accordance with what is stipulated in Article 12.1 of the CPCA, in annulment claims (pretensiones anulatorias), the lawsuit must be directed (passive standing) against the Public Administration (Administración Pública) that authored that conduct. In demands for administrative performance, that subjective link entails having as the passive party the Administration upon which the duty to perform is sought to be imposed. The same occurs in claims for damages (pretensiones indemnizatorias), in which it is clear that passive standing would be determined by the relationship of a specific public entity to the harm claimed and the corresponding duty of reparation by equivalence. Hence, the claim brought is the relevant reference point from which such a procedural requirement must be examined. In that sense, the object of this proceeding was delimited in the preliminary hearing phase as follows:

"- The annulment of circular D.R.P.J.008-2012 is declared. - The annulment of circular DPJ-019-2016 is declared. - The annulment of the statement of defects issued by the assigned registrar with number 455, relating to the deed presented under the citations volume 2016, entry 658319, consecutive 1, is declared. - The annulment of the unnumbered official letter whose reference states "Calificación Doc. 2016-658319" dated December 12, 2016, is declared. - The annulment of the Formal Qualification DPJ-FC-036-2016 dated December 23, 2016, is declared. -The annulment of the new statement of defects corresponding to volume 2016, entry 658319, consecutive 1 dated December 23, 2016, is declared. - The annulment of the Resolution of 9:00 a.m. on March 22, 2017, is declared. - The Institute of Rural Development (INDER) is ordered to fully refund to my client the amount of ¢63,268,452.52 (sixty-three million two hundred sixty-eight thousand four hundred fifty-two colones and fifty-two céntimos), corresponding to the excess payment made under protest for the agricultural stamp (timbre agrario); as well as the interest accrued up to the moment of payment. - The National Registry is ordered to pay procedural and personal costs." The analysis of the content of those claims allows this Chamber to conclude that none of the requests made implies any type of relationship between the State and the claim, such that it could be considered a passive party in this dispute. Upon closer examination, the core purpose of the lawsuit is to rule that the actions of the National Registry in the qualification of the merger-by-absorption transaction executed by the plaintiff are contrary to law, specifically regarding the criteria expressed and applied concerning the amount of the tax obligation derived from the so-called agricultural stamp, regulated in Articles 13 and 14 of Law No. 5792. Furthermore, as a consequence of that invalidity, that INDER be compelled to refund the sums which, the plaintiff estimates, it has unduly paid. As can be observed, neither of these two thematic axes seeks to impose any effect on the State as a procedural subject; rather, the implications of the object of the proceeding involve conduct and performance obligations that are specific to the National Registry and INDER. The analysis conducted leads to the conclusion that the actions forming the basis of liability are attributable to the National Registry and, by extension, as the specific recipient of the tax, to INDER, which, although it has not issued any conduct subject to judicial review, having received the funds under debate, constitutes the Administration upon which the refund obligation is sought to be imposed, based on Article 205 of the Tax Procedure Regulations (Reglamento de Procedimientos Tributarios), in relation to Article 43 of the CNPT. In this regard, although the National Registry is an administrative unit that, from an organizational standpoint, forms part of the Central Administration (Ministry of Justice and Peace), the truth of the matter is that, pursuant to the Law of Creation of the National Registry, No. 5695 of May 28, 1975, Article 3, the Administrative Board of the National Registry is a body with instrumental legal personality for the fulfillment of its purposes. Indeed, Article 22 of that same legal framework obligates it to indemnify users for the damages (daños y perjuicios) that the exercise of registry document processing powers might cause.

Such organizational status places it within the factual scenario provided for in section 12.2 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo), under which it is necessary to join the entity to which it belongs, in this case, the State, to the proceedings. Regardless of the analysis of the merits of such joinder of parties (integración de litis), an issue not debated in this case, the fact of the matter is that when the cause of the liability is not attributable or referable, even partially, to the entity to which the personified body (órgano persona) belongs, the liability must fall on the latter, given its ownership of a budget with which the imposed judgment must be satisfied. In cases where the administrative conduct being challenged originates from the exercise of an exclusive competence of the body to which instrumental personality (personalidad instrumenta) was granted, passive standing (legitimación pasiva) in the case falls directly and exclusively against the personified body (órgano personificado), from which it is improper to extend the attribution to the public entity, whether larger or smaller, with which it holds an affiliation (adscripción).

In this proceeding, the object of the process, as delimited by the plaintiff, makes it possible to establish that the questioned conducts are only referable to the National Registry (Registro Nacional), in the exercise of its special competence for document qualification (calificación de documentos), while those for the reimbursement order are undertaken against INDER. No factual element whatsoever emerges in this proceeding concerning the State that can be related to the substantive object, neither at the level of the conducts that are the subject of the proceeding, nor as to the civil remedies sought. Consequently, in light of the foregoing, regarding the State, apart from its incorporation into this proceeding, as provided in Article 12.2 of the Contentious-Administrative Procedural Code, no link or relationship with the object of the proceeding can be said to exist, and therefore, the appropriate course is to accept the defense of lack of passive standing (legitimación ad causam pasiva) regarding the State and, consequently, order the dismissal of the complaint in all its aspects against this party.

A different matter occurs with INDER. Indeed, in accordance with Article 13 of Law No. 5792, the agrarian stamp (timbre agrario) is constituted as a tax levy directed at financing that institute. In this way, it is clear that, although the questioned conducts were not issued by that public entity, part of the petitionary framework is aimed at obtaining the refund of the amounts paid under protest for that concept. This plea is formulated directly and specifically against INDER, an aspect that, per se, demonstrates a nexus with the object of the proceeding insofar as it seeks to impose a direct effect against that party. The foregoing generates the subjective link (vinculación subjetiva) characteristic of passive standing. Therefore, its defense in that sense must be rejected [...]

IX.- Regarding the content of the questioned circular. Legal parameters. As a primary aspect, it is decisive to refer to the legal regime that creates the so-called agrarian stamp (timbre agrario), in order to establish the referential parameter that will allow defining whether the content of circular DPJ-0019-2016 incurs the excesses on which the plaintiff firm bases its objections. On this point, Law No. 5792 of September 1, 1975, in its Article 13, creates the agrarian stamp, which is imposed on the execution of a series of acts or contracts specified in Article 14 of that same legal body. Given its relevance in the present matter, a verbatim transcription of both mandates is necessary, as the claimant posits defects in the interpretation of those mandates, making it imperative to start from the grammatical scope of the norms in question, to establish whether that semantic development allows for a plurality of possible interpretations or if, on the contrary, that content does not support potential polysemies of possible content. The cited mandates, in their current version, state, given that both provisions were amended by subsection a) of Article 37 of Law No. 9036 of May 11, 2012, “Transforms the Institute of Agrarian Development (IDA) into the Institute of Rural Development (INDER)”:

“Article 13.- Create the agrarian stamp (timbre agrario), which shall be covered by the natural and legal persons holding the acts or contracts indicated in the following article. The funds from said tax shall be allocated to Inder, which shall collect, administer, and use its proceeds for the fulfillment of the purposes of its constitutive law.

The issuance, custody, sale, and distribution of the stamp shall be the responsibility of Inder, which is empowered to establish the channels deemed convenient to expedite its sale, using for this purpose the entities of the National Banking System (Sistema Bancario Nacional) and the electronic means that may be established by regulation.

Sales of this stamp, in amounts greater than five thousand colones (¢5,000.00), shall have the discount customarily applied to fiscal species (especies fiscales). Said amount shall be updated every five years in accordance with the inflation index established by the Central Bank of Costa Rica (BCCR).

For its part, Article 14 subsection d), regulates the factual scenario analyzed in this proceeding, namely, the tax burden imposed on corporate merger transactions.

That provision states in that subsection:

*“**Article 14.-** The following acts or contracts shall be subject to the payment of the agrarian stamp (timbre agrario), and those who perform them must cover the amount indicated in each case:* ***a)** (…)* ***d)** One colón and fifty cents (¢1.50) shall be paid for every thousand or fraction thereof, on the capital of commercial companies, upon incorporation (constitución), merger (fusión), transformation (transformación), dissolution (disolución), and capital increases.* *Likewise, for protocolizations (protocolizaciones) involving the amendment of bylaws regarding the composition of the Board of Directors, corporate name, or domicile, ten thousand colones (¢10,000.00) shall be paid. This amount shall be updated every five years in accordance with the inflation index established by the BCCR, starting from January 1 of the year following the publication of this law. Said increase must be published by means of a general provision issued by INDER.* *The respective tax must be paid upon registering the certified copy (testimonio) of the corresponding deed.”* Each party presents its position regarding the components of the tax, which allows this aspect to be clarified. Regarding the subjective element, both active and passive, there is no major controversy, insofar as it is clear that the tax is created in favor of INDER, which in that dynamic constitutes the Active Administration. For its part, the tax falls on the subjects who incorporate and execute the businesses or contracts that are referenced in numeral 14. In the specific case of the referenced subsection d), it is evident that it is imposed on commercial companies that participate in the procedures listed in that subsection. Regarding the taxable event (hecho generador) (objective element), taxable base (base imponible), and tax quota, that mandate refers to two taxable events upon which it imposes different quotas. In a first scenario, it subjects the acts of incorporation, merger, transformation, dissolution, and capital increases. In that case, a tax burden of ¢1.50 is set for every ¢1,000.00 or fraction thereof, with the taxable base to which that quota is applied being THE CAPITAL OF THE COMMERCIAL COMPANIES. In the other scenario, the tax burden is imposed on the protocolizations of amendments to corporate bylaws related to the composition of the Board of Directors, corporate name, or domicile. For those purposes, a fixed quota of ¢10,000.00 is imposed, updateable in five-year intervals. Of interest to this matter is the case of the first scenario, referring to the acts of incorporation, merger, transformation, dissolution, and capital increases. As has been indicated, the provision defines that the agrarian stamp is calculated on the capital of the commercial companies, without making any distinction regarding the typology of the act or contract upon which the tax falls, nor does it set distinction criteria depending on the capital increase derived from mergers. From that perspective, the provision under discussion does not allow distinctions to be drawn between mergers by absorption (fusiones por absorción) and mergers from which a new corporate entity is formed, as an element that would have an impact on differentiated taxable bases according to those types of transactions. Similarly, the provision does not specify, nor does it allow for it, that the taxable base is the capital increase resulting from the merger. Note that the taxable event refers to the acts or contracts (Art. 13) of incorporation, merger, transformation, dissolution, and capital increases, from which it establishes as a generic calculation base the capital of the commercial companies that participate in the execution of that type of act. In the context of that legal precept, the capital increase is one of the taxable events, but it does not constitute, within the framework of that tax relationship, a taxable base. The analysis of the mandate at hand does not allow for the inference of separate treatments regarding the type of legal transaction upon which the tax assessment falls, such that the establishment of categorizations that the law creating the tax does not enact cannot be sustained.

Strictly speaking, the referenced rule takes as a generic calculation parameter, pertaining to each and every taxable event, the capital of the commercial companies, regardless of whether it involves a capital increase, dissolution, transformation, incorporation, or whether it results from a merger by absorption or by formation. Thus, the typology of mergers, although it could generate implications in the context of the specific regime of the companies involved, from the standpoint of the tax obligation imposed by Article 14 subsection d) of Law No. 5792, the specifications of those categories do not introduce criteria of distinction for the purposes of the taxable base of the agrarian stamp tax, which, it is insisted, falls upon the capital of the corporate entity. If the legislator's intention had been that, in the specific case of corporate mergers, the object of the stamp tax would fall upon the increase in equity, it would have been so expressed; however, such specificity finds no support in that rule in question. For these purposes, by virtue of the provisions of Article 5 of the CNPT, the definition of the essential components of the tax is reserved to the law, within which the taxable base is a determining element, as it constitutes the reference to which the tax rate is applied to obtain the quota or contribution of the taxable person. This is indicated with total clarity by subsection a) of the cited precept 5 of the CNPT, insofar as it imposes that: "In tax matters only the law can: a) Create, modify or suppress taxes; define the taxable event of the tax relationship; establish the rates of the taxes and their calculation bases; and indicate the taxable person;(…)". Of course, the prevalence of the principle of legal reserve in fiscal functions does not preclude the possibility that the tax rule must be subjected to interpretive analysis to deduce its material scope in the context of the configuration of the tax relationships within which the tax obligations are composed (art. 6 ejusdem), however, the interpretation cannot constitute a means of disapplication, repeal or reform of the law, but rather a means that defines and specifies the manner in which the legal source is to be applied. Then, just as by way of interpretation the fundamental elements of the tax could not be covered up or modified, nor could the taxable event be extended to situations that the rule does not foresee, nor is it possible by this same means to attempt the inclusion of distinction criteria that the law does not directly impose. Now, as well posited by numeral 8 of the CNPT, when the taxable event refers to situations defined by other legal branches, the interpreter of the tax rule can assign it the meaning that best adapts to the reality considered by the law when creating the tax. This supposes that the substantive content of what must be understood by merger, incorporation, transformation, dissolution or capital increase, must be integrated with the regulations established for each of those transactions by the Commercial Code. However, that sole complementation does not lead to establishing distinction criteria to apply to the taxable base, when the law that creates the tax does not make that referral. There is no doubt that the taxable event falls upon that type of act, just as it is equally clear that the taxable base applicable to those actions was defined by the law without inserting differences in consideration of the type of taxed act.

Finally, regarding the period and payment of the tax, the same commented rule indicates that "The respective tax must be paid upon registering the certified copy of the corresponding deed." With this, it is undeniable that it is an instantaneous tax that must be satisfied at the moment of managing the registration of the certified copy of the respective deed. The very definition of that element allows establishing the role of the National Registry in these fiscal relationships, to the extent that, by holding the competence for the registration of these acts, it constitutes a collection agent for the cited stamp tax, which it performs by verifying compliance with the legal requirements that are specific to each of the registrable acts. Precisely one of the legal conditions is the payment of that agrarian stamp tax, such that it is that administrative authority that must verify compliance with this charge, after which it must transfer the corresponding allocations to INDER, as the recipient and manager of the tax in question.

X.- Content of the circular. Now, in order to analyze the reproaches that support the plaintiff's theory of the case, given that it alleges a series of abuses and inaccuracies in the circular issued by the National Registry, it is necessary to specify the content of this general act, in order to establish whether it incurs in the excesses and contradictions asserted by the plaintiff. In this regard, from the list of proven facts, it is established that on December 22, 2016, circular DPJ-019-2016 was issued, related to the Collection of the Agrarian Stamp Tax, a topic on which it states:

"… In an effort to give proper application to the rule and thereby avoid erroneous interpretations, it is clarified that when the contract being processed is a merger, the amount of the stamp tax must be calculated on the capital established for the prevailing or resulting entity, which will be registered and publicized as a product of said merger in this Registry. In the cases of capital increase, on the amount corresponding to the increase to be made; and in the other cases (incorporation, transformation and dissolution), on the amount of the capital of the respective legal entity. (…) In accordance with what is stipulated, Administrative Circular D.R.P.J.

008-2012, of November 28, 2012." (Images 390-391 of the principal file) The analysis of the content of that circular reveals that it is limited to specifying a series of parameters it deemed proper and necessary for the correct application of the tax (carga fiscal) provided for in Article 14, subsection d) of Law No. 5792. On one hand, it indicates that, for merger acts, the amount of the stamp tax (timbre) must be calculated on the capital established for the prevailing entity; for capital increases, the amount corresponding to the increase; and for the other taxed acts, once again, the amount of the legal entity's capital. Strictly speaking, that act establishes guidelines for clarity according to the type of taxed transaction. However, a comparison of this administrative conduct reveals with crystal clarity that its content is nothing more than a reproduction of the calculation base parameters set by the mentioned law. As has been noted, the law indicates that, regarding these transactions, a tax (carga fiscal) of ¢1.50 per ¢1,000.00 or fraction thereof shall be paid, based on the capital of commercial companies. For its part, the cited circular indicates that, in the case of mergers, the calculation must be made on the capital established for the prevailing entity. The contrast between both regulatory sources allows one to conclude, without a doubt, the full and complete harmony of the circular with the legally imposed rules for the subject matter it develops, insofar as it alludes to the company's capital as the reference point for calculating the levy. That administrative act has no innovative content, nor does it modify the legal treatment of that component of the levy, or of its other constituent elements. From this perspective of examination, insofar as it is limited to reiterating the legal regulations, it cannot be asserted that it has invaded the field reserved for law in the tax sphere. Such compatibility between the circular and the law it seeks to apply generates a decisive impact in the context of the plaintiff's allegations, since the defects she reproaches in the act at issue are, in reality, formulated against the treatment that the law assigns to the contracts upon which the agrarian stamp tax (timbre agrario) falls, rather than against the content of the circular. In this area, regardless of any subjective considerations one might have regarding that legal order, the truth of the matter is that it is not for this Tribunal to make such assessments, due to the concentrated model of constitutionality imposed by Article 10 of the Political Constitution and because it is a matter outside the competencies of this Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction, defined by Article 49 of the Magna Carta and developed by Law No. 8508. In this facet of analysis, there is no invalidity whatsoever when the content of an administrative act conforms to the enabling legal framework; thus, considerations regarding the legitimacy of the law, as it has been enacted, are matters that can be ventilated in the constitutional venue. Consequently, the allegations referring to supposed infringements of Non-Confiscation, the prohibition of double taxation, proportionality and reasonableness, ability to pay, and equality, seek to make visible what the plaintiff considers are inequities and parameters of illegitimacy in the exercise of the taxing power. However, it is reiterated, the circular under analysis is limited to reproducing the calculation parameters given by the law, and therefore, these claims must be rejected insofar as the challenged act finds full support in the law it implements. Unlike what the lawsuit postulates, the content of the cited circulars does not bespeak an interpretive exercise of the parameters given by the law, but rather they are limited to reproducing what the law regulates. Hence, the alleged defects regarding injuries to tax principles are not attributable to those acts. It must be insisted, if the promoting party believes that the tax structure violates the set of tax principles already cited, such a debate must be directed against the legal source that gives genesis to the levy. It has not been established that the circular regulated something different from the law, or in excess thereof, so as to sustain the injury to the maxim of legal tax reservation that is being reproached. This being the case, regarding what has been the subject of challenge, the rejection of the nullity claim formulated against the circular DPJ-019-2016 must be ordered.

XI.- Analysis of the specific contested acts. On the other hand, the plaintiff company claims the invalidity of the conducts that materialized the qualification of its registry proceeding and in which the debt related to the payment of the agrarian stamp tax (timbre agrario) was fixed [...]

Thus, the content of that administrative conduct finds full support in the application of the calculation guidelines imposed by the agrarian stamp tax (timbre agrario), in accordance with the commented regulations; therefore, the irregularities claimed by the plaintiff are not produced. Consequently, the payment of that difference made by the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) cannot be considered an undue payment, as it is supported by a provision that conforms, in all respects, to the content of the law that created the applied levy, without it being possible to conclude that the circular issued by the National Registry unduly interpreted those parameters or regulated something different from or additional to what the law stipulates. The plaintiff's claims seek to equate the tax effect of its acts to a simple capital increase. However, it is clear that even if, in the course of the merger by absorption under controversy, one of its effects was the increase of the share capital by ¢21,347,651.00, the truth of the matter is that the transaction executed was not merely a capital increase, but a merger. This entails that, within the scope of application of Article 14, subsection d) of Law No. 5792, the applicable base for calculating the levy is the share capital and not the increase to said capital that occurred by virtue of the merger. Thus, the estimate made by the National Registry is in accordance with the rules pertaining to the legal relationship under dispute. It follows from the foregoing that the deficiencies in the purpose, content, or reasoning do not arise in the context of the contested acts.

These formal actions substantially conform to the Legal System, in those aspects that have been the subject of challenge. In sum, as the alleged deficiencies are not present, the dismissal must be ordered of the annulment claim brought against those registry determinations and decisions. As a derivation of the foregoing, it is evident that the claim for damages, which seeks the return of the sums paid under protest, must be likewise dismissed, since its viability is, for logical reasons, inextricably linked to the annulment claims. Thus, the rejection of the latter entails the inadmissibility of the former, and it is so ordered." "2016-658319" dated December 12, 2016. - Declare the nullity of the Formal Qualification (Calificación formal) DPJ-FC-036-2016 dated December 23, 2016. -Declare the nullity of the new detail of defects corresponding to volume 2016, entry 658319, consecutive 1 dated December 23, 2016. - Declare the nullity of the Resolution of 9 a.m. on March 22, 2017. - Order the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural to fully return to my represented party the amount of ¢63,268,452.52 (sixty-three million two hundred sixty-eight thousand four hundred fifty-two colones and fifty-two céntimos), corresponding to the overpayment made under protest for the agrarian stamp (timbre agrario); as well as the interest accrued up to the moment of payment. - Order the Registro Nacional to pay procedural and personal costs." The analysis of the content of those claims allows this Chamber to deduce that none of the formulated requirements involve any type of relationship between the State and the claim, such that it could be considered a passive party in this dispute. At its core, the lawsuit primarily seeks to establish that the actions of the Registro Nacional in the qualification (calificación) of the merger by absorption transaction signed by the plaintiff are contrary to law, regarding the criteria expressed and applied concerning the amount of the tax obligation derived from the so-called agrarian stamp (timbre agrario), regulated in articles 13 and 14 of Law No. 5792. Furthermore, as a derivation of that invalidity, that INDER be obligated to reimburse the sums that the plaintiff estimates have been improperly paid. As observed, neither of these two thematic axes seeks to impose any effect on the State as a procedural subject; rather, the implications of the object of the process involve conduct and obligations that are characteristic of the Registro Nacional and INDER. The analysis carried out leads to the conclusion that the actions giving rise to liability are attributable to the Registro Nacional and by extension, as the specific recipient of the tax, to INDER, which, although it has not issued any conduct subject to judicial review, having received the funds in question, constitutes the Administration against which the reimbursement obligation is sought, based on canon 205 of the Reglamento de Procedimientos Tributarios, in relation to article 43 of the CNPT. In this sense, although the Registro Nacional is an administrative unit that organizationally forms part of the Central Administration (Ministerio de Justicia y Paz), the fact is that, in accordance with the Law of Creation of the Registro Nacional, No. 5695 of May 28, 1975, article 3, the Junta administrativa del Registro Nacional is an organ with instrumental legal personality for the fulfillment of its purposes. Even article 22 of that same legal framework obliges it to indemnify users for damages that the exercise of registry document processing powers might cause. Such organizational condition places it within the factual scenario provided for in article 12.2 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, in which it is necessary to join to the case the entity to which it belongs, in this case, the State. Regardless of the analysis of the merits of such joinder (litis), a topic not debated in this case, the fact is that when liability is not attributable or referable, even partially, to the entity to which the legal person organ belongs, liability must fall on the latter, given the ownership of a budget with which the imposed sentence must be met. In cases where the challenged administrative conduct originates from the exercise of an exclusive competence of the organ granted instrumental personality, passive legal standing (legitimación pasiva) in the case falls directly and exclusively against the personified organ, from which it is improper to extend the imputation to the larger or smaller public entity with which it is affiliated. In this process, the object of the process, delimited by the plaintiff, allows us to establish that the questioned conducts are only referable to the Registro Nacional, in the exercise of its special document qualification (calificación) competence, while those for reimbursement are undertaken against INDER. No factual element relating to the State emerges in this process that can be related to the substantive object, neither at the level of the conducts that are the object of the process, nor of the civil reparations sought. Consequently, in light of the foregoing, regarding the State, aside from its incorporation into this process, as provided in article 12.2 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, one cannot speak of the existence of a link or relationship with the object of the process, and therefore, the proper course is to uphold the defense of lack of passive legal standing (legitimación ad causam pasiva) regarding the State and, consequently, order the dismissal of the lawsuit in all its aspects regarding this party. A different matter occurs with INDER. Indeed, in accordance with article 13 of Law No. 5792, the agrarian stamp (timbre agrario) is constituted as a tax levy aimed at financing that institute. In this way, it is clear that, although the questioned conducts were not issued by that public entity, part of the petitionary framework is oriented toward obtaining the return of the items paid under protest for that concept. This request is formulated directly and specifically against INDER, an aspect that, per se, evidences a nexus with the object of the process insofar as it seeks to impose a direct effect against that party. The foregoing generates the subjective link that is inherent to passive legal standing (legitimación pasiva). Therefore, its defense in that sense must be rejected [...]

**IX.- On the content of the challenged circular. Legal parameters.** As a primary aspect, it is decisive to refer to the legal regime that creates the so-called agrarian stamp (timbre agrario), in order to establish the referential parameter that will allow defining whether the content of circular DPJ-0019-2016 incurs in the excesses on which the plaintiff firm bases its grievances. On this particular matter, Law No.

5792 of September 1, 1975, in its numeral 13, creates the agrarian stamp, which is imposed on the execution of a series of acts or contracts specified in canon 14 of that same legal body. Given its relevance in the present matter, a verbatim transcription of both mandates is necessary, since the claimant posits defects in the interpretation of those mandates, and therefore, it is imperative to start from the grammatical scope of the norms in question, to establish whether that semantic development gives way to a plurality of possible interpretations or if, on the contrary, that content does not sustain potential polysemies of possible content. The cited mandates state in their current version, given that both numerals were amended by subsection a) of Article 37 of Law No. 9036 of May 11, 2012 "Transforms the Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (IDA) into the Instituto de Desarrollo Rural (INDER)":

“Article 13.- The agrarian stamp is hereby created, which shall be covered by the natural and legal persons who are the holders of the acts or contracts indicated in the following article. The funds from said tax shall be allocated to Inder, which shall collect, administer, and use its proceeds for the fulfillment of the purposes of its constitutive law.

The issuance, custody, sale, and distribution of the stamp shall be in charge of Inder, which is empowered to establish the channels deemed convenient to expedite its sale, utilizing for this purpose the entities of the National Banking System and the electronic means that may be established by regulation.

Sales of this stamp, in amounts greater than five thousand colones (¢5,000.00), shall have the discount that fiscal species usually have. Said amount shall be updated every five years in accordance with the inflation index established by the Central Bank of Costa Rica (BCCR).

For its part, numeral 14 subsection d), regulates the factual scenario that is analyzed in the present proceeding, namely, the tax burden imposed on corporate merger transactions. That norm indicates in that subsection:

“Article 14.- The following acts or contracts shall be subject to the payment of the agrarian stamp and those who carry them out must cover the amount indicated in each case:

• a)(…)
• d)One colón and fifty centimos (¢1.50) shall be paid for each thousand or fraction thereof, on the capital of mercantile companies, in the incorporation, merger, transformation, dissolution, and capital increases.

Likewise, on protocolizations that imply the modification of bylaws regarding the composition of the Board of Directors, corporate name, or domicile, ten thousand colones (¢10,000.00) shall be paid. This amount shall be updated every five years in accordance with the inflation index established by the BCCR, beginning as of January 1 of the year following the publication of this law. Said increase must be published by means of a provision of general scope issued by Inder.

The respective tax must be paid upon registering the certified copy of the corresponding deed.” Each of the parties presents its position regarding the components of the tax, which leads to clarifying this aspect. Regarding the subjective element, both active and passive, there is no major controversy, insofar as it is clear that the tax is created in favor of INDER, which in that dynamic is constituted as the Active Tax Administration. For its part, the tax falls on the subjects that constitute and grant the transactions or contracts that are referred to in numeral 14.

In the specific case of subsection d) referenced, it is evident that it is imposed on commercial companies that participate in the procedures that subsection envisages. Regarding the taxable event (generating event (hecho generador)) (objective element), taxable base (base imponible), and tax rate, that mandate refers to two taxable events upon which it imposes different rates. In a first scenario, it subjects the acts of incorporation, merger (fusión), transformation, dissolution, and capital increases. In that case, a tax burden is set at ¢1.50 per each ¢1,000.00 or fraction thereof, with the taxable base to which that rate is applied being THE CAPITAL OF THE COMMERCIAL COMPANIES. In the other scenario, the tax burden is imposed on the notarized recordings of amendments to corporate bylaws relating to the composition of the Board of Directors, corporate name, or domicile. For those purposes, a fixed rate of ¢10,000.00 is imposed, adjustable every five years. Of interest to this case is the first scenario, referring to acts of incorporation, merger (fusión), transformation, dissolution, and capital increases. As has been noted, the rule defines that the agricultural stamp (timbre agrario) is calculated on the capital of the commercial companies, without making any distinction regarding the type of act or contract upon which the tax falls, nor does it establish criteria for distinction depending on the capital increase derived from mergers. From this perspective, the rule under discussion does not allow for distinctions to be drawn between mergers by absorption (fusiones por absorción) and mergers from which a new corporate entity is constituted, as an element that would have an impact on differentiated taxable bases in accordance with those types of transactions. Likewise, the rule does not specify, nor does it permit, that the taxable base be the capital increase produced from the merger (fusión). Note that the taxable event (hecho generador) refers to the acts or contracts (Art. 13) of incorporation, merger (fusión), transformation, dissolution, and capital increases, from which it establishes, as a generic basis for calculation, the capital of the commercial companies that participate in the granting of such acts. Under the shelter of that legal precept, the capital increase is one of the taxable events, but it does not constitute, within the framework of that tax relationship, a taxable base. The analysis of the mandate in question does not allow for the existence of separate treatments to be inferred based on the type of legal transaction upon which the tax assessment falls, such that the establishment of categorizations that the law creating the tax does not stipulate cannot be sustained. Strictly speaking, the aforementioned rule takes as a generic calculation parameter, pertaining to each and every one of the taxed events, the capital of the commercial companies, regardless of whether it involves a capital increase, dissolution, transformation, incorporation, or whether it is the result of a merger by absorption (fusión por absorción) or by constitution. In this way, the typology of mergers, while it could generate implications in the context of the specific regime of the companies involved, from the standpoint of the tax obligation imposed by Article 14 subsection d) of Law No. 5792, the specifications of those categories do not introduce criteria for distinction for the purposes of the taxable base of the agricultural stamp (timbre agrario), which, it is reiterated, is levied on the capital of the corporate entity. If the legislator's intention had been that, in the specific case of corporate mergers, the object of the stamp would be levied on the increase in equity, it would have so expressed it; however, such specificity finds no support in that rule in question. To that effect, by virtue of the provisions of Article 5 of the CNPT, the definition of the essential components of the tax is reserved to the law, within which, the taxable base is a determining element, as it constitutes the reference to which the tax tariff is applied to obtain the quota or contribution of the passive subject (sujeto pasivo). This is indicated with total clarity by subsection a) of the cited precept 5 of the CNPT, as it mandates that: “In tax matters only the law may: a) Create, modify, or suppress taxes; define the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax relationship; establish the tariffs of the taxes and their bases for calculation; and indicate the passive subject (sujeto pasivo); (…).” Of course, the prevalence of the principle of legal reserve in fiscal matters does not deprive the possibility that the tax rule must be subjected to interpretive analysis to infer its material scope in the context of the configuration of tax relationships within which tax obligations are composed (Art. 6 ejusdem); however, the interpretation cannot constitute a means for the disapplication, derogation, or reform of the law, but rather a means that defines and specifies the manner in which the legal source is to be applied. Therefore, just as through interpretation the fundamental elements of the tax could not be covered or modified, nor the taxable event extended to situations the rule does not foresee, neither is it possible through this same means to intend the inclusion of criteria for distinction that the law does not directly impose. Now, as numeral 8 of the CNPT correctly postulates, when the taxable event (hecho generador) refers to situations defined by other legal branches, the interpreter of the tax rule may assign it the meaning that best adapts to the reality considered by the law when creating the tax. This means that the substantive content of what must be held as merger (fusión), incorporation, transformation, dissolution, or capital increase, must be integrated with the regulations that the Code of Commerce establishes for each of those transactions.

However, that mere supplementation does not lead to establishing criteria for differentiation to apply to the taxable base, when the law that creates the tax does not make that reference. There is no doubt that the taxable event falls upon that type of act, just as it is clear that the taxable base applicable to those actions was defined by law without inserting differences in consideration of the type of taxed act. Finally, regarding the period and payment of the tax, the same commented rule indicates that “The respective tax must be paid upon registering the certified copy of the corresponding deed.” With that, it is undeniable that it is an instantaneous tax that must be satisfied at the time of managing the registration of the certified copy of the respective deed. The very definition of that element allows establishing the role of the National Registry (Registro Nacional) in these fiscal relations, to the extent that, by holding the competence for the registration of these acts, it becomes a collection agent for the aforementioned stamp tax, which it carries out by verifying compliance with the legal requirements that are specific to each of the registrable acts. Precisely one of the legal conditions is the payment of that agrarian stamp tax (timbre agrario), such that it is that administrative authority that must verify compliance with this charge, after which it must transfer the corresponding items to INDER, as the recipient and manager of the tax in question.

**X.- Content of the circular.** Now, in order to analyze the reproaches that support the plaintiff's theory of the case, given that she alleges a series of abuses and incorrectness in the circular issued by the National Registry (Registro Nacional), it is necessary to specify the content of this general act, in order to establish whether it incurs in the excesses and contradictions that the plaintiff asserts. In that sense, from the list of proven facts it is established that on December 22, 2016, circular DPJ-019-2016 was issued, related to the Collection of the Agrarian Stamp Tax (Cobro del Timbre Agrario), a topic on which it indicates:

“... In an effort to give proper application to the rule and thereby avoid erroneous interpretations, it is clarified that when the contract being processed is a merger, the amount of the stamp tax must be calculated on the capital established for the prevailing or resulting entity, which will be registered and publicized as a product of said merger in this Registry. In cases of capital increase, by the amount corresponding to the increase to be made; and in the other cases (incorporation, transformation and dissolution) by the amount of the capital of the respective legal entity. (...) In accordance with the stipulated, Administrative Circular D.R.P.J. 008-2012, of November 28, 2012, is rendered without effect.” (Images 390-391 of the main file) The analysis of the content of that circular reveals that it is limited to specifying a series of parameters that it deemed proper and necessary for the correct application of the tax burden provided for in article 14, subsection d) of Law No. 5792. On the one hand, it indicates that, for merger acts, the amount of the stamp tax should be calculated on the capital established for the prevailing entity; for capital increases, the amount corresponding to the increase; and for the other taxed acts, again, the amount of the capital of the legal entity. Strictly speaking, that act establishes clarity guidelines according to the type of taxed business. However, from the comparison of that administrative conduct, it is clearly evident that its content is nothing more than a reproduction of the calculation base parameters set by the mentioned law. As has been indicated, the law indicates that, regarding those businesses, a tax burden of ¢1.50 per each ¢1,000.00 or fraction thereof shall be paid, on the basis of the capital of commercial companies. For its part, the cited circular indicates that, in the case of mergers, the calculation must be made on the capital established for the prevailing entity. The contrast between both regulatory sources allows concluding, without a doubt, the full and complete harmony of the circular with the legally imposed rules for the matter it develops, to the extent that it alludes to the company's capital as the reference point for calculating the tax. That administrative act has no innovative content, nor does it modify the legal treatment of that component of the tax, or of its other compositional elements. From that standpoint of examination, to the extent that it is limited to reiterating the legal regulations, it cannot be affirmed that it has invaded the field that is reserved to the law, in the tax sphere. Such compatibility between the circular and the law it seeks to apply generates a decisive impact in the context of the plaintiff's allegations, because the defects she reproaches to the act in question, in reality, are formulated against the treatment that the law assigns to the contracts upon which the agrarian stamp tax (timbre agrario) falls, rather than against the content of the circular. In that sphere, aside from the subjective considerations one may have regarding that legal order, the truth of the matter is that it is not for this Court to make that type of assessment, due to the concentrated model of constitutionality imposed by article 10 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política) and because it is an aspect outside the competences of this Contentious-Administrative Jurisdiction (Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa), defined by article 49 of the Magna Carta (Carta Magna) and developed by Law No. 8508. In that aspect of analysis, there is no invalidity whatsoever when the content of an administrative act conforms to the legal framework that enables it, such that considerations relating to the legitimacy of the law, as it has been issued, are matters to be ventilated in the constitutional venue. Thus, the allegations referring to supposed infractions of non-confiscation, prohibition of double taxation, proportionality and reasonableness, ability to pay, equality, seek to make visible what the plaintiff considers are inequities and parameters of illegitimacy in the exercise of the tax power. However, it is reiterated, the circular object of analysis is limited to reproducing the calculation parameters given by the law, therefore, those claims must be rejected to the extent that the questioned act finds full support in the law it implements. Unlike what the lawsuit postulates, the content of the cited circulars does not speak of an interpretive exercise of the parameters given by the law, but rather they are limited to reproducing what the law regulates. Hence, the defects alleged regarding injuries to tax principles are not referable to those acts. It must be insisted, if the promoting party believes that the tax structure violates the set of tax principles already cited, such debate must be directed against the legal source that gives genesis to the tax. It has not been possible to establish that the circular regulated anything different from the law, or in excess thereof, so as to sustain the injury to the maxim of fiscal law reservation that is reproached.

Thus, in the matter that has been the subject of challenge, the rejection of the nullity claim filed against circular DPJ-019-2016 must be ordered.

**XI.- Analysis of the specific contested acts.** On the other hand, the plaintiff company claims the invalidity of the actions that concretized the qualification of its registry procedure and in which the debt related to the payment of the agrarian stamp (timbre agrario) was set [...]

In this way, the content of that administrative action finds full support in the application of the calculation guidelines imposed by the agrarian stamp (timbre agrario), in accordance with the regulations discussed, and therefore, the irregularities claimed by the plaintiff do not occur. Moreover, as a consequence, the payment of that difference made by the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) cannot be considered an undue payment, since it is covered by a requirement that fully conforms to the content of the law that created the applied tax, without it being possible to deduce that the circular issued by the National Registry (Registro Nacional) improperly interpreted those parameters or regulated something different or additional to what the law establishes. The plaintiff's claims seek to equate the fiscal effect of its actions to a simple capital increase. However, it is clear that even though, in the course of the merger by absorption (fusión por absorción) that is the subject of controversy, one of its effects was the increase of corporate capital (capital social) by ₡21,347,651.00, the fact of the matter is that the executed transaction was not merely a capital increase, but a merger (fusión). This leads to the conclusion that, within the scope of application of Article 14, subsection d) of Law No. 5792, the applicable base for the calculation of the tax is the corporate capital (capital social) and not the increase to said capital that occurred by virtue of the merger (fusión). Thus, the estimate made by the National Registry (Registro Nacional) is in accordance with the rules governing the debated legal relationship. From the foregoing, it follows that the deficiencies in the grounds, content, or reasoning do not appear in the context of the questioned acts. Those formal actions substantially conform to the Legal System, in what has been the subject of challenge. **In sum**, since the claimed deficiencies are not present, the rejection of the annulment claim filed against those registry requirements and decisions must be ordered. As a derivation of the foregoing, it is evident that the **claim for damages**, which demands the refund of the sums paid under protest, must be equally dismissed, because its viability, for logical reasons, is inextricably linked to the annulment claims. In this way, the rejection of the latter entails the inadmissibility of the former, and it is so ordered."

"VII.- Sobre la defensa de falta de legitimación del Estado y del INDER. La representación del Estado ha señalado que las conductas objeto de este proceso son referibles al Registro Nacional, por lo que, siendo que no existe actuación alguna que le sea imputable, no ostenta legitimación ad causam en esta contienda. Sobre ese particular, cabe señalar que para los efectos del ordinal 12 del CPCA en relación al 21.1 del Código Procesal Civil, la legitimación se determina a partir del vínculo con el objeto del proceso, demarcado, fundamentalmente, por la pretensión deducida. En ese sentido, será parte legítima aquella a la cual pueda asociarse o atribuirse una determinada relación jurídica con la pretensión. Esto pone en perspectiva la relevancia que la pretensión ostenta de cara a determinar los vínculos subjetivos que determinan la legitimación procesal. Desde el plano pasivo, será parte legítima el sujeto o conjunto de sujetos frente a los cuales se pretenda el ejercicio u oponibilidad del efecto jurídico (material) que se inserta en el marco petitorio y que presenten una relación con ese objeto. Así, por ejemplo, en orden a lo que estipula el ordinal 12.1 del CPCA, en las pretensiones anulatorias, la demanda ha de cursarse (legitimación pasiva) en contra de la Administración Pública autora de esa conducta. En los requerimientos de prestación administrativa, ese vínculo subjetivo supone tener como parte pasiva a la Administración a la que se pretende imponer el deber prestacional. Lo mismo acontece en las pretensiones indemnizatorias, en las cuales, es claro que la legitimación de orden pasivo vendría determinada por la relación de determinado ente público con el daño reclamado y correlativo deber de reparación por equivalencia. De ahí que sea la pretensión deducida el referente relevante a partir del cual ha de examinarse tal presupuesto procesal. En ese sentido, el objeto de este proceso se ha delimitado en la fase de audiencia preliminar en el siguiente sentido:

"- Se declare la nulidad de la circular D.R.P.J.008-2012. - Se declare la nulidad de la circular DPJ-019-2016. - Se declare la nulidad del detalle de defectos emitido por el registrador asignado con número 455, relativo a la escritura presentada bajo las citas tomo 2016, asiento 658319, consecutivo 1. - Se declare la nulidad del oficio sin número cuya referencia dispone "Calificación Doc. 2016-658319" de fecha 12 de diciembre de 2016. - Se declare la nulidad de la Calificación formal DPJ-FC-036-2016 de fecha 23 de diciembre de 2016. -Se declare la nulidad del nuevo detalle de defectos correspondiente al tomo 2016, asiento 658319, consecutivo 1 de fecha 23 de diciembre de 2016. - Se declare la nulidad de Resolución de las 9 horas del 22 de marzo de 2017. - Se le ordene al Instituto de Desarrollo Rural devolver íntegramente a mi representada el monto de ¢63.268.452.52 (sesenta y tres millones doscientos sesenta y ocho mil cuatrocientos cincuenta y dos colones con cincuenta y dos céntimos), correspondientes al pago en exceso efectuado bajo protesta por concepto de timbre agrario; así como los intereses devengados hasta el momento efecto del pago. - Se condene al Registro Nacional al pago de las costas procesales y personales.” El análisis del contenido de esas reclamaciones, permite a esta Cámara desprender que ninguno de los requerimientos formulados supone algún tipo de relación del Estado con la pretensión, de suerte que pueda tenérsele como parte pasiva en esta contienda. Si bien se mira, la demanda tiene por objeto medular que se disponga que las actuaciones del Registro Nacional en la calificación del negocio de fusión por absorción suscrito por la accionante, son contrarias a legalidad, en lo que se refiere a los criterios externados y aplicados en torno a la cuantía de la obligación tributaria derivada del denominado timbre agrario, regulado en los ordinales 13 y 14 de la Ley No. 5792. Además, que, como derivación de esa invalidez, se obligue al INDER al reintegro de las sumas que, la demandante estima, ha cancelado de manera indebida. Como se observa, ninguno de ambos ejes temáticos, busca imponer efecto alguno al Estado como sujeto procesal, sino que las implicaciones del objeto del proceso involucran conductas y prestaciones que son propias del Registro Nacional y del INDER. El análisis realizado lleva a concluir que las acciones base de la responsabilidad son atribuibles al Registro Nacional y por extensión, en tanto destinatario específico del tributo, al INDER, que si bien no ha emitido conducta alguna de pasible revisión judicial, al haber recibido los fondos objeto de debate, se constituye en la Administración a la que se pretende imponer la obligación de reintegro que se sustenta en el canon 205 del Reglamento de Procedimientos Tributarios, en relación al artículo 43 del CNPT. En este sentido, si bien el Registro Nacional es una unidad administrativa que desde el plano organizacional forma parte de la Administración Central (Ministerio de Justicia y Paz), lo cierto del caso es que, de conformidad con la Ley de Creación del Registro Nacional, No. 5695 del 28 de mayo de 1975, numeral 3, la Junta administrativa del Registro Nacional es un órgano con personalidad jurídica instrumental para el cumplimiento de sus fines. Incluso, el precepto 22 de ese mismo marco legal, le obliga a indemnizar a los usuarios por los daños y perjuicios que el ejercicio de las competencias registrales de tramitación de documentos pudiera ocasionar. Tal condición organizacional le coloca dentro del supuesto de hecho previsto en el ordinal 12.2 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, en el cual, es menester incorporar a la causa al ente al cual pertenece, en este caso, al Estado. Con independencia del análisis de las bondades de tal integración de litis, tema que no se debate en esta causa, lo cierto del caso es que cuando la causa de la responsabilidad no es atribuible o referible, aun parcialmente, al ente al que pertenece el órgano persona, la responsabilidad ha de recaer sobre este último, dada la titularidad de un presupuesto con el cual se debe hacer frente a la condena impuesta. En los casos en que, la conducta administrativa objeto de impugnación proviene del ejercicio de una competencia exclusiva del órgano al cual se le otorgó personalidad instrumenta, la legitimación pasiva en la causa, recae de manera directa y exclusiva en contra del órgano personificado, a partir de lo cual es impropio extender la imputación al ente público, mayor o menor, con el que guarda adscripción. En este proceso, el objeto del proceso, delimitado por la accionante, permite fijar que las conductas cuestionadas son solo referibles al Registro Nacional, en el ejercicio de su competencia especial de calificación de documentos, en tanto que las de orden de reintegro, se emprenden en contra del INDER. No se desprende en este proceso elemento fáctico alguno atinente al Estado que pueda relacionarse con el objeto de fondo, ni a nivel de conductas objeto del proceso, como tampoco de las reparaciones civiles pretendidas. En consecuencia, en orden a lo expuesto, respecto del Estado, al margen de su incorporación a este proceso, por lo dispuesto en el artículo 12.2 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, no puede decirse de la existencia de un vínculo o relación con el objeto del proceso, por lo que, lo debido es acoger la defensa de falta de legitimación ad causam pasiva respecto del Estado y, en consecuencia, disponer el rechazo de la demanda en todos sus extremos respecto de esta parte. Cosa diversa acontece con el INDER. En efecto, de conformidad con el artículo 13 de la Ley No. 5792, el timbre agrario se constituye como una carga impositiva direccionada a financiar a ese instituto. De esa manera, es claro que, si bien las conductas cuestionadas no fueron emitidas por ese ente público, parte del marco petitorio se orienta a obtener la devolución de las partidas canceladas bajo protesta por ese concepto. Tal ruego se formula de manera directa y específica en contra del INDER, aspecto que, per se, evidencia un nexo con el objeto del proceso en la medida en que busca imponer un efecto directo en contra de esa parte. Lo anterior le genera la vinculación subjetiva que es propia de la legitimación pasiva. Por ende, su defensa en ese sentido debe ser rechazada [...]

IX.- Sobre el contenido de la circular cuestionada. Parámetros legales. Como aspecto primario, resulta determinante referirse al régimen legal que crea el denominado timbre agrario, a efectos de establecer el parámetro referencial que permitirá definir si el contenido de la circular DPJ-0019-2016, incurre en los excesos sobre los cuales la firma accionante sustenta sus inconformidades. Sobre ese particular, la Ley No. 5792 del 01 de septiembre de 1975, en su numeral 13, crea el timbre agrario, que se impone a la realización de una serie de actos o contratos que precisa el canon 14 de ese mismo cuerpo legal. Dada su relevancia en el presente asunto, se hace necesario la transcripción literal de ambos mandatos, siendo que la reclamante postula defectos de interpretación de esos mandatos, por lo cual, es imperativo partir del ámbito gramatical de las normas en cuestión, para establecer si ese desarrollo semántico, da paso a pluralidad de interpretaciones posibles o si, por el contrario, ese contenido no sustenta potenciales polisemias de contenido posible. Señalan los citados mandatos en su versión vigente, dado que ambos numerales fueron reformados por el inciso a) del artículo 37 de la ley N° 9036 del 11 de mayo del 2012 "Transforma el Instituto de Desarrollo Agrario (IDA) en el Instituto de Desarrollo Rural (INDER)”:

“Artículo 13.- Créase el timbre agrario, el cual será cubierto por las personas físicas y jurídicas titulares de los actos o contratos señalados en el artículo siguiente. Los fondos provenientes de dicho impuesto serán destinados al Inder, el que recaudará, administrará y empleará su producto para el cumplimiento de los fines de su ley constitutiva.

La emisión, la custodia, la venta y la distribución del timbre estará a cargo del Inder, quedando facultado para establecer los canales que se consideren convenientes para agilizar su venta, utilizando para tal efecto las entidades del Sistema Bancario Nacional y los medios electrónicos que se lleguen a establecer reglamentariamente.

Las ventas de este timbre, en cantidades mayores a cinco mil colones (¢5.000,00) tendrán el descuento que usualmente tienen las especies fiscales. Dicho monto se actualizará cada cinco años de acuerdo con el índice de inflación establecido por el Banco Central de Costa Rica (BCCR).

Por su parte el numeral 14 inciso d), regula el supuesto de hecho que se analiza en el presente proceso, a saber, la carga fiscal que se impone a los negocios de fusiones societarias. Señala esa norma en ese inciso:

“Artículo 14.- Los siguientes actos o contratos estarán afectos al pago del timbre agrario y quienes los realicen deberán cubrir el monto señalado en cada caso:

• a)(…)
• d)Se pagará un colón con cincuenta céntimos (¢1,50) por cada mil o fracción menor, sobre el capital de las sociedades mercantiles, en la constitución, fusión, transformación, disolución y aumentos de capital.

Asimismo, sobre las protocolizaciones que impliquen la modificación de estatutos respecto a la integración de Junta Directiva, razón social o domicilio se pagarán diez mil colones (¢10.000,00). Este monto se actualizará cada cinco años de acuerdo con el índice de inflación establecido por el BCCR, iniciando a partir del 1 de enero del año siguiente a la publicación de la presente ley. Dicho incremento deberá publicarse mediante disposición de alcance general emitido por el Inder.

El impuesto respectivo deberá cancelarse al inscribir el testimonio de la escritura correspondiente.” Cada una de las partes presenta su postura en cuanto a los componentes del tributo, lo que lleva a esclarecer este aspecto. En cuanto al elemento subjetivo, tanto activo como pasivo no existe mayor controversia, en la medida en que es claro que el tributo se crea a favor del INDER, quien en esa dinámica se constituye en Administración Activa. Por su parte, el tributo recae sobre los sujetos que constituyen y otorgan los negocios o contratos que viene referidos en el numeral 14. En el caso concreto del inciso d) referido, es evidente que se impone sobre las sociedades mercantiles que concurran en los trámites que ese inciso inventaría. En lo atinente al hecho generador (elemento objetivo), base imponible y cuota fiscal, ese mandato refiere a dos hechos imponibles sobre los cuales impone cuotas diversas. En un primer escenario, sujeta los actos de constitución, fusión, transformación, disolución y aumentos de capital. En ese caso, se fija una carga fiscal de ¢1.50 por cada ¢1.000.00 o fracción menor, siendo que la base imponible a la que se aplica esa cuota, es EL CAPITAL DE LAS SOCIEDADES MERCANTILES. En el otro supuesto, se impone la carga fiscal a las protocolizaciones de modificaciones de estatutos sociales relativos a integración de Junta Directiva, razón social o domicilio. Para esos efectos, se impone una cuota fija de ¢10.000.00, actualizable en tramos quinquenales. Interesa a esta especie, el caso del primer supuesto, referido a los actos de constitución, fusión, transformación, disolución y aumentos de capital. Como se ha señalado, la norma define que el timbre agrario se calcula sobre el capital de las sociedades mercantiles, sin hacer diferencia alguna en cuanto a la tipología de acto o contrato sobre el cual recae el tributo, como tampoco fija criterios de distinción dependiendo del incremento del capital derivado de las fusiones. Desde ese plano, la norma en comentario no permite desprender distinciones entre las fusiones por absorción, de las fusiones a partir de las cuales se constituye un nuevo ente societario, como elemento que tenga incidencia en bases imponibles diferenciadas, en orden a esos tipos de negocios. De igual manera, la norma no precisa, ni permite hacerlo, que la base imponible sea el aumento de capital que se produce a partir de la fusión. Nótese que el hecho generador se refiere a los actos o contratos (art. 13) de constitución, fusión, transformación, disolución y aumentos de capital, a partir de lo cual, establece como base genérica de cálculo, el capital de las sociedades mercantiles que concurren al otorgamiento de ese tipo de actos. Al socaire de ese precepto legal, el aumento de capital es uno de los hechos imponibles, más no constituye, en el marco de esa relación tributaria, una base imponible. El análisis del mandato de marras, no permite desprender la existencia de tratamientos separados en orden al tipo de negocio jurídico sobre el cual recae la manifestación impositiva, de suerte que no puede sostenerse el establecimiento de categorizaciones que la ley de creación del tributo no estatuye. En rigor, la norma aludida toma como parámetro genérico de cálculo, atinente a todos y cada uno de los hechos gravados, el capital de las sociedades mercantiles, al margen de que se trate de un aumento de capital, disolución, transformación, constitución, o bien, que sea el resultado de una fusión por absorción o por constitución. De esa manera, la tipología de fusiones, si bien podría generar implicaciones en el contexto del régimen propio de las empresas involucradas, desde el plano de la obligación fiscal que impone el artículo 14 inciso d) de la Ley No. 5792, las especificaciones de esas categorías no introducen criterios de distinción para los efectos de la base imponible del timbre agrario, el cual, se insiste, recae sobre el capital del ente societario. Si la intención del legislador hubiese sido que, en el caso concreto y específico de las fusiones empresariales, el objeto del timbre fuese recaer sobre el aumento de patrimonio, así lo hubiere expresado; empero, tal especificidad no encuentra respaldo en esa norma en cuestión. A esos efectos, en virtud de lo dispuesto por el artículo 5 del CNPT, está reservado a la ley la definición de los componentes esenciales del tributo, dentro de los cuales, la base imponible es un elemento determinante, en tanto constituye el referente al cual se aplica la tarifa fiscal para obtener la cuota o aporte del sujeto pasivo. Así lo indica con total claridad el inciso a) del citado precepto 5 del CNPT, en cuanto impone que: “En cuestiones tributarias sólo la ley puede: a) Crear, modificar o suprimir tributos; definir el hecho generador de la relación tributaria; establecer las tarifas de los tributos y sus bases de cálculo; e indicar el sujeto pasivo;(…)”. Desde luego que la prevalencia del principio de reserva de ley en menesteres fiscales no priva de la posibilidad que la norma tributaria deba someterse al análisis interpretativo para colegir su alcance material en el contexto de la configuración de las relaciones tributarias dentro de las que, se componen las obligaciones fiscales (art. 6 ejusdem), sin embargo, la interpretación no puede constituirse en una vía de desaplicación, derogación o reforma de la ley, sino en un medio que define y precisa la manera en que la fuente legal ha de aplicarse. Luego, así como por la vía de la interpretación no podría cubrirse o modificarse los elementos fundamentales del tributo, ni extender el hecho imponible a supuestos que la norma no prevé, tampoco cabe que por esta misma vía se pretenda la inclusión de criterios de distinción que la ley no impone de manera directa. Ahora, como bien postula el numeral 8 del CNPT, cuando el hecho generador se refiera a situaciones definidas por otras ramas jurídicas, el intérprete de la norma fiscal puede asignarle el significado que mejor se adapte a la realidad considerada por la ley al crear el tributo. Esto supone que el contenido sustantivo de lo que debe tenerse por fusión, constitución, transformación, disolución o aumento de capital, ha de integrarse con las regulaciones que para cada uno de esos negocios estatuye el Código de Comercio. Empero, esa sola complementación no lleva a establecer criterios de distinción para aplicar a la base imponible, cuando la ley que crea el tributo no realiza esa remisión. No hay duda que el hecho imponible recae sobre ese tipo de actos, como igualmente diáfano es que la base imponible aplicable a esas actuaciones, fue definido por la ley sin insertar diferencias en consideración del tipo de acto gravado. Finalmente, en cuanto al período y pago del impuesto, la misma norma comentada señala que “El impuesto respectivo deberá cancelarse al inscribir el testimonio de la escritura correspondiente.” Con ello, resulta innegable que es un tributo instantáneo que ha de ser satisfecho al momento de gestionar la inscripción del testimonio de la escritura respectiva. La misma definición de ese elemento permite establecer el papel del Registro Nacional en estas relaciones fiscales, en la medida en que, al ostentar la competencia para la inscripción de estos actos, se constituye en agente de recaudación del citado timbre, lo que realiza mediante la verificación del cumplimiento de las exigencias legales que son propias a cada uno de los actos registrables. Precisamente una de las condiciones legales es el pago de ese timbre agrario, de suerte que es esa autoridad administrativa la que debe verificar el cumplimiento de esta carga, luego de lo cual, ha de trasladar las partidas correspondientes al INDER, como destinataria y gestora del tributo de marras.

X.- Contenido de la circular. Ahora bien, en orden al análisis de los reproches que sustentan la teoría del caso de la accionante, dado que aduce una serie de abusos e incorrecciones en la circular emitida por el Registro Nacional, se hace necesario precisar el contenido de este acto general, a fin de establecer si incurre en los excesos y contradicciones que asevera la accionante. En ese sentido, del elenco de hechos probados se tiene que el 22 de diciembre del 2016 se emite circular DPJ-019-2016, relacionada con el Cobro del Timbre Agrario, tema sobre el cual se señala:

“… En procura de dar una debida aplicación a la norma y con esto evitar erróneas interpretaciones, se aclara que cuando el contrato que se tramite sea una fusión, el monto del timbre se debe calcular sobre el capital establecido para la entidad prevaleciente o resultante, el cual será inscrito y publicitado como producto de dicha fusión en este Registro. En los casos de aumento de capital por el monto correspondiente al aumento a realizarse; y en los demás casos (constitución, transformación y disolución) por el monto del capital de la respectiva entidad jurídica. (…) En concordancia con lo estipulado, se deja sin efecto la Circular Administrativa D.R.P.J. 008-2012, del 28 de noviembre de 2012.” (Imágenes 390-391 del principal) El análisis del contenido de esa circular, pone en evidencia que se limita a precisar una serie de parámetros que estimó debidos y necesarios para la correcta aplicación de la carga fiscal prevista en el artículo 14 inciso d) de la Ley No. 5792. Por un lado, señala que, para los actos de fusiones, el monto del timbre debía calcularse sobre el capital establecido para la entidad prevaleciente; para los aumentos de capital, el monto correspondiente al aumento y para los demás actos gravados, nuevamente, el monto del capital de la entidad jurídica. En rigor, ese acto establece pautas de claridad según el tipo de negocio gravado. Sin embargo, del cotejo de esa conducta administrativa se desprende con meridiana claridad que su contenido no es sino una reproducción de los parámetros de base de cálculo fijados por la ley mencionada. Como se ha señalado, la ley indica que, respecto de esos negocios, se pagará una carga fiscal de ¢1.50 por cada ¢1.000.00 o fracción, sobre la base del capital de las sociedades mercantiles. Por su parte, la citada circular indica que, en el caso de las fusiones, el cálculo se debe realizar sobre el capital establecido para la entidad prevaleciente. El contraste entre ambas fuentes regulatorias permite concluir, sin lugar a dudas, la plena y completa armonía de la circular con las reglas legalmente impuestas para la materia que desarrolla, en la medida en que alude al capital de la empresa como referente de cálculo del tributo. Ese acto administrativo no tiene un contenido innovativo, ni modificativo del tratamiento legal de ese componente del tributo, como de sus demás elementos compositivos. Desde esa artista de examen, en la medida en que se limita a reiterar las regulaciones legales, no puede afirmarse que haya invadido el campo que se encuentra reservado a la ley, en el ámbito tributario. Tal compatibilidad entre la circular y la ley que busca aplicar, genera un impacto determinante en el contexto de las alegaciones de la accionante, por cuanto, los vicios que reprocha al acto de marras, en realidad, son formulados en contra del tratamiento que la ley asigna a los contratos sobre los cuales recae el timbre agrario, más que contra el contenido de la circular. En ese ámbito, al margen de las consideraciones de orden subjetivo que se pueda tener en torno a ese orden legal, lo cierto del caso es que no corresponde a este Tribunal realizar ese tipo de valoraciones, en razón del modelo concentrado de constitucionalidad que impone el ordinal 10 de la Constitución Política y por tratarse de un aspecto ajeno a las competencias de esta Jurisdicción Contencioso Administrativa, definidas por el artículo 49 de la Carta Magna y desarrolladas por la Ley No. 8508. En esa arista de análisis, no existe invalidez alguna cuando el contenido de un acto administrativo se ajusta al marco legal que le habilita, de manera que las consideraciones relativas a la legitimidad de la ley, tal y como ha sido emitido, son cuestiones ventilables en sede constitucional. Así, las alegaciones referidas a supuestas infracciones a la no Confiscatoriedad, prohibición de doble imposición, proporcionalidad y razonabilidad, capacidad contributiva, igualdad, pretenden visibilizar lo que la accionante considera son inequidades y parámetros de ilegitimidad del ejercicio la potestad tributaria. No obstante, se reitera, la circular objeto de análisis se limita a reproducir los parámetros de cálculo dados por la ley, por lo que, esas reclamaciones ha de ser rechazadas en la medida en que el acto cuestionado encuentra pleno respaldo en la ley que instrumentaliza. A diferencia de lo que postula la demanda, el contenido de las citadas circulares no dice de un ejercicio interpretativo de los parámetros dados por la ley, sino que se limitan a reproducir lo que regula la ley. De ahí que los vicios alegados en cuanto a las lesiones a los principios tributarios, no son referibles a esos actos. Se ha de insistir, si la parte promovente estima que la estructura tributaria vulnera el conjunto de principios tributarios ya citados, tal debate ha de ser direccionado en contra de la fuente legal que da génesis al tributo. No se ha logrado establecer que la circular haya regulado cosa diversa a la ley, o en exceso de aquella, como para sostener la lesión a la máxima de reserva de ley fiscal que se reprocha. Así las cosas, en lo que ha sido motivo de impugnación, debe disponerse el rechazo del reclamo de nulidad formulado en contra de la circular DPJ-019-2016.

XI.- Análisis de los actos concretos impugnados. Por otro lado, la empresa accionante reclama la invalidez de las conductas que concretaron la calificación de su trámite registral y en las cuales, se fijó la deuda relacionada al pago del timbre agrario [...]

De esa manera, el contenido de esa conducta administrativa encuentra pleno respaldo en la aplicación de las pautas de cálculo que impone el timbre agrario, acorde a la normativa comentada, por lo que, no se producen las irregularidades que reclama la parte accionante. De otro lado, por consecuencia, el pago que de esa diferencia realizó el sujeto pasivo no puede considerarse como un pago indebido, por cuanto se ampara en una prevención que se ajusta, en todo al contenido de la ley que da creación al tributo aplicado, sin que pueda derivarse que la circular emitida por el Registro Nacional haya interpretado de manera indebida esos parámetros o haya regulado cosa diversa o adicional a lo que fija la ley. Las pretensiones de la accionante buscan equiparar el efecto fiscal de sus actos a un simple aumento de capital. Empero, es claro que aún y cuando en el curso de la fusión por absorción objeto de controversia, uno de sus efectos fue el incremento del capital social en ¢21.347.651.00, lo cierto del caso es que el negocio suscrito no era solamente un aumento de capital, sino una fusión. Esto conlleva a que, en el ámbito de aplicación del artículo 14 inciso d) de la Ley No. 5792, la base aplicable al cálculo del tributo, sea el capital social y no el aumento que a dicho capital se produjo en virtud de la fusión. Así, la estimación realizada por el Registro Nacional es conforme con las normas atinentes a la relación jurídica debatida. De lo anterior se desprende que no se presenta en el contexto de los actos cuestionados, las deficiencias en el motivo, contenido, ni en la motivación. Esas conductas formales se ajustan sustancialmente con el Ordenamiento Jurídico, en lo que han sido objeto de impugnación. En suma, al no presentarse las deficiencias reclamadas, debe disponerse el rechazo de la pretensión anulatoria formulada en contra de esas prevenciones y decisiones registrales. Como derivación de lo señalado, es evidente que la pretensión indemnizatoria, que reclama la devolución de las sumas pagadas bajo protesta, debe ser igualmente desestimada, pues su procedencia, por razones lógicas, se encuentra indisolublemente vinculada a las pretensiones anulatorias. De esa manera, el rechazo de estas últimas conlleva la improcedencia de aquella, y así se dispone".