Tax adjustments upheld for goods sales in construction subcontractsImprocedencia de nulidad de ajustes fiscales por ventas de mercancías en contratos de construcción

**V.- REGARDING THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR A DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS: DT10V-137-10, issued by the Large Taxpayers Tax Administration, at 12:00 noon on December 9, 2010; AU10V-043-11, issued by the National Large Taxpayers Directorate; TFA N°309-2014, issued by the Administrative Tax Tribunal, at 10:30 a.m. on June 30, 2014:** The plaintiff's representative requests that this Court declare the nullity of the referenced resolutions, and maintains as the essential argument of the claim they have raised the thesis that the concerned Administration carried out an arbitrary interpretation of the activity performed by the company Productos de Concreto, particularly regarding the contracts in which the plaintiff participated as subcontractor during the 2008 period -Forum 1 and 2, Multipark Parking, and Altos de Nunciatura projects-. In essence, they point out that the Administration disregarded the content of the contracts, according to which the company undertook to provide construction services, and interpreted that said agreements stipulated a sale-purchase. Subsequently, the administrative acts whose declaration of nullity is sought were issued on the occasion of the audit conducted by the Administration on the plaintiff during the 2008 period, and specifically on the results of the examination of the aforementioned contracts, communicated to the plaintiff on July fifteenth, two thousand ten, in Transfer of Observations and Charges N°2752000026474, in which the Administration determined an increase in the tax liability, for sales tax (impuesto sobre las ventas) in the amount of two hundred seventy-eight million two hundred sixty-eight thousand eight hundred seventy-nine colones. In that act, and those issued subsequently on the occasion of the administrative complaint filed by the plaintiff, it is maintained, contrary to the plaintiff's argument, that the taxpayer reported as exempt sales construction services that actually represent sales of goods (mercancías) and are subject to the general sales tax (impuesto general sobre las ventas). Consequently, it should be noted that the point to be elucidated by this Decision-Making Body is to determine whether, on the occasion of the aforementioned contracts, a sale of goods subject to the tax regulated in the General Sales Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto General sobre las Ventas) occurred or not. To this end, it is necessary to indicate that Law N°6826, of November twenty-eighth, nineteen hundred eighty-two, which regulates the tax in question, establishes a levy on the sale of goods, and prior to the enactment of Law N°9635, of December third, two thousand eighteen, on the provision of certain services that were expressly indicated in Article 1 of that normative body. Therefore, prior to the enactment of said Law, it was a tax of a general nature regarding sales, and specific regarding services. The foregoing because it was presumed that all sales were taxed, except those not subject to the tax by express provision of the same Law, while services were not subject to the tax, with the exception of those established by the Law itself. Pursuant to Article 3 of the Law, the taxable event (hecho generador) occurred for the sale of goods, upon invoicing or delivery thereof, whichever act occurs first; for the importation or entry of goods into the country, at the time of acceptance of the customs policy or form, as applicable; for the provision of services, upon invoicing or provision of the service, whichever act occurs first; for the use or consumption of goods by taxpayers, on the date they are withdrawn from the company; and for sales on consignment and layaway of goods, at the moment the goods are placed on layaway, as the case may be. Thus, as alleged by the plaintiff's representative, for the audited period -2008 sales tax-, the construction service was not taxed with this levy. However, as stipulated by subsection a) of Article 3 of Law N°6826, sales of goods are indeed subject to said tax, and of course, they were for the audited period. Taking this into consideration, and having analyzed the arguments put forth by the parties, as well as the evidence added to the record, the Court reaches the conclusion that the administrative acts submitted for legality review before this Jurisdictional Body are in conformity with the legal system, and therefore, the request for a declaration of their nullity is not receivable [...]

In this regard, the State's representative is correct when arguing in defense of the defendant that the value of the contracts signed by the plaintiff is not identical within the framework of private law, where the intention of the contracting parties is privileged, than in the field of tax law, where the principle of economic reality prevails, empowering the Administration to disregard the legal forms adopted by the parties -Article 8 of the Tax Code (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios): *"When the rule relating to the taxable event refers to situations defined by other legal branches, without expressly referring to or departing from them, the interpreter shall give the meaning that best adapts to the reality considered by the law when creating the tax. The legal forms adopted by taxpayers do not bind the interpreter, who may attribute to the situations and acts that occurred a meaning consistent with the facts when it emerges from the tax law that the taxable event of the respective obligation was defined based on reality and not on legal form. When the legal forms are manifestly inappropriate to the reality of the taxed facts and this translates into a decrease in the amount of tax obligations, the tax law must be applied disregarding such forms."*- Thus, although in the contracts signed by the plaintiff, in which she appears as a subcontractor, clauses related to the plaintiff's patrimonial liability, the guarantees she had to provide, the method of payment, and topics related to the personnel who must carry out the installation of the prefabricated products, as well as the necessary equipment for it, are stipulated, the fact is that in those same contracts, the prefabricated products or elements that the companies appearing as contractors were acquiring are clearly broken down, and moreover, their value is established separately in attached documentation, which leaves no doubt for this Court that, within the framework of that contracting, those prefabricated elements with a specific design have the nature of a good (mercancía), and also that upon invoicing those goods -on the occasion of the referenced contracts- or upon their incorporation into the works contemplated in those construction projects -whichever occurs first according to subsection a) of Article 3 of Law N°6826, a sale of goods occurred, and consequently, the taxable event of the tax obligation imposed on the plaintiff. At this point, it is necessary to indicate that the mentioned contracts, in which the plaintiff appears as a subcontractor, arise precisely on the occasion of the defendant's condition as a manufacturer of prefabricated concrete products, and in those particular cases, of a manufacture according to specific requirements, consequently, the services provided are caused by the commercialization of a product -in this case, prefabricated concrete products designed and manufactured according to the contractors' requirements-. [...]

Consequently, we see that the Law recognizes the possibility that the sale of goods implies the provision of a service, but that fact not only does not exclude the occurrence of the taxable event, but also, for the value of those services not to form part of the taxable base (base imponible), it requires the fulfillment of certain assumptions that in this case do not occur or have not been duly proven [...]

**VI.- REGARDING THE CLAIM FOR A DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF RESOLUTIONS DT10V-141-10 OF 1:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 13, 2010 ISSUED BY THE LARGE TAXPAYERS TAX ADMINISTRATION, N° AF-INFRAC-AU-10V-044-11 ISSUED BY THAT SAME BODY, AND TFA N°592-2004, ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE TAX TRIBUNAL ON DECEMBER 26, 2014:** Thus, the resolutions whose declaration of nullity the plaintiff seeks are clearly in accordance with the law, because their cause or motive is the plaintiff's own conduct in incurring a partial report of her sales for the 2008 period, with the consequent effect on the public treasury. Thus, the content of the act is consistent with its purpose, insofar as it seeks to safeguard the public finances (hacienda pública). The plaintiff claims that there was no negligence on her part and that the deficiency assessment action was the result of an interpretation by the concerned Administration. However, the Court does not share this argument, since taxpayers do not have the power to establish whether conduct constitutes or not a taxable event of a tax obligation, as that authority falls on the Tax Administration, and in case of doubt, the plaintiff here should have resorted to the tool that the legal system provides for such circumstances and raised the appropriate consultation, under the terms of Article 119 of the Tax Code, which is not on record that she carried out. Consequently, the Court must not only reject the claim for a declaration of nullity of Resolutions N°Infrac-DT-141-10 of one o'clock in the afternoon of December thirteenth, two thousand ten and N°AU-10V-044-11, of three o'clock in the afternoon of May third, two thousand eleven, both issued by the General Directorate of Taxation, Large Taxpayers Tax Administration, but also the request to annul Resolution TFA N°592-2014, of ten thirty in the morning of September twenty-sixth, two thousand fourteen, issued by the Administrative Tax Tribunal; furthermore, it is appropriate to reject the first-level subsidiary claims 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 and the second-level claims 1, 2, 3, and 4." **V.- ON THE PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM SEEKING A DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTIONS: *DT10V-137-10, issued by the Large Taxpayers Tax Administration, at 12:00 p.m. on December 9, 2010; AU10V-043-11, issued by the Large National Taxpayers Directorate; TFA No. 309-2014, issued by the Contentious-Administrative Tax Tribunal, at 10:30 a.m. on June 30, 2014:** The plaintiff's representation requests that this Tribunal declare the nullity of the referenced resolutions, and maintains as the essential argument for the claim it has raised, the thesis to the effect that the concerned Administration carried out an arbitrary interpretation of the activity performed by the company Productos de Concreto, particularly regarding the contracts in which the plaintiff participated as a subcontractor during the 2008 period *-Forum 1 and 2 projects, Parqueo Multipark, and Altos de Nunciatura-*. In essence, it indicates that the Administration disregarded the content of the contracts, pursuant to which the company undertook to provide construction services, and interpreted that said agreements stipulated a purchase-sale. Consequently, the administrative acts whose declaration of nullity is sought were issued on the occasion of the audit carried out by the Administration on the plaintiff during the 2008 period, and specifically regarding the results of the examination of the aforementioned contracts, communicated to the plaintiff on July 15, 2010, in Transfer of Observations and Charges No. 2752000026474, in which the Administration determined an increase in the tax liability (obligación tributaria), for the concept of sales tax, of two hundred seventy-eight million two hundred sixty-eight thousand eight hundred seventy-nine colones. In that act, and those subsequently issued on the occasion of the administrative claim filed by the plaintiff, it is maintained, contrary to the plaintiff's arguments, that the taxpayer reported as exempt sales construction services that actually represent sales of goods subject to the general sales tax. Consequently, it is pertinent to indicate that the point to be elucidated by this Decision-Making Body is directed at determining whether or not, on the occasion of the previously mentioned contracts, a sale of goods subject to the tax regulated in the General Sales Tax Law occurred. To that end, it is necessary to indicate that Law No. 6826, of November 28, 1982, which regulates the tax in question, establishes a levy on the sale of goods, and prior to the enactment of Law No. 9635, of December 3, 2018, on the provision of certain services that were expressly indicated in Article 1 of that normative body. Therefore, prior to the enactment of the referenced Law, this was a tax of a general nature with respect to sales, and specific with respect to services. The foregoing, because it was based on the premise that all sales were taxed, except those not subject to the tax by express provision of the same Law, while services were not subject to the tax, with the exception of those established by the Law itself. Pursuant to Article 3 of the Law, the taxable event (hecho generador) was, in the sale of goods, upon billing or delivery of them, whichever act occurs first; in the importation or entry of goods, at the moment of acceptance of the customs declaration or form, as applicable; in the provision of services, upon billing or provision of the service, whichever act occurs first; in the use or consumption of goods by taxpayers, on the date they are removed from the company; and in sales on consignment and merchandise layaways, at the moment the merchandise is set aside, as the case may be. Thus, as alleged by the plaintiff's representation, for the audited period *-2008 sales tax-*, the construction service was not taxed with this tribute. However, in accordance with the provisions of subparagraph a) of Article 3 of Law No. 6826, sales of goods are indeed subject to said tax, and of course, they were for the audited period. Taking this into consideration, and having analyzed the arguments put forth by the parties, as well as the evidence submitted to the case file, the Tribunal reaches the conclusion to the effect that the administrative acts subjected to legality review before this Jurisdictional Body are in conformity with the legal system, and consequently, the request seeking their declaration of nullity is not admissible [...]

In this regard, the State's representation is correct when it argues in defense of the defendant that the value of the contracts signed by the plaintiff is not identical within the framework of private law, where the intention of the contracting parties prevails, as in the sphere of tax law, where the principle of economic reality prevails, which empowers the Administration to disregard the legal forms adopted by the parties —Article 8 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures: *"When the rule relating to the taxable event refers to situations defined by other branches of law, without expressly remitting to or departing from them, the interpreter shall attribute the meaning most suited to the reality considered by the law when creating the tribute. The legal forms adopted by taxpayers do not bind the interpreter, who may attribute to the situations and acts that occurred a meaning consistent with the facts when it arises from the tax law that the taxable event of the respective liability was defined attending to reality and not to the legal form. When the legal forms are manifestly inappropriate to the reality of the taxed facts and this results in a decrease in the amount of tax liabilities, the tax law must be applied disregarding such forms."*—. Thus, although the contracts signed by the plaintiff, and in which it appears as a subcontractor, stipulate clauses regarding the plaintiff's patrimonial liability, the guarantees it had to provide, the payment method, and matters related to the personnel that must carry out the installation of the prefabricated products, as well as the necessary equipment for this, the fact is that in those same contracts, the prefabricated products or elements that the companies appearing as contractors were acquiring are clearly itemized, and even in annexed documentation, their value is established separately. Therefore, there is no doubt for this Tribunal that, within the framework of that contracting, those prefabricated elements with a specific design have the nature of a good, and furthermore, that upon billing those goods *-on the occasion of said contracts-* or upon their incorporation into the works contemplated in those construction projects —whichever occurs first according to subparagraph a) of Article 3 of Law No. 6826—, a sale of goods occurred, and consequently, the taxable event of the tax liability imposed on the plaintiff. At this point, it is necessary to indicate that the mentioned contracts, in which the plaintiff acts as a subcontractor, arise precisely on the occasion of the defendant's status as a manufacturer of prefabricated concrete products, and in those particular cases, from manufacturing according to specific requirements; consequently, the services provided are caused by the commercialization of a product *—in this case, prefabricated concrete products designed and manufactured according to the contracting parties' requirements—*. [...]

Consequently, we see that the Law recognizes the possibility that the sale of goods implies the provision of a service, but this fact not only does not exclude the production of the taxable event, but also, for the value of those services not to form part of the tax base (base imponible), it requires the fulfillment of certain conditions that, in this case, do not occur or have not been duly accredited [...]

**VI.- ON THE CLAIM SEEKING A DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF RESOLUTIONS DT10V-141-10 OF 1:00 P.M. ON DECEMBER 13, 2010, ISSUED BY THE LARGE TAXPAYERS TAX ADMINISTRATION, NO. AF-INFRAC-AU-10V-044-11 ISSUED BY THAT SAME BODY, AND TFA NO. 592-2004, ISSUED BY THE CONTENTIOUS-ADMINISTRATIVE TAX TRIBUNAL AT 10:30 A.M. ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2014:** Thus, the resolutions whose declaration of nullity the plaintiff seeks are clearly in accordance with the law, as their cause or motive is the plaintiff's own conduct by incurring in a partial report of its sales for the 2008 period, with the consequent prejudice to the Treasury. In this way, the content of the act is adjusted to its purpose, insofar as it seeks to safeguard the public treasury. The plaintiff alleges that there was no negligence on its part and that the determinative action was the result of an interpretation by the concerned Administration. However, the Tribunal does not share this argument, since taxpayers do not have the power to establish whether or not a conduct constitutes a taxable event of a tax liability, as that competence lies with the Tax Administration, and in case of doubt, the plaintiff here should have resorted to the tool provided by the legal system for such a circumstance, and filed the pertinent consultation, in the terms of Article 119 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, which does not appear in the record to have been carried out. Therefore, the Tribunal must not only reject the claim seeking a declaration of nullity of Resolutions No. Infrac-DT-141-10 of 1:00 p.m. on December 13, 2010, and No. AU-10V-044-11, of 3:00 p.m. on May 3, 2011, both issued by the Dirección General de Tributación, Large Taxpayers Tax Administration, but also the request to annul resolution TFA No. 592-2014, of 10:30 a.m. on September 26, 2014, issued by the Contentious-Administrative Tax Tribunal; furthermore, it is appropriate to reject the first-tier subsidiary claims 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and the second-tier claims 1, 2, 3, and 4."

"V.- SOBRE LA PRETENSIÓN DE LA PARTE ACTORA EN ORDEN A QUE SE DECLARE LA NULIDAD DE LAS SIGUIENTES RESOLUCIONES: DT10V-137-10, dictada por la Administración Tributaria de Grandes Contribuyentes, a las12:00 horas del 9 de diciembre del 2010; AU10V-043-11, dictada por la Dirección de Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales; TFA N°309-2014, dictada por el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, a las 10:30 horas del 30 de junio del 2014: La representación de la parte actora solicita que este Tribunal declare la nulidad de las resoluciones referidas, y sostiene como argumento esencial de la pretensión que ha planteado, la tesis en el sentido de que la Administración concernida llevó a cabo una interpretación arbitraria de la actividad que realiza la empresa Productos de Concreto, particularmente en lo que se refiere a los contratos en los cuales la demandante participó como subcontratista en el período 2008 -proyectos Forum 1 y 2, Parqueo Multipark y Altos de Nunciatura-. En lo esencial, señala que la Administración desconoció el contenido de los contratos, conforme a los cuales la empresa se comprometió a prestar servicios de construcción, e interpretó que dichos convenios estipulaban una compra-venta. Luego, los actos administrativos cuya declaratoria de nulidad se pretende, fueron emitidos con ocasión de la fiscalización realizada por la Administración a la demandante durante el período 2008, y específicamente sobre los resultados del examen de los contratos antes mencionados, comunicados a la actora el quince de julio del dos mil diez, en Traslado de Observaciones y Cargos N°2752000026474, en el cual, la Administración determinó un aumento en la obligación tributaria, por concepto de impuesto sobre las ventas de doscientos setenta y ocho millones doscientos sesenta y ocho mil ochocientos setenta y nueve colones. En ese acto, y los que se emitieron posteriormente con ocasión del reclamo administrativo planteado por la demandante se sostiene, contrario a la argumentación de la actora que el contribuyente reportó como ventas exentas servicios de construcción que en realidad representan ventas de mercancías y sujetas al impuesto general sobre las ventas. En consecuencia, corresponde indicar que el punto a dilucidar por este Órgano decisor es en orden a determinar si con ocasión de los contratos anteriormente mencionados se produjo o no un venta de mercancías sujeta al tributo regulado en la Ley del Impuesto General sobre las Ventas. Para ello es menester indicar que Ley N°6826, de veintiocho de noviembre de mil novecientos ochenta y dos, que regula el impuesto en cuestión, establece un gravamen sobre la venta de mercancías, y con anterioridad a la promulgación de la Ley N°9635, de tres de diciembre del dos mil dieciocho, a la prestación de ciertos servicios que se indicaban de forma expresa en el artículo 1° de ese cuerpo normativo. Se trataba entonces, previo a la promulgación de la referida Ley, de un impuesto de naturaleza general respecto de las ventas, y específico en cuanto a los servicios. Lo anterior por cuanto se partía de que todas las ventas estaban gravadas, salvo las no sujetas al impuesto por disposición expresa de la misma Ley, en tanto que los servicios no estaban afectados por el impuesto, con excepción de aquellos que la propia Ley establecía. A tenor del artículo 3 de la Ley, el hecho generador era en la venta de mercancías, con la facturación o entrega de ellas, en el acto que se realice primero; en las importaciones o internaciones de mercancías en el momento de la aceptación de la póliza o del formulario aduanero, según corresponda; en la prestación de servicios, con la facturación o de la prestación del servicio, en el acto que se realice primero; en el uso o consumo de mercancías por parte de los contribuyentes, en la fecha en que aquellas se retiren de la empresa y en las ventas en consignación y los apartados de mercaderías, en el momento en que la mercadería queda apartada, según sea el caso. De este modo, tal y como lo alega la representación de la parte actora, para el período fiscalizado -impuesto sobre las ventas del 2008-, el servicio de construcción no se encontraba gravado con este tributo. No obstante, de acuerdo con lo estipulado por el inciso a) del artículo 3 de la Ley N°6826, las ventas de mercancías sí están sujetas a dicho impuesto, y desde luego, que lo estaban para el período auditado. Tomando esto en consideración, y analizados los argumentos esgrimidos por las partes, así como la prueba que fue allegada a los autos, el Tribunal arriba a la conclusión en el sentido de que los actos administrativos sometidos al control de legalidad ante este Órgano Jurisdiccional, resultan conformes al ordenamiento jurídico, y por consiguiente, la solicitud en orden a que se declare su nulidad no resulta de recibo [...]

En este sentido, lleva razón la representación del Estado cuando argumenta en defensa de la demandada que el valor de los contratos suscritos por la actora no es idéntico en el marco del derecho privado, en donde se privilegia la intención de los contratantes, que en el ámbito del derecho tributario, en el cual priva el principio de realidad económica que faculta a la Administración a prescindir de las formas jurídicas adoptadas por las partes -artículo 8 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios: "Cuando la norma relativa al hecho generador se refiera a situaciones definidas por otras ramas jurídicas, sin remitirse ni apartarse expresamente de ellas, el intérprete el significado que más se adapte a la realidad considerada por la ley al crear el tributo. Las formas jurídicas adoptadas por los contribuyentes no obligan al intérprete, quien puede atribuir a las situaciones y actos ocurridos una significación acorde con los hechos cuando de la ley tributaria surja que el hecho generador de la respectiva obligación fue definido atendiendo a la realidad y no a la forma jurídica. Cuando las formas jurídicas sean manifiestamente inapropiadas a la realidad de los hechos gravados y ello se traduzca en una disminución de la cuantía de las obligaciones tributarias, la ley tributaria se debe aplicar prescindiendo de tales formas".- De este modo, si bien en los contratos suscritos por la actora, y en los cuales figura como subcontratista, se estipulan cláusulas relativas a responsabilidad patrimonial de la demandante, las garantías que ésta debió rendir, la forma de pago y temas relacionados con el personal que debe llevar a cabo la instalación de los productos prefabricados, así como el equipo necesario para ello, lo cierto es que en esos mismo contratos se desglosan con claridad los productos o elementos prefabricados que estaban adquiriendo las empresas que figuran como contratistas, e incluso, en documentación anexa se establece su valor de forma separada, con lo cual no cabe duda para este Tribunal, que en el marco de esa contratación, esos elementos prefabricados con un diseño específico, tienen la naturaleza de una mercancía, y además que al facturarse esos bienes -con ocasión de los referidos contratos- o al incorporarse a las obras contempladas en esos proyectos constructivos -lo que ocurra primero según el inciso a) del artículo 3 de la Ley N°6826, se produjo una venta de mercancías, y en consecuencia el hecho generador de la obligación tributaria impuesta a la demandante. En este punto, es menester indicar que los mencionados contratos, en los cuales el actor figura como subcontratista surgen precisamente con ocasión de la condición de fabricante de la demandada de productos de concreto prefabricado, y en esos casos en particular, de una fabricación de acuerdo a requerimientos específicos, en consecuencia, los servicios que se presten tienen como causa la comercialización de un producto en este caso de productos prefabricados de concreto diseñados y elaborados de acuerdo a los requerimientos de los contratantes-.[...]

En consecuencia, vemos que la Ley reconoce la posibilidad de que la venta de mercancías implique la prestación de un servicio, pero ese hecho no solo no excluye la producción del hecho generador, sino que además, para que el valor de esos servicios no formen parte de la base imponible, exige el cumplimiento de ciertos presupuestos que en este caso no ocurre o que no han sido debidamente acreditados [...]

VI.- SOBRE LA PRETENSIÓN EN ORDEN A QUE SE DECLARE LA NULIDAD DE LAS RESOLUCIONES DT10V-141-10 DE LAS 13 HORAS DEL 13 DE DICIEMBRE DEL 2010 DICTADA POR LA ADMINISTRACIÓN TRIBUTARIA DE GRANDES CONTRIBUYENTES, N° AF-INFRAC-AU-10V-044-11 DICTADA POR ESE MISMO ÓRGANO Y LA TFA N°592-2004, DICTADA POR EL TRIBUNAL FISCAL ADMINISTRATIVO A LAS EL 26 DE DICIEMBRE DEL 2014:

De este modo, claramente las resoluciones cuya declaratoria de nulidad pretende la demandante, se encuentran ajustadas a derecho, pues su causa o motivo es la propia conducta de la actora al incurrir en un reporte parcial de sus ventas para el período 2008, con la consecuente afectación al fisco. De este modo, el contenido del acto, se encuentra ajustado al fin, en tanto se persigue salvaguardar la hacienda pública. La demandante aduce que no hubo negligencia de su parte y que la acción determinativa fue el resultado de una interpretación de la Administración concernida. Sin embargo, el Tribunal no comparte este argumento, por cuanto los contribuyentes no tienen la potestad de establecer si una conducta constituye o no un hecho generador de una obligación tributaria, ya que esa competencia recae en la Administración Tributaria, y en caso de duda, la aquí actora debió acudir a la herramienta que brinda el ordenamiento para tal circunstancia, y plantear la consulta de rigor, en los términos del artículo 119 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, lo cual, no consta que haya llevado a cabo. Luego, el Tribunal debe no solamente rechazar la pretensión en orden a que se declare la nulidad de las resoluciones N°Infrac-DT-141-10 de trece horas de trece de diciembre del dos mil diez y N°AU-10V-044-11, de quince horas del tres de mayo del dos mil once, ambas emitidas por la Dirección General de Tributación. Administración Tributaria de Grandes Contribuyentes, sino además la solicitud de que se anule la resolución TFAN°592-2014, de las diez horas y treinta minutos del veintiséis de septiembre del dos mil catorce, emitida por el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, además, corresponde rechazar las pretensiones subsidiarias de primer nivel 3, 4, 5, 6 y 7 y las de segundo nivel 1, 2,3 y 4.".