ICE exempt from real estate tax liabilityICE no sujeto al impuesto de bienes inmuebles

**Documento PJEDITOR** **Exp: 18-006264-1027-CA** **Res. 000615-F-S1-2024** **FIRST CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE.** San José, at thirteen hours forty-four minutes on the thirteenth of June of two thousand twenty-four.

Ordinary proceeding 18-006264-1027-CA, declared a matter of pure law, before the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court, Second Judicial Circuit, San José, Goicoechea, Section I, (composed of judges Carlos Jose Mejías Rodríguez, Laura Gómez Chacón and Claudia Bolaños Salazar), filed by the **COSTA RICAN ELECTRICITY INSTITUTE (ICE)**, represented by Luis Guillermo Alán Alvarado, represented by José Pablo Arce Piñar, against the **MUNICIPALITY OF NICOYA**. Mr. Juan Carlos Araya González acts as special judicial attorney-in-fact for the plaintiff. The defendant does not have legal counsel as it did not appear in the proceedings and was declared in default (rebelde) by resolution at eighteen hours and forty-seven minutes on the second of May of two thousand nineteen.

Judge Rivas Loáiciga writes **CONSIDERING** **I.-** According to the factual statement of the judgment, with which the appellant party is not in disagreement, by collection notice dated 22 July 2015, the Tax Administration of the Municipality of Nicoya notified ICE of an alleged debt in the payment of the real property tax (impuesto de bienes inmuebles) for a total of ¢13,359,172.05 (thirteen million three hundred fifty-nine thousand one hundred seventy-two colones and five céntimos). On 28 July 2015, ICE filed an opposition to the collection via memorandum 257-534-2015. By memorandum No. IBIV-116-2015 dated 9 November 2015, the filed objection was rejected. On 23 November 2015, ICE filed a motion for reversal (recurso de revocatoria) with subsidiary appeal before the Municipal Mayor's Office of Nicoya, against memorandum No. IBIV-116-2015. By Resolution No. 001-2016 issued by the Real Property and Valuation Unit of the Municipality of Nicoya, the motion for reversal was denied, and it was forwarded to the Mayor for consideration of the subsidiary appeal. By unnumbered resolution, dated 14 February 2017, issued by the Municipal Mayor's Office of Nicoya, the appeal filed against memorandum No. IBIV-116-2015 was denied. By memorandum No. 257-176-2016 dated 17 March 2016, ICE filed a motion for reversal with subsidiary appeal before the Third Section of the Administrative Contentious Court. By unnumbered resolution dated 21 March 2016, the Municipal Mayor's Office rejected the motion for reversal and admitted the appeal before the Administrative Contentious Court, Section III. By Resolution No. 306-2017 dated 31 July 2017, the Administrative Contentious Court, in its Third Section, resolved to deny the aforementioned appeal and upheld in all respects the resolution of 21 March 2016, issued by the Municipal Mayor's Office of Nicoya, thereby exhausting the administrative channel (Vía Administrativa).

**II.-** The Costa Rican Electricity Institute (represented by Luis Guillermo Alán Alvarado), filed this proceeding against the Municipality of Nicoya, seeking: “1. I request the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José to address our claims under the principle of due process and to recognize the exemption regime (régimen exonerativo) held by my client regarding the mandatory payment of the real property tax that the Municipality of Nicoya intends to collect. 2. That Resolution No. 306-2017 of 31 July 2017, issued by the Third Section of the Administrative Contentious Court, be annulled and revoked in all its aspects, as well as other administrative collection acts and resolutions of reconsideration and appeal issued by the Mayor's Office and other dependencies of the Municipality of Nicoya, concerning the collection of the real property tax, since ICE is not subject to the payment of the real property tax, as well as the economic harm that this collection represents to the Institute in fulfilling its purposes. 3. That the immediate elimination of said charge be ordered from all manual and computerized systems held by the Municipality of Nicoya against the Costa Rican Electricity Institute, to avoid future charges for this concept. 4. Finally, I request that the defendant be ordered to pay both costs of this judicial proceeding.” The defendant Municipality, failing to respond, was declared in default in a resolution at eighteen hours and forty-seven minutes on the second of May of two thousand nineteen. By first-instance Judgment No. 100-2020-I, at 10 hours 35 minutes on 26 August 2020, issued by the Administrative Contentious and Civil Treasury Court, Second Judicial Circuit, San José, Goicoechea, it was resolved: “A lack of right is assessed ex officio and declared in the filed claim. Consequently, the claim filed by the Costa Rican Electricity Institute against the Municipality of Nicoya is denied in all its aspects. Resolved without special costs order.” Dissatisfied with this resolution, the plaintiff filed an appeal in cassation which was fully admitted for analysis on the merits.

**Cassation on grounds of substance** **III.- First.** It argues that, in the judgment, the Court relied as evidence to support its resolution on articles 63 and 64 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), assuming the repeal of the provision of the Constituent Law of ICE, Law No. 449 of 8 April 1949, as well as the Territorial Tax Law, Law No. 27 of 2 March 1939, the latter having been repealed, as acknowledged by this representation, by the Real Property Tax Law, Law No. 7509. In its view, legal foundations such as article 62 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures are omitted, which contain the conditions and requirements demanded for granting exemptions, in accordance with the literal text of the non-subjection (no sujeción) contained in article 4 of the Real Property Tax Law, Law No. 7509. It considers that the Court made an incorrect interpretation of the legal norms by omitting legal aspects and analysis of the regulations that support a value judgment in the resolution on the merits of this process. It argues that from the analysis of article 4 of the Real Property Law, one requirement for non-subjection or exemption from the tax is that it concerns an Autonomous Institution. It transcribes Articles 4 and 8 of Law No. 449, and indicates that based on these articles it meets said requirement. It also transcribes article 20 of Law No. 449 and article 18 of Law No. 8660. It mentions that these articles must be analyzed in light of article 62 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, concluding that in the case of Law No. 449 (ICE's Constituent Law), the exemption is total regarding national and municipal taxes, being a generic exemption granted by the Legislature to the Institution, which was subsequently duly ratified by the Legislature with the Law for the Strengthening and Modernization of Public Entities in the Telecommunications Sector, Law No. 8660 – on this occasion establishing, no longer a total exemption, but a partial one. It mentions an excerpt from Resolution No. 2008-011210 of 15 hours on 16 July 2008, of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) where, in its understanding, the Legislature's evident intention to maintain the exemptions held by the Costa Rican Electricity Institute through its Constituent Law is demonstrated. **Second:** It explains that the decision by the Administrative Contentious Court is based on interpretation and analogy and not on the literal text of the norm, nor on analyzing the Legislator's intent. It argues that it must be clear that, upon the opening of the Telecommunications market, ICE must be liable for taxes like any private company; however, it is not exclusively dedicated to telecommunications, but rather maintains the State monopoly in the Electricity Sector, in which ICE invests the majority of its resources, whether for infrastructure, property purchases (expropriations), machinery, and other goods necessary for electricity generation. It considers that the Court omits the analysis of these aspects and, at the same time, is contradictory because, on the one hand, it uses analogy to distort the spirit of the legislator contained in article 20 of Decree Law 449, and, on the other hand, it relies on interpretation and analogy to determine that ICE is not exempt from the real property tax, because article 63 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures repealed the provisions of Law No. 449, despite the fact that the Real Property Tax Law itself, in its article 4, is what establishes the non-subjection. The appellant party has understood article 63 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, as amended by article 50 of the Regulatory Law on Existing Exemptions, as a time limit on the application of exemptions. That is, it considers that an exemption granted prior to the Law creating a new tax would not be applicable, as recognized by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in its Resolution 001175-F-S1-2011. It indicates that another contradictory aspect in which the Administrative Contentious Court becomes entangled is that article 18 of Law No. 8660 grants the exemption in question, and on the other hand indicates that this mandate does not create a tax exemption but rather maintains the validity of those that had been granted to ICE previously, either as an operator or provider of telecommunications or electricity services or products in conditions open to free competition, an assumption under which the exemption from payment of Income Tax and General Sales Tax was eliminated, which, incidentally, makes no sense given the entry into force of the value-added tax; in other cases, it referred to the exemptions established by virtue of Decree Law No. 764, which added Article 20 of Decree Law No. 449. It argues that the Chamber has ruled on the topic at hand, and the Court's action creates legal uncertainty before other local governments by not following the Chamber's jurisprudential line. **Third:** It argues, following the theme developed in arguments one and two, that the Court erroneously interprets and applies article 4 of the Real Property Tax Law and article 62 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures. It argues that the interpretation by analogy relating to the Real Property Tax Law repealing the provisions of Law No. 449 is erroneous, without assessing the provisions in the same Real Property Law that establishes the exemption, much less those of the Law for the Strengthening and Modernization of Public Entities in the Telecommunications Sector No. 8660, which reiterates the exemption of ICE from all national and municipal taxes provided in article 20 of Law No. 449. It argues that, although the Court, when conducting the analysis to differentiate between tax exemption and tax non-subjection, does not express itself clearly regarding the rules pertaining to the topic under discussion, a situation that cannot be attributed or imputed to the Institution, since such confusion is due to poor legislative drafting technique of the norms. It contends that article 4 of that Law establishes the non-subjection to the tax for Autonomous Institutions such as ICE, but subjects it to an exemption from said tax in a special law, a situation that, in our view, the First Chamber has understood and developed in its jurisprudential line, by determining ICE's non-subjection to this tax, and therefore, it should not be an element that varies the reasoning and position of this Chamber, as the Administrative Contentious Court intends in its Judgment. Consequently, this representation considers that there exist regulations that the Administrative Contentious Court failed to apply in the Judgment being appealed hereby. **Fourth:** It alleges that the Court violates the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, legal certainty, and equality, by not utilizing sound critique (sana crítica). It affirms that ICE continues to be an Autonomous Institution of the Costa Rican State and, therefore, its legal nature should not be altered, nor should it be interpreted that with the opening in Telecommunications matters it becomes a private entity; such a situation could distort the principle of equality, since ICE cannot be considered like other operators in the Telecommunications market. This situation creates legal uncertainty for it, since it considers that the Court bases itself on assumptions such as that article 63 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures repeals Law No. 449, even though that regulatory body remains fully in force, as well as setting aside new legislation such as Law No. 8660 which is not subject to analysis, this being a Special Law that it possesses. Moreover, it argues that the Court's Judgment lacks the principle of reasonableness and proportionality, because ICE is an Institution created by the State for the provision and commercialization of electricity and telecommunications products and services (see in this sense articles 1 and 2 of Law No. 449 and article 2 of Law No. 8660); therefore, it could not be interpreted that ICE can be measured on equal terms with other Telecommunications operators that carry out their commercialization in this country and that, as private companies, must assume the established tax responsibilities. It should be noted that to date there is no opening of the Electricity Sector in Costa Rica, so ICE continues to hold the State monopoly on this service, and for this purpose, the Institute is obliged to cover the electricity needs demanded by the country; this obligation can only be met through the creation of new Hydroelectric plants, Geothermal plants, Thermal plants, wind farms, or any other source capable of producing electricity, such as gas or solar. It considers that, if ICE owns a large number of properties nationwide, each Municipality will attempt to have ICE pay 0.25% of the value of its properties annually, as established by articles 22 and 23 of the Real Property Tax Law. It argues that it is inappropriate and irrational to consider that ICE could meet the tax payment on all the properties it owns in the country, because here it is necessary to consider not only the collection request made by the Municipality of Nicoya, but also that this type of resolution creates jurisprudence so that other Municipalities may seek to collect this tax from my client, relying on this resolution. It argues that the Court has not considered such arguments and issues a resolution that violates the principle of reasonableness and proportionality, because ICE possesses the largest infrastructure in this country, not because it has the economic capacity to build or purchase them, but because through its Special Laws, the Institution has been granted the power to use a series of benefits and financial instruments to develop such works. Therefore, it requests that Judgment No. 100-2020-I, at ten hours and thirty-five minutes on the twenty-sixth of August of two thousand twenty, be revoked, and that the Non-Subjection Regime be declared and recognized.

**IV.-** The Court, in the appealed judgment, as grounds that the plaintiff is subject to the payment of the tax, resolved: “VIII.- ANALYSIS ON SUBJECTION TO THE REAL PROPERTY TAX: Considering that the argument given by the plaintiff that its represented entity is not subject to the real property tax appears belatedly (in conclusions), the position given by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in its vote 816-F-S1-2018, it is considered necessary to assess what was stated by the cassation chamber. Thus, in the cited vote, the Chamber's position is as follows: “…for this Chamber, the dispute points not to the examination of the exemption regime, but to the topic of tax non-subjection (no sujeción tributaria), which stems from the non-existence of the tax obligation relationship, that ICE cannot be considered a passive subject and it would not even be possible to deem the existence of a taxable event (hecho generador) that imposes the payment required by the defendant municipality. Indeed, the Territorial Tax Law, repealed by the Real Property Tax Law, provided: "Article 4. Non-subjections. The following properties shall not be subject to this tax: (…) The Costa Rican Electricity Institute (…)". The Real Property Tax Law, article 4, stipulates: "Article 4. Properties not subject to tax. The following are not subject to this tax: a) Properties of the State, municipalities, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions that, by special law, enjoy exemption". Consequently, it is not even appropriate to assume that, with respect to ICE, the taxable event of the Real Property Tax occurs, when its articles 1 and 2 impose, in favor of the municipalities, a tax on lands, installations or fixed or permanent constructions existing there, because the taxable event, according to precept 31 of the CNPT, constitutes the legal prerequisite that characterizes the tax and originates the obligation. By virtue of this, it is also not possible to consider that a tax relationship exists between the Treasury and this institute, with an obligation on the latter to pay said tax. This is so, because article 11 Ibidem establishes that relationship based on the verification of the taxable event which, as analyzed, cannot exist in the present case, since the legislator provided for a tax non-subjection. By parity of reasoning, ICE is excluded as a passive subject of the tax, according to article 15 of the aforementioned regulatory body, free from the obligation pertaining to the referenced tax. If the Real Property Tax Law, with precedent, as cited, in the Territorial Tax Law, maintained the tax non-subjection, the status of taxpayer, which is contemplated in article 17 Ibid. of the CNPT as the person with respect to whom the taxable event of the tax obligation is verified, does not apply to ICE either. Consequently, it is not subject to the imposition contained in the following article 18, when it provides: "Obligations. Taxpayers are obliged to pay taxes and to comply with the formal duties established by this Code or by special norms". Adding to this regulatory framework is article 17 of the Decree-Law for the Creation of ICE, on the Institute's financial policy, which shall be to capitalize the net profits obtained from the sale of electric energy and from any other source that may yield them, for the financing and execution of national electrification plans and for the promotion of industry based on electric energy. In this sense, according to the aforementioned article: "The Government shall not derive any part of these profits, since the Institute shall not be considered a source of income for the Treasury, but rather shall use all means at its disposal to increase the production of electric energy as a basic industry of the Nation…". All of this, also, with the purpose of ensuring the fulfillment of the goals and objectives set forth in articles 1 and 2 Ibidem., as well as the autonomy established in its favor in rules 4, 8 and 9, and the disposition of its assets in profits according to precepts 16 and 18, provisions, all of them, of the same Law, in accordance also with the purposes and objectives established in articles 1 and 2 of the Law for the Strengthening and Modernization of Public Entities in the Telecommunications Sector…” (emphasis is ours. Vote 000816-F-S1-18 at eleven hours on the twelfth of September of two thousand eighteen). As can be seen, the central argument in the Cassation Chamber revolves around the fact that, in its interpretation, the Real Property Law considers – like its predecessor – ICE as an entity not subject to the tax. In this regard, the members of this Chamber of Judges, with the utmost respect proper to situations such as this, understand the exposition given, however, we do not share it, so we must depart from the line set forth by our cassation superior, for the reasons we immediately proceed to set forth. As a first aspect, we consider that there is no complete clarity with the fact that the former Territorial Tax law regulated in its article 4 – under the technical and doctrinal concept – cases of non-subjection, but rather mixed these with the institute of exemption. Proof of this is that the law itself, in its article 6°, required that all properties be appraised, using the expression "including exempt ones" and, since the law does not regulate specific cases of exemption, it is considered that the reference is to the regulation of article 4°. On the other hand, Law 7293, which came to impact the repealed regulation, grants it exemption treatment, as observed in article 1° of the cited law by making express reference to the territorial tax, and article 34, which came to amend the regulatory law of the tax, listing which subjects should not pay the tax by way of exemption. This situation is reinforced by the fact that article 4, subsection a) of the real property tax grants exemption treatment by indicating that only those properties of the State, municipalities, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions that possess an express exemption rule must not pay the tax; conversely, those that do not have such a rule must be considered subject to the tax. It is worth highlighting that the First Chamber itself, in a previous ruling, gave it exemption treatment in its vote 37-F-2004 at ten hours and thirty-five minutes on the twenty-first of January of 2004. As indicated in the preceding considering paragraph, the fundamental characteristic of non-subjection is that it can be identified without the need for an express rule indicating it, which does not occur with exemption, which, if it lacks an indicative rule in positive text, results in the creation and payment of the tax obligation. In that sense, if the hypothetical exercise is performed of eliminating the rule, both from article 4 of the territorial tax law, the reform according to article 34 of Law 7293, and the current article 4 of the real property law, we find as a result that ICE would be subject to the tax. As a second aspect, there is a change of treatment between the territorial tax law and the real property law, precisely when referring to the exemption of the plaintiff entity. While the former regulation stated it without any conditioning, therefore being a subjective release from obligation; the current rule through Law 7509 establishes an additional condition, which is the existence of an exemption by special law. With both aspects, we find, under a finalistic analysis of both norms, that the legislator had provided a subjective exemption in the territorial tax, which was later regulated and delimited by Law 7293, and which was modified again in 1995, conditioning the exclusion from payment to the existence of an express rule containing an exemption in favor of the passive subject according to Law 7509. Thus, although it could be interpreted that what was set forth in the territorial tax law could be equated to a non-subjection, the truth is that the subsequent normative evolution gave, and gives, it exemption treatment. As a third aspect, we consider the previously expounded doctrine, in terms of having to analyze whether, from a delimiting perspective, the tax encompasses or not the patrimonial sphere of a certain subject, which, if it were a case of non-subjection, the taxable event would never encompass the patrimony under analysis, precisely because it lies outside the limit of the factual prerequisite that generates the tax. To this end, we resort to the reading of article 2° of Law 7509 which expressly indicates: "The object of this tax is the lands, the installations or the fixed and permanent constructions existing thereon." Now, not from the subjective, but rather the objective perspective (nature of lands and activities), we find that article 4 excludes, regardless of the owner: those that constitute watersheds or have been declared, by the Executive Branch, as forest, indigenous or biological reserves, national parks or similar (subsection b by reason of the nature of the land), those intended for fire departments (subsection j, by reason of activity); and we find those of a mixed nature (subjective and objective elements): Properties belonging to churches and religious organizations but only those dedicated to worship (subsection g, by reason of activity), diplomatic headquarters and the dwelling houses of diplomatic and consular agents with reciprocity of fiscal benefits (subsection h, by reason of the nature of the land) and common-use goods, owned by legal entities covered by Law No. 3859 (subsection k, by reason of activity). As can be observed, the plaintiff institution's properties do not fit into any of the indicated assumptions, whether objective or mixed; therefore, the scope of article 2° of the territorial tax law would imply that the real property assets of the plaintiff fall within the factual prerequisite of the tax, reaffirming that we are in the presence of an assumption of subjection. Now then, we would thereby proceed to analyze whether, despite being subject to the tax, it possesses an exemption in its favor.” **V.-** As the cassation appellant properly alleges, this Chamber has had the opportunity to refer on several occasions to the topic under discussion in this proceeding. The central theme lies in the interpretation and application of the different norms and their validity, in that sense it will be analyzed. For this purpose, it is important to consider the existence of violations of substantive norms. The Decree-Law for the Creation of ICE establishes tax exemptions, and based on it, the Regulatory Law on All Existing Exemptions, Their Repeal and Their Exceptions was analyzed, whose first precept repeals exemptions with certain exceptions. Mandate 50 ibidem amends article 63 of the CNPT, and imposes limits on the application of exemptions. Regarding article 52 of the mentioned Law, it modifies precept 64 of the CNPT, with respect to the fact that the exemption, even when granted in order to certain factual conditions, may be repealed or modified by a subsequent law, without State liability. For this Chamber, the sub judice points not to the examination of the exemption regime, as the Court erroneously analyzes it, but to the topic of tax non-subjection, which stems from the non-existence of the tax obligation relationship. Consequently, ICE cannot be considered a passive subject of the tax obligation. Indeed, the Territorial Tax Law, repealed by the Real Property Tax Law, provided: "Article 4. Non-subjections. The following properties shall not be subject to this tax: (…) The Costa Rican Electricity Institute (…)". The Real Property Tax Law, article 4, stipulates: "Article 4. Properties not subject to tax. The following are not subject to this tax: a) Properties of the State, municipalities, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions that, by special law, enjoy exemption". Consequently, it is not even appropriate to assume that, with respect to ICE, the taxable event of the Real Property Tax occurs, when its articles 1 and 2 impose, in favor of the municipalities, a tax on lands, installations or fixed or permanent constructions existing there, because the taxable event, according to precept 31 of the CNPT, constitutes the legal prerequisite that characterizes the tax and originates the obligation. By virtue of this, it is also not possible to consider that a tax relationship exists between the Treasury and this institute, with an obligation on the latter to pay said tax. This is so, because article 11 Ibidem establishes that relationship based on the verification of the taxable event which, as analyzed, cannot exist in the present case, since the legislator provided for a tax non-subjection.

By parity of reasoning, ICE is excluded as the taxable person (sujeto pasivo) of the tax, pursuant to numeral 15 of the referenced regulatory body, free from the obligation concerning the referenced tax. If the Real Property Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles), with its antecedent, as cited, in the Territorial Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto Territorial), maintained the tax non-subjection (no sujeción tributaria), the status of taxpayer (contribuyente) does not apply to ICE either, which is contemplated in numeral 17 Ibid. of the CNPT, as the person with respect to whom the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax obligation is verified. Consequently, it is not charged with the imposition contained in the following article 18, when it stipulates: “Obligations. Taxpayers (contribuyentes) are obligated to pay taxes and comply with the formal duties established by this Code or by special norms.” Added to this normative framework is article 17 of the Decree-Law Creating ICE (Decreto-Ley de Creación del ICE), regarding the Institute’s financial policy, which shall be to capitalize the net profits it obtains from the sale of electric power and from any other source it may have, in the financing and execution of the national electrification plans and in the promotion of the industry based on electric power. In this sense, according to the aforementioned numeral: “The Government shall not derive any part of those profits, as the Institute shall not be considered a source of income for the Treasury (Fisco), but rather shall use all means at its disposal to increase the production of electric power as a basic industry of the Nation…”. All of this, also, with the purpose of ensuring the fulfillment of the aims and objectives provided for in articles 1 and 2 Ibidem., as well as the autonomy established in its favor in norms 4, 8, and 9, and the disposal of its equity in profits pursuant to precepts 16 and 18, all provisions of the same Law, in agreement also with the purposes and objectives stipulated in articles 1 and 2 of the Law for the Strengthening and Modernization of Public Entities of the Telecommunications Sector (Ley de Fortalecimiento y Modernización de las Entidades Públicas del Sector Telecomunicaciones). For the foregoing, the Court has erroneously interpreted and applied the legal precepts with which it has considered that a tax relationship exists between the Treasury (Fisco) and ICE, with the latter being liable, as the taxable person (sujeto pasivo), to assume the payment of the Real Property Tax (Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles), upon the verification, in its judgment, of the taxable event (hecho generador) contained in numerals 1 and 2 of the Law concerning this tax. As the appellant contends, according to article 4 of this regulation, it is not obligated to pay it and, thus, resolution 306-2017 issued by the Contentious-Administrative Court, Third Section (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Tercera), at 14:25 hours on July 31, 2017, in a majority vote, validating the provisions of the Mayor’s Office of the Municipality of Nicoya (Alcaldía de la Municipalidad de Nicoya) of February 14, 2016, by maintaining the charge for the aforementioned tax, must be annulled, as well as the other administrative acts of that municipality established for that purpose. Consequently, the defense of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho) that the adjudicating body issued for the benefit of the defendant municipal corporation does not proceed, which leads to the acceptance of the lawsuit (demanda) on the stated terms, contrary to the criterion sustained in the appealed ruling that for the same reason must be annulled. It should be noted that, despite the parties and the adjudicating body repeatedly referring to the concept of tax exemption (exención tributaria), among the supporting legal basis for the petitionary claims and even in statements of the appeal (recurso), the application of canon 4 of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) was cited and justified, with its antecedent in the Territorial Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto Territorial), both containing the tax non-subjection (no sujeción tributaria). For this reason, the Chamber accepts the substantive issue on this particular point, when, furthermore, the essence of what is claimed by the plaintiff party rests on the fact that the defendant should not charge the referenced Tax, as is inferred from both Laws. In this sense, it is not even possible to consider that it is ruling against what was requested in the lawsuit (demanda); rather, it is done within the powers stipulated in article 122 of the CPCA. (See resolutions of this Chamber No. 816-2018, 474-2019, 475-2019, 476-2019, 1849-2019, 777-2021 and 778-2021).

VI.- By virtue of the foregoing, the challenge (impugnación) must be accepted and the appealed judgment annulled. Ruling on the merits, the lawsuit (demanda) shall be granted. Resolution no. 306-2017 issued by the Contentious-Administrative Court, Third Section (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Tercera), at 14:25 hours on July 31, 2017, must be annulled, which validated the provisions of the Mayor’s Office of the Municipality of Nicoya (Alcaldía de la Municipalidad de Nicoya) of February 14, 2016, which, consequently, is annulled, in accordance with numeral 122 subsection k) of the CPCA. Additionally, the notices and pronouncements of charge for the Real Property Tax (Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles) issued by the mentioned municipality against ICE, since it is not subject to the payment of the referenced tax, ordering the elimination of the corresponding charge in all manual and computerized systems of the defendant against the plaintiff, to avoid future charges for that concept, aspects whose compliance may be analyzed in execution of judgment. In accordance with precept 193 of the CPCA, since the defendant party did not appear in the proceeding, nor before this Chamber opposing the right of the plaintiff party, it is resolved without special condemnation in costs.

POR TANTO

The appeal (recurso) is granted. The challenged judgment is annulled. Ruling on the merits, the lawsuit (demanda) is accepted in all its terms. The regime of tax non-subjection (no sujeción tributaria) is recognized in favor of ICE regarding the Real Property Tax (Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles) that the Municipality of Nicoya intends to charge it. Resolution number 306-2017 issued by the Contentious-Administrative Court, Third Section (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Tercera), at 14:25 hours on July 31, 2017, which confirms the provisions of the Mayor’s Office of the Municipality of Nicoya (Alcaldía de la Municipalidad de Nicoya) of February 14, 2016, is annulled, which consequently is also annulled, pursuant to subsection k) of article 122 of the CPCA. Likewise, the pronouncements of charge for the Real Property Tax (Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles), intended for that purpose, issued by the mentioned municipality against ICE, are annulled, since it is not subject to the payment of the referenced tax. The elimination of the corresponding charge is ordered in all manual and computerized systems of the defendant against the plaintiff, to avoid future charges for that concept. It is resolved without special condemnation in costs. EPEREZA  LUIS GUILLERMO RIVAS LOAICIGA - MAGISTRADO/A  IRIS ROCIO ROJAS MORALES - MAGISTRADO/A  CARLOS GUILLERMO ZAMORA CAMPOS - MAGISTRADO/A  DAMARIS VARGAS VÁSQUEZ - MAGISTRADO/A  IGNACIO JOSE MONGE DOBLES - MAGISTRADO/A By official communication No. 257-176-2016 dated March 17, 2016, ICE filed a motion for reconsideration with a subsidiary appeal before the Third Section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal. By an unnumbered resolution dated March 21, 2016, the Municipal Mayor's Office rejected the motion for reconsideration and admitted the appeal before the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, Section III. By resolution No. 306-2017 dated July 31, 2017, the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal in its Third Section ordered the appeal indicated to be dismissed and confirmed in all respects the resolution dated March 21, 2016, issued by the Municipal Mayor's Office of Nicoya, thereby exhausting the Administrative Channel.

**II.-** The Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (represented by Luis Guillermo Alán Alvarado), filed the present proceeding against the Municipality of Nicoya, seeking: "*1. I request the Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José to address our claims under the principle of due process and to recognize the exempt regime my represented party holds regarding the mandatory payment of the property tax (impuesto de bienes inmuebles) that the Municipality of Nicoya intends to collect. 2. That Resolution No. 306-2017 of July 31, 2017, issued by the Third Section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, be annulled and revoked in all respects, as well as other administrative collection acts and reconsideration and appeal resolutions issued by the Mayor's Office and other departments of the Municipality of Nicoya, concerning the collection of the property tax, since ICE is not subject to the payment of the property tax, as well as the economic harm this collection represents to the Institute in fulfilling its purposes. 3. That the immediate elimination of said collection be ordered in all manual and computer systems that the Municipality of Nicoya has against the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, to avoid future collections for this concept. 4. Finally, I request that the defendant be ordered to pay the costs of this judicial proceeding.*" The defendant Municipality, for lack of a response, was declared in default in a resolution at eighteen hours and forty-seven minutes on May two, two thousand nineteen. By first-instance judgment No. 100-2020-I at 10 hours 35 minutes on August 26, 2020, handed down by the Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal, Second Judicial Circuit, San José, Goicoechea, it was ordered: "*The lack of right in the filed claim is appreciated ex officio and declared. Consequently, the claim brought by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad against the Municipality of Nicoya is dismissed in all respects. It is resolved without a special order as to costs*". Dissatisfied with the decision, the plaintiff filed a cassation appeal, which was fully admitted for analysis on the merits.

**Cassation on substantive grounds** **III.-** **First.** The appellant argues that, in the judgment, the Tribunal, as evidentiary means to support its resolution, relies on articles 63 and 64 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), assuming the derogation of the provision of the Constitutive Law of ICE, Law No. 449 of April 8, 1949, as well as the Territorial Tax Law, Law No. 27 of March 2, 1939, the latter having been repealed, as was acknowledged by this representation, by the Property Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles), Law No. 7509. In its view, legal grounds such as article 62 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures are omitted, which contain the conditions and requirements demanded for the granting of exemptions, in accordance with the literality of the non-subjection contained in article 4 of the Property Tax Law, Law No. 7509. It considers that the Tribunal performed an improper interpretation of the legal norms, by omitting legal aspects and analysis of the regulations that would support a value judgment in the resolution on the merits of this process. It argues, from the analysis of article 4 of the Property Tax Law, one of the requirements for non-subjection or exemption from the tax is that it involve an Autonomous Institution. It transcribes numerals 4 and 8 of Law No. 449, and indicates, based on those numerals, it meets said requirement. It also transcribes article 20 of Law No. 449 and article 18 of Law No. 8660. It mentions that said numerals must be analyzed in light of numeral 62 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, concluding that in the case of Law No. 449 (Constitutive Law of ICE), the exemption is total regarding national and municipal taxes, being a generic exemption granted by the Legislature to the Institution, which was subsequently duly ratified by the Legislature with the Law for the Strengthening and Modernization of Public Entities in the Telecommunications Sector (Ley de Fortalecimiento y Modernización de las Entidades Públicas del Sector de Telecomunicaciones), Law No. 8660 -on this occasion, no longer a total but a partial exemption is established-. It mentions an excerpt from Resolution No. 2008-011210 at 15:00 hours on July 16, 2008, from the Constitutional Chamber where, in its understanding, the evident intention of the Legislature to maintain the exemptions that the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad possesses through its Constitutive Law is demonstrated. **Second:** It explains that the decision by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal is based on interpretation and analogy and not on the literality of the norm, nor on analyzing the intention of the Legislature. It argues, it must be clear that, upon the opening of the Telecommunications market, ICE must be liable for taxes like any private company; however, it is not solely dedicated to telecommunications but maintains the State's monopoly in the Electricity Sector, in which ICE invests the majority of its resources, whether for infrastructure, property purchases (expropriations), machinery, and other goods necessary for electricity generation. It considers that the Tribunal omits the analysis of those aspects and at the same time is contradictory because, on one hand, it uses analogy to distort the spirit of the legislator, contained in article 20 of Decree-Law 449, and, on the other hand, it relies on interpretation and analogy to determine that ICE is not exempt from the property tax, because article 63 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures repealed the provisions of Law No. 449, despite the fact that it is the Property Tax Law itself, in its article 4, that establishes the non-subjection. The appellant has understood article 63 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, as amended by article 50 of the Regulatory Law of Existing Exemptions (Ley Reguladora de Exoneraciones Vigentes), as a limit on the application of exemptions over time. That is, it considers that an exemption granted prior to the Law creating a new tax would not be applicable, as recognized by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in its Resolution 001175-F-S1-2011. It indicates another contradictory aspect in which the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal becomes entangled is that numeral 18 of Law No. 8660 grants the exemption in question and, on the other hand, indicates that this mandate does not create a tax exemption but rather maintains the validity of those that may have been granted to ICE previously, either as an operator or provider of telecommunications or electricity services or products under conditions of free competition, a scenario in which the exemption from payment of Income Tax and General Sales Tax was removed, which, incidentally, lacks meaning given the entry into force of the value-added tax; in the other cases, it referred to the exemptions established by Decree-Law No. 764 which added numeral 20 of Decree-Law No. 449. It argues that the Chamber has pronounced on the subject that concerns us, and the actions of the Tribunal create legal uncertainty before the other local governments by not following the jurisprudential line of the Chamber. **Third:** It argues, following the theme developed in the first and second arguments, the Tribunal erroneously interprets and applies article 4 of the Property Tax Law and article 62 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures. It argues that the interpretation by analogy related to the Property Tax Law repealing the provisions of Law No. 449 is erroneous, without evaluating what is provided in the Property Tax Law itself that establishes the exemption, much less doing so for the Law for the Strengthening and Modernization of Public Entities in the Telecommunications Sector No. 8660, which once again reiterates ICE's exemption from all national and municipal taxes provided in article 20 of Law No. 449. It argues that, although the Tribunal, when carrying out the analysis to differentiate between tax exemption and non-subjection, does not express itself clearly regarding the norms relevant to the subject under discussion, a situation that cannot be attributed or imputed to the Institution, since such confusion is due to poor legislative drafting technique of the norms. It maintains that numeral 4 of that Law establishes the non-subjection to the tax for Autonomous Institutions such as ICE, but subjects it to an exemption from said tax in a special norm, a situation that, in our view, the First Chamber has understood and developed in its jurisprudential line, by determining the non-subjection of ICE to this tax, and therefore, it should not be an element that varies the basis and position of this Chamber, as the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal intends in its Judgment. Consequently, this representation considers that there are norms that have been left unapplied by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal in the Judgment being appealed in this act.

**Fourth:** The appellant claims the Tribunal violates the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, legal certainty, and equality, by not employing sound judgment. ICE affirms that it continues to be an Autonomous Institution of the Costa Rican State and, for this reason, its legal nature should not be changed nor should it be interpreted that, with the opening of the Telecommunications sector, it becomes a private entity; this situation could distort the principle of equality, since ICE cannot be considered the same as other operators in the Telecommunications market. This situation creates legal uncertainty for it, since it considers that the Tribunal bases its decision on assumptions such as that Article 63 of the Tax Code and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) repeals Law No. 449, despite the fact that said regulatory body is fully in force, as well as setting aside new legislation such as Law No. 8660, which is not subject to analysis, this being a Special Law that it possesses. On the other hand, it argues that the Tribunal's Judgment lacks the principle of reasonableness and proportionality, because ICE is an Institution created by the State for the provision and commercialization of electricity and telecommunications products and services (see in that regard Articles 1 and 2 of Law No. 449 and Article 2 of Law No. 8660); therefore, it could not be interpreted that ICE can be measured on equal terms with other Telecommunications operators that carry out their commercialization in this country and that, as private companies, must assume the established tax responsibilities. It should be noted that to date there has been no opening of the Electricity Sector in Costa Rica, so ICE continues to hold the State monopoly on this service, and for this, the Institute is obligated to cover the country's electricity needs; this obligation can only be fulfilled through the creation of new Hydroelectric Plants, Geothermal Plants, Thermal Plants, Wind Farms, or any other source that can produce electricity, such as gas or solar. It considers that if ICE possesses a large number of properties nationwide, each Municipality will attempt to make ICE pay 0.25% of the value of its properties annually, since that is established by Articles 22 and 23 of the Real Estate Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles). It argues that it is inappropriate and irrational to consider that ICE could afford the tax payment for all the properties it owns in the country, because it becomes necessary here not only to consider the collection request made by the Municipality of Nicoya, but also to consider that this type of rulings creates jurisprudence so that other Municipalities may attempt to collect this tax from my client, protected by this resolution. It asserts that the Tribunal has not considered such arguments and issues a resolution that violates the principle of reasonableness and proportionality, based on the fact that ICE owns the largest infrastructure in this country, not because it has the economic capacity to build or buy them, but because through its Special Laws, the Institution has been granted the power to use a series of benefits and financial instruments to develop such works. For the foregoing reasons, it requests to overturn Judgment No. 100-2020-I of ten thirty-five hours on August twenty-six, two thousand twenty, as well as to declare and recognize the Regime of Non-Subjection (Régimen de no sujeción).

IV.- The Tribunal in the appealed judgment, as grounds for establishing that the plaintiff is subject to tax payment, ordered: "VIII.- ANALYSIS ON SUBJECTION TO THE REAL ESTATE TAX (IMPUESTO DE BIENES INMUEBLES): Considering that the argument given by the plaintiff that its represented entity is not subject to the real estate tax appears belatedly (in conclusions), the position given by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in its ruling 816-F-S1-2018 is considered necessary to evaluate, so it is deemed necessary to assess what was stated by the cassation chamber. Thus, in the cited ruling, the Chamber's position is as follows: '...for this Chamber, the dispute points not to the examination of the regime of exemptions, but to the matter of tax non-subjection, which stems from the non-existence of the tax obligation link, that ICE cannot be considered a passive subject and it would not even be possible to estimate the existence of a taxable event that imposes the required payment by the defendant municipality. Indeed, the Territorial Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto Territorial), repealed by the Real Estate Tax Law, established: "Article 4. Non-subjections. The properties owned by: (...) The Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE) (...) shall not be subject to this tax." The Real Estate Tax Law, numeral 4, stipulates: "Article 4. Properties not subject to the tax. The following are not subject to this tax: a) The properties of the State, municipalities, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions that, by special law, enjoy an exemption." Consequently, it is not even possible to assume that, regarding ICE, the taxable event of the Real Estate Tax occurs, when numerals 1 and 2 impose, in favor of the municipalities, a tax on the lands, installations, or fixed or permanent constructions existing there, because the taxable event, according to precept 31 of the CNPT, constitutes the legal prerequisite that classifies the tax and gives rise to the obligation. By this virtue, it is also not possible to consider that a tax link exists between the Treasury (Fisco) and that institute with an obligation on the latter to pay the aforementioned tax. This is so, since numeral 11 Ibid., establishes that relationship based on the verification of the taxable event which, as analyzed, cannot exist in this case, insofar as the legislator ordered a tax non-subjection. For parity of reason, ICE is excluded as a passive subject of the tax, according to numeral 15 of the aforementioned regulatory body, free from the obligation concerning the tax of reference. If the Real Estate Tax Law, with its antecedent, as cited, in the Territorial Tax Law, maintained the tax non-subjection, the status of taxpayer (contribuyente) also does not apply to ICE, which is contemplated in numeral 17 Ibid. of the CNPT, as the person with respect to whom the taxable event of the tax obligation is verified. Consequently, it does not bear the imposition contained in the following article 18, when it establishes: "Obligations. Taxpayers are obligated to pay the taxes and to comply with the formal duties established by this Code or by special rules." Added to this regulatory framework is Article 17 of the Decree-Law of Creation of ICE, regarding the financial policy of the Institute, which shall be to capitalize the net profits it obtains from the sale of electrical energy and from any other source it may have, into the financing and execution of the national electrification plans and in the promotion of industry based on electrical energy. In this regard, according to the aforementioned numeral: "The Government shall not derive any part of those profits, since the Institute should not be considered a source of revenue production for the Treasury (Fisco), but rather it must use all means at its disposal to increase the production of electrical energy as a basic industry of the Nation...'" All of this, also, with the purpose of ensuring compliance with the purposes and objectives provided for in Articles 1 and 2 Ibidem, as well as the autonomy established in its favor in norms 4, 8, and 9, and the disposition of its assets in utilities according to precepts 16 and 18, all provisions of the same Law, also in conjunction with the purposes and objectives set forth in Articles 1 and 2 of the Law for the Strengthening and Modernization of Public Entities of the Telecommunications Sector…” (emphasis is ours. Voto 000816-F-S1-18 of eleven o'clock on September twelfth, two thousand eighteen). As can be seen, the central argument in the Cassation Chamber revolves around the fact that, in its interpretation, the Real Property Tax Law considers – like its predecessor – ICE as an entity not subject to the tax. In this regard, the members of this Chamber of Judges, with the greatest respect proper to situations such as the present one, understand the exposition given; however, we do not share it, and therefore we must depart from the line set forth by our cassation superior, for the reasons that we immediately proceed to set out. As a first aspect, we believe there is no complete clarity regarding the fact that the former Territorial Tax law regulated in its numeral 4 – under the technical and doctrinal concept – cases of non-subjection (no sujeción), but rather it mixed these with the institute of exemption (exención). Proof of this is that the law itself, in its Article 6, required that all properties must be valued, using the expression “even exempt ones” and, given that the law does not regulate specific cases of exemption, it is considered that the reference is to the regulation of Article 4. On the other hand, Law 7293, which came to impact the repealed regulation, grants it a treatment of exemption, as observed in Article 1 of said law when making express reference to the territorial tax and Article 34 which came to modify the law regulating the tax, listing which subjects should not pay the tax via exemption. This situation is reinforced by the fact that numeral 4, subsection a) of the real property tax grants exemption treatment by indicating that only those properties of the State, municipalities, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions that possess an express exemption norm must not pay the tax, a contrario sensu, those that do not possess such, must be considered subject to the tax. It is worth highlighting that the First Chamber itself, in a previous ruling, gave exemption treatment in its vote 37-F-2004 of ten thirty-five on January twenty-first, two thousand four. As indicated in the preceding preceding Whereas, the fundamental characteristic of non-subjection (no sujeción) is that it can be identified, without the need for an express norm pointing it out, something that does not happen with exemption, which, if it does not have an indicative norm in positive text, causes the birth and payment of the tax obligation. In that sense, if we perform the hypothetical exercise of suppressing the norm, both from numeral 4 of the territorial tax law, the reform under Article 34 of Law 7293, and the current Article 4 of the real property law, we find as a result that ICE would be subject to the tax. As a second aspect, there is a change in treatment between the territorial tax law and the real property law, precisely when referring to the exemption of the plaintiff entity. While in the previous regulation it was stated without any conditioning, thus being a release from subjective obligation; the norm in force through Law 7509 establishes an additional condition, which is the existence of an exemption by special law. With both aspects, we find under a finalist analysis of both norms that the legislator had provided a subjective exemption in the territorial tax, which was subsequently regulated and delimited by Law 7293, and which was modified again in the year 1995 conditioning the exclusion from payment to the existence of an express norm containing an exemption in favor of the taxpayer according to Law 7509. With this, although it could be interpreted that what was set forth in the territorial tax law could be equivalent to a non-subjection, the truth is that the subsequent normative evolution gave, and continues to give, it a treatment of exemption. As a third aspect, we consider the doctrine previously set forth in the sense of having to analyze whether, from a delimiting perspective, the tax covers or does not cover the patrimonial sphere of a given subject, which, if it were a case of non-subjection, the taxable event (hecho generador) would never encompass the patrimony under analysis, precisely because it falls outside the limit of the factual presupposition generating the tax. With this, we turn to the reading of numeral 2 of Law 7509 which expressly indicates: "The object of this tax is the land, the fixed and permanent installations or constructions existing thereon." Now, not from a subjective perspective, but from an objective one (nature of lands and activities), we find that numeral 4 excludes, regardless of the owner: those that constitute watersheds or have been declared, by the Executive Branch, as forest reserve, indigenous or biological reserve, national park, or similar (subsection b on the occasion of the nature of the land), those destined for firefighters (subsection j, on the occasion of activity); and we find as mixed nature use (subjective and objective elements): The properties belonging to churches and religious organizations but only those dedicated to worship (subsection g, on the occasion of activity), diplomatic headquarters and the dwelling houses of diplomatic and consular agents with reciprocity of fiscal benefits (subsection h, on the occasion of the nature of the land), and common-use goods, property of legal entities covered by Law No. 3859 (subsection k, on the occasion of activity). As can be observed, the properties of the plaintiff institution do not fit into any of the indicated scenarios, whether objective or mixed, therefore, the scope of Article 2 of the territorial tax law would imply that the real property assets of the plaintiff fall within the factual presupposition of the tax, reaffirming that we are in the presence of a scenario of subjection (sujeción). Now then, we would proceed with this to analyze whether, despite being subject to the tax, it has an exemption (exoneración) in its favor." **V.-** As the appellant rightly claims, this Chamber has had the opportunity to refer on several occasions to the issue under discussion in this proceeding. The central issue lies in the interpretation and application of the different norms and their validity; in that sense, it will be analyzed. For this, it is important to consider the existence of violations of substantive norms.

The Legislative Decree creating ICE establishes tax exemptions, and based on it, the Regulatory Law of All Current Exonerations, Their Derogation and Exemptions was analyzed, whose first provision repeals the exemptions with some exceptions. Command 50 of the same law modifies Article 63 of the CNPT, and imposes limits on the application of exemptions. As for numeral 52 of the aforementioned Law, it modifies precept 64 of the CNPT, regarding that the exemption, even when granted based on certain factual conditions, may be repealed or modified by a subsequent law, without liability on the part of the State. For this Chamber, the sub judice matter points not to the examination of the exemption (exención) regime, as the Court erroneously analyzed it, but to the issue of non-subjection to tax (no sujeción tributaria), which stems from the non-existence of the tax obligation bond. Consequently, ICE cannot be considered a taxable person (sujeto pasivo) of the tax obligation. Indeed, the Territorial Tax Law, repealed by the Immovable Property Tax Law, provided: "Article 4. Non-subjections. The following immovable properties shall not be subject to this tax: (...) The Costa Rican Electricity Institute (Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad) (...)". The Immovable Property Tax Law, numeral 4, stipulates: "Article 4. Immovable properties not subject to the tax. The following are not subject to this tax: a) Immovable properties of the State, municipalities, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions that, by special law, enjoy an exemption". Consequently, it is not even possible to assume that, regarding ICE, the taxable event (hecho generador) of the Immovable Property Tax occurs, when its numerals 1 and 2 impose, in favor of the municipalities, a tax on lands, installations or fixed or permanent constructions existing there, because the taxable event, according to precept 31 of the CNPT, constitutes the legal prerequisite that characterizes the tax and originates the obligation. By virtue of this, it is also not feasible to consider that between the Treasury and that institute there is a tax bond with an obligation borne by the latter to pay the aforementioned tax. This is so, since numeral 11 Ibidem establishes that relationship upon the verification of the taxable event which, as was analyzed, cannot exist in this case, insofar as the legislator provided a non-subjection to tax. By parity of reasoning, ICE is excluded as a taxable person of the tax, according to numeral 15 of the referenced regulatory body, free from the obligation concerning the tax in reference. If the Immovable Property Tax Law, with its antecedent, as cited, in the Territorial Tax Law, maintained the non-subjection to tax, the quality of taxpayer (contribuyente) does not apply to ICE either, which is contemplated in numeral 17 Ibid. of the CNPT, as the person with respect to whom the taxable event of the tax obligation is verified. Therefore, it does not bear the imposition contained in article 18 following, when it provides: "Obligations. Taxpayers are obliged to pay taxes and to comply with the formal duties established by this Code or by special norms". Added to this normative framework is article 17 of the Legislative Decree creating ICE, regarding the financial policy of the Institute, which shall be to capitalize the net profits obtained from the sale of electric energy and from any other source, in the financing and execution of the national electrification plans and in the promotion of industry based on electric energy. In this sense, according to the aforesaid numeral: "The Government shall not derive any part of those profits, since the Institute shall not be considered a source of income for the Treasury, but rather shall use all means at its disposal to increase the production of electric energy as a basic industry of the Nation…". All this, also, for the purpose of ensuring the fulfillment of the ends and objectives foreseen in articles 1 and 2 Ibidem., as well as the autonomy established in its favor in norms 4, 8 and 9, and the disposition of its equity in profits according to precepts 16 and 18, all provisions of the same Law, also in accordance with the purposes and objectives established in articles 1 and 2 of the Law for the Strengthening and Modernization of Public Entities of the Telecommunications Sector. Based on the foregoing, the Court has erroneously interpreted and applied the legal precepts with which it has considered that between the Treasury and ICE there is a tax relationship, borne by the latter as a taxable person, to assume payment of the Immovable Property Tax, upon the verification, in its judgment, of the taxable event contained in numerals 1 and 2 of the Law concerning this tax. As the appellant states, according to article 4 of this normative, it is not obligated to pay it and, in this manner, resolution 306-2017 issued by majority vote by the Contentious Administrative Court, Third Section, at 14:25 hours on July 31, 2017, must be annulled, endorsing what was ordered by the Mayor's Office of the Municipality of Nicoya on February 14, 2016, by maintaining the collection of the aforesaid tax, as well as the other administrative acts of that municipality established for that purpose. Consequently, the lack of right exception that the sentencing body issued in favor of the sued municipal corporation does not proceed, which leads to the granting of the lawsuit in the stated terms, contrary to the criterion upheld in the appealed judgment which for the same reason must be annulled. It should be noted, although the parties and the sentencing body repeatedly alluded to the institution of tax exemption (exención tributaria), among the legal basis supporting the petitionary extremes and even in the brief’s statements, the application of canon 4 of the Immovable Property Tax Law was cited and justified, with its antecedent in the Territorial Tax Law, both containing the non-subjection to tax. Therefore, the Chamber admits the substantive issue on this particular, when, furthermore, the essence of what is claimed by the plaintiff lies in that the defendant must not collect the aforementioned Tax, as thus extracted from both Laws. In this sense, it is not even feasible to consider that a ruling is being made contrary to what was requested in the lawsuit; rather, it is done within the powers stipulated in article 122 of the CPCA. (See resolutions of this Chamber No. 816-2018, 474-2019, 475-2019, 476-2019, 1849-2019, 777-2021 and 778-2021).

VI.- By virtue of the foregoing, the challenge must be upheld and the appealed judgment annulled. Ruling on the merits, the lawsuit shall be declared with merit. Resolution No. 306-2017 issued by the Contentious Administrative Court, Third Section, at 14:25 hours on July 31, 2017, must be annulled, endorsing what was ordered by the Mayor's Office of the Municipality of Nicoya on February 14, 2016, which, consequently, is annulled, in accordance with numeral 122 subsection k) of the CPCA.

Furthermore, the collection notices and pronouncements regarding the Property Tax (Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles) issued by the aforementioned municipality against ICE, since it is not subject to the payment of the referenced tax, ordering the elimination of the corresponding collection from all of the defendant's manual and computerized systems with respect to the plaintiff, to prevent future collections on this account, aspects whose compliance may be analyzed at the execution of judgment stage. In accordance with precept 193 of the CPCA, given that the defendant did not appear in the process, nor did it appear before this Chamber opposing the plaintiff's right, the matter is resolved without a special award of costs.

POR TANTO

The appeal is granted. The challenged judgment is annulled. Ruling on the merits, the claim is upheld in all its extremes. The status of tax non-subjection (régimen de no sujeción tributaria) is recognized in favor of ICE regarding the Property Tax (Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles) that the Municipality of Nicoya seeks to collect from it. Resolution number 306-2017 issued by the Contencioso Administrativo Tribunal, Third Section, at 14:25 hours on July 31, 2017, is annulled, which confirms the provision of the Mayor's Office of the Municipality of Nicoya of February 14, 2016, which consequently is also annulled, in accordance with subsection k) of article 122 of the CPCA. Likewise, the collection pronouncements regarding the Property Tax (Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles), directed toward this end, issued by the aforementioned municipality against ICE are annulled, as it is not subject to the payment of the referenced tax. The elimination of the corresponding collection is ordered from all of the defendant's manual and computerized systems with respect to the plaintiff, to prevent future collections on this account. The matter is resolved without a special award of costs.

Considering V, in accordance with the criteria established by the Constitutional Chamber for the application of the environmental consultation provided in Anexo 1 of Decreto Ejecutivo 31849-MINAE, when a property requiring a land-use plan (plan regulador) is located within protected areas or their areas of influence, in water recharge zones (zonas de recarga acuífera), in areas that provide the environmental service of protection of water resources for human consumption defined within water resource protection zones, coordinated with the corresponding ASADAS, or the Administrations of Aqueduct and Sewer Systems and with mandatory review by MINAE; in areas adjacent to water bodies defined in Ley Forestal 7575; in areas classified as high environmental fragility by the corresponding regulatory plan, or in agricultural-ecological units characterized as Wetlands; in areas of scenic beauty and/or tourist interest or environmentally fragile areas to be defined by MINAE based on technical criteria; in areas with land-use capacity classes (clases de capacidad de uso del suelo) Class VI, Class VII, and Class VIII as defined by the corresponding methodology applied by MINAE; in forested areas, or areas classified as "Permanent Protection Area" (Área de Protección Permanente), under any figure of environmental management, or that are dedicated to the Program of Payment for Environmental Services (Pago de Servicios Ambientales, PSA); in territories belonging to indigenous peoples and their adjacent areas; or on sites with slopes greater than 15%; and based on the principle of prevention (principio precautorio), which imposes an active and anticipatory attitude, one must proceed with the environmental viability assessment (evaluación de viabilidad ambiental), without it being possible to argue that there is an acquired right against the obligation of the State to fulfill its constitutional duty to guarantee a healthy and ecologically balanced environment.

<html> <body> <table> <tr> <td> <p> <img src=" The Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (ICE, hereinafter) sued a Municipality to have its tax exemption regime recognized, regarding the Property Tax (Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles) it seeks to collect.

The Court declared the lawsuit without merit. For this Chamber, the sub judice points not to an examination of the exemption regime, as the Court erroneously analyzed it, but to the issue of tax non-subjection (no sujeción tributaria), which stems from the non-existence of the tax obligation relationship. ICE cannot be considered a taxable person (sujeto pasivo) of the tax obligation. The taxable event (hecho generador) of the cited tax does not occur with respect to it. Nor is it possible to consider that a tax relationship exists between the Tax Authority (Fisco) and ICE with an obligation on its part to pay the referenced tax. Therefore, it does not have the status, nor the obligation as a taxpayer (contribuyente) (articles 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 16, 17 and 18 of the Decree-Law of Creation of ICE, 1 and 2 of the Law for the Strengthening and Modernization of Public Entities of the Telecommunications Sector, 1 of the Regulatory Law of all Current Exonerations, its Derogation and Exemptions, 11, 15, 17, 18, 31, 50, 52, 63 and 64 of the Tax Code (Código Tributario), 4 of the Territorial Tax Law (Ley de Impuesto Territorial), 1, 2 and 4.a of the Real Estate Tax Law (Ley de Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles)). In the same vein, see resolutions 816-2018, 474-2019, 475-2019, 476-2019, 1849-2019, 777-2021 and 778-2021 of the First Chamber. Consequently, the challenge is upheld and the appealed judgment is annulled. Ruling on the merits, the lawsuit is declared with merit (vote 615-F-2024).

Given that the defendant did not appear in the proceedings, nor before this Chamber opposing the plaintiff's right, it is resolved without special condemnation in costs (costas) (precept 193 of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code (Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo)).

By means of resolution No. 306-2017 dated July 31, 2017, the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, in its Third Section, ordered the appeal indicated to be dismissed and confirmed in all its aspects the resolution dated March 21, 2016, issued by the Municipal Government of Nicoya, thereby exhausting the Administrative Channel.

II.- The Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (represented by Luis Guillermo Alán Alvarado), filed the present process against the Municipality of Nicoya, seeking: "1. I request the Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, that our claims be heard under the principle of due process and that the exoneration regime held by my represented party be recognized regarding the obligation to pay the real estate tax that the Municipality of Nicoya intends to collect. 2. That Resolution No. 306-2017 of July 31, 2017, issued by the Third Section of the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal be annulled and revoked in all its aspects, as well as other administrative collection acts and revocation and appeal resolutions issued by the Municipal Government and other dependencies of the Municipality of Nicoya, regarding the collection of the real estate tax, since ICE is not subject to the payment of the real estate tax, as well as the economic harm that this collection represents to the Institute, in the fulfillment of its purposes. 3. That the elimination of said charge be ordered immediately, in all manual and computer systems that the Municipality of Nicoya possesses, against the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, to avoid future charges for this concept. 4. Finally, I request that the defendant be ordered to pay both sets of costs of this judicial process." The defendant Municipality, for lack of a reply, is declared in default in a resolution of eighteen hours and forty-seven minutes on May second, two thousand nineteen. By means of first instance judgment No. 100-2020-I of 10 hours 35 minutes on August 26, 2020, issued by the Contentious-Administrative and Civil Treasury Tribunal, Second Judicial Circuit, San José, Goicoechea, it was ordered: "The lack of right in the filed claim is noted ex officio and declared. Consequently, the claim brought by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad against the Municipality of Nicoya is declared without merit in all its aspects. It is resolved without a special order as to costs." The plaintiff party, disagreeing with what was resolved, filed a cassation appeal which was admitted in full for a substantive analysis.

Cassation on grounds of substance III.- First. The appellant asserts that, in its judgment, the Tribunal used as evidentiary means to support its resolution, it relies on articles 63 and 64 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), assuming the repeal of the provision of the Constitutive Law of ICE, Law No. 449 of April 8, 1949, as well as the Territorial Tax Law, Law No. 27 of March 2, 1939, the latter having been repealed and thus recognized by this representation, by the Law on Real Estate Tax, Law No. 7509. In its view, legal grounds such as article 62 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures are omitted, which contain the conditions and requirements demanded for the granting of exonerations, in concordance with the literal wording of the non-subjection contained in article 4 of the Law on Real Estate Tax, Law No. 7509. It considers the Tribunal carried out an improper interpretation of the legal rules, by omitting legal aspects and analysis of the regulations that support a value judgment in the resolution on the merits of this process. It argues, from the analysis of article 4 of the Real Estate Law, that one of the requirements for non-subjection or exoneration from the tax is that it concerns an Autonomous Institution. It transcribes numerals 4 and 8 of Law No. 449, and indicates, based on those numerals, it meets the said requirement. It also transcribes article 20 of Law No. 449 and article 18 of Law No. 8660. It mentions that said numerals must be analyzed in light of numeral 62 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, concluding for the case of Law No. 449 (Constitutive Law of ICE), the exoneration is total regarding national and municipal taxes, being a generic exoneration granted by the Legislator to the Institution, which was subsequently duly ratified by the Legislator with the Law for the Strengthening and Modernization of Public Entities in the Telecommunications Sector, Law No. 8660 -on this occasion, it is established, no longer a total exoneration, but partial-. It mentions an excerpt from Resolution No. 2008-011210 of 15 hours on July 16, 2008, of the Constitutional Chamber where, in its understanding, the evident intention of the Legislator to maintain the exonerations held by the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad through its Constitutive Law is demonstrated. Second: It explains that the decision by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal is based on interpretation and analogy and not on the literal wording of the rule, nor on analyzing the Legislator's intention. It argues that it must be clear that, upon the opening of the Telecommunications market, ICE must be liable for taxes like any private company; however, it is not dedicated solely to telecommunications, but rather maintains the State monopoly in the Electricity Sector, in which ICE invests the majority of its resources, whether for infrastructure, purchase of properties (expropriations), machinery and other goods necessary for electricity generation. It considers that the Tribunal omits the analysis of those aspects and, at the same time, is contradictory because on one hand it uses analogy to distort the spirit of the legislator, contained in article 20 of Decree-Law 449, and, on the other hand, it relies on interpretation and analogy to determine that ICE is not exempt from the real estate tax, because article 63 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures repealed the provisions of Law No. 449, despite the fact that the Real Estate Tax Law itself, in its article 4, is what establishes the non-subjection. The appellant party has understood article 63 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, amended by article 50 of the Law Regulating Current Exonerations, as a limit on the application of exonerations over time. That is, it considers that an exoneration granted prior to the Law creating a new tax would not be applicable, as the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice recognized in its Resolution 001175-F-S1-2011. It indicates another contradictory aspect in which the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal becomes entangled is that numeral 18 of Law No. 8660 grants the exemption in question and on the other hand indicates that said mandate does not create a tax exemption but rather maintains the validity of those that had been previously granted to ICE, whether as an operator or provider of telecommunications or electricity services under open competition conditions, a scenario in which the exoneration from the payment of Income Tax and General Sales Tax was removed, which, incidentally, is meaningless given the entry into force of the value-added tax; in other cases, it referred to the exonerations established on the occasion of Decree-Law No. 764 which added numeral 20 to Decree-Law No. 449. It argues that the Chamber has ruled on the topic at hand, and the Tribunal's actions create legal uncertainty before other local governments by not following the jurisprudential line of the Chamber. Third: It argues, following the theme developed in the first and second arguments, the Tribunal erroneously interprets and applies article 4 of the Real Estate Tax Law and article 62 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures. It argues that the interpretation by analogy related to the idea that the Real Estate Tax Law repeals the provisions of Law No. 449 is erroneous, without assessing what is provided in the same Real Estate Law that establishes the exoneration and much less does so about the Law for the Strengthening and Modernization of Public Entities in the Telecommunications Sector No. 8660, which once again reiterates the exoneration of ICE from all national and municipal taxes provided in article 20 of Law No. 449. It argues that, despite the fact that the Tribunal, when carrying out the analysis to differentiate between exoneration and tax non-subjection, does not express itself clearly on the rules pertinent to the topic under discussion, a situation that cannot be attributed or imputed to the Institution, since such confusion is due to poor legislative drafting technique of the rules. It maintains that numeral 4 of that Law establishes the non-subjection to the tax for Autonomous Institutions such as ICE, but subjects it to an exoneration from said tax in a special rule, a situation that, in our opinion, the First Chamber has understood and developed in its jurisprudential line, by determining the non-subjection of ICE to this tax, and therefore, it should not be an element that varies the basis and position of this Chamber, as the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal intends in its Judgment. Consequently, this representation considers that there are regulations that the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal has failed to apply in the Judgment being appealed in this act. Fourth: It alleges that the Tribunal violates the principles of reasonableness, proportionality, legal certainty, and equality, for not using sound criticism. It affirms that ICE continues to be an Autonomous Institution of the Costa Rican State and, therefore, its legal nature should not be altered nor interpreted that with the opening in Telecommunications matters it becomes a private entity; said situation can distort the principle of equality, since ICE cannot be considered like the other operators in the Telecommunications market.

That situation creates legal uncertainty for it, since it considers that the Court bases itself on assumptions such as that Article 63 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios repeals Law No. 449, despite the fact that said normative body remains in force in its entirety, as well as setting aside new legislation such as Law No. 8660, which is not subject to analysis, this being a Special Law that it possesses. On the other hand, it argues, the Court's Judgment lacks the principle of reasonableness and proportionality, due to the fact that ICE is an Institution created by the State for the provision and commercialization of electricity and telecommunications products and services (see in that regard Articles 1 and 2 of Law No. 449 and Article 2 of Law No. 8660), therefore it could not be interpreted that ICE can be measured under equal conditions as the other Telecommunications operators that carry out their commercialization in this country and that, as private companies, must assume the established tax responsibilities. It is worth noting that there is no opening of the Electricity Sector in Costa Rica to date, so ICE continues to hold the State monopoly in this service, and for this, the Institute is obligated to cover the electrical needs demanded by the country; this obligation can only be fulfilled through the creation of new Hydroelectric plants, Geothermal plants, Thermal plants, wind farms, or any other source that can produce electricity, such as gas or solar. It considers that if ICE owns a large number of immovable properties nationwide, each of the Municipalities will seek to have ICE pay 0.25% of the value of its properties annually, since Articles 22 and 23 of the Ley del impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles so establish. It argues it is inappropriate and irrational to consider that ICE can face the payment of the tax on all the immovable properties it owns in the country, because here it becomes necessary, not only to consider the collection request made by the Municipality of Nicoya, but also to consider that this type of resolutions creates case law so that other Municipalities, protected by this resolution, may seek to collect this tax from my client. It contends that the Court has not considered such arguments and issues a resolution on which the principle of reasonableness and proportionality is violated, given that the largest infrastructure in this country is owned by ICE, not because it has the economic capacity to build or buy them, but because through its special Laws, the Institution has been granted the power to use a series of benefits and financial instruments to be able to develop such works. Based on the foregoing, it requests that Judgment No. 100-2020-I of ten thirty-five hours on the twenty-sixth of August two thousand twenty be revoked, and that the regime of non-subjection (Régimen de no sujeción) be declared and recognized.

**IV.-** In the appealed judgment, the Court, as grounds for establishing that the plaintiff is subject to the payment of the tax, ordered: “***VIII.- ANALYSIS OF THE SUBJECTION TO THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TAX**: Considering that the argument given by the plaintiff that its represented party is not subject to the immovable property tax appears in a tardy manner (in conclusions), the position given by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in its vote 816-F-S1-2018, therefore it is considered necessary to assess what was stated by the cassation chamber. Thus, in the cited vote, the Chamber's position is as follows: “…for this Chamber, the dispute points not to the examination of the exemptions regime, but to the issue of tax non-subjection (no sujeción tributaria), which stems from the non-existence of the tax obligation bond, that ICE cannot be considered a passive subject, and the existence of a generating event that imposes the payment required by the defendant municipality would not even be feasible. Indeed, the Ley del Impuesto Territorial, repealed by the Ley del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles, provided: “Article 4. Non-subjections. The immovable properties owned by: (…) the Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (…) shall not be subject to this tax”. The Ley del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles, numeral 4, stipulates: “Article 4. Immovable properties not subject to the tax. The following are not subject to this tax: a) The immovable properties of the State, the municipalities, the autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions that, by special law, enjoy an exemption”. Consequently, it is not even possible to assume that, with respect to ICE, the generating event of the Immovable Property Tax occurs, when its numerals 1 and 2 impose, in favor of the municipalities, a tax on the lands, installations, or fixed or permanent constructions existing there, because the generating event, according to precept 31 of the CNPT, constitutes the legal basis that typifies the tax and originates the obligation. By virtue of this, it is not feasible to consider that between the Treasury and that institute a tax bond exists with an obligation on the latter to pay the referenced tax. This is so, because numeral 11 Ibidem. establishes that relationship based on the verification of the generating event which, as analyzed, cannot exist in the specific case, since the legislator provided a tax non-subjection. By parity of reasoning, ICE is excluded as a passive subject of the tax, according to numeral 15 of the referenced normative body, free from the obligation related to the tax in reference. If the Ley del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles, with precedent, as cited, in the Ley del Impuesto Territorial, maintained the tax non-subjection, the status of taxpayer, which is contemplated in numeral 17 Ibid. of the CNPT as the person with respect to whom the generating event of the tax obligation is verified, does not apply to ICE either. Consequently, it is not subject to the imposition contained in the following Article 18, when it states: “Obligations. Taxpayers are obligated to the payment of taxes and to the fulfillment of the formal duties established by this Code or by special rules”. Added to this normative framework is Article 17 of the Decree-Law of Creation of ICE, regarding the financial policy of the Institute, which shall be to capitalize the net profits it obtains from the sale of electrical energy and from any other source from which it may have them, in the financing and execution of the national electrification plans and in the promotion of industry based on electrical energy. In this sense, according to the aforementioned numeral: “The Government shall not derive any part of those profits, since the Institute should not be considered as a source of income production for the Treasury, but rather should use all means at its disposal to increase the production of electrical energy as a basic industry of the Nation…” All this, also, with the purpose of ensuring the fulfillment of the purposes and objectives set forth in Articles 1 and 2 Ibidem., as well as the autonomy established in its favor in rules 4, 8, and 9, and the disposition of its assets in profits according to precepts 16 and 18, all provisions of the same Law, also in agreement with the purposes and objectives established in Articles 1 and 2 of the Ley de Fortalecimiento y Modernización de las Entidades Públicas del Sector Telecomunicaciones…” (emphasis is ours. Vote 000816-F-S1-18 of eleven hours on the twelfth of September two thousand eighteen).

As can be seen, the central argument in the Cassation Chamber revolves around the fact that, in its interpretation, the Real Property Tax Law considers ICE—just as its predecessor did—as an entity not subject to the tax. In this regard, the members of this Chamber of Judges, with the utmost respect appropriate for situations such as the present one, understand the exposition given, but we do not share it, and therefore we must depart from the line set forth by our superior cassation court, for the reasons we shall immediately proceed to set forth. As a first aspect, we consider that there is no complete clarity regarding whether the former Territorial Tax rule regulated in its section 4—under the technical and doctrinal concept—cases of non-subjection, but rather it mixed these with the institution of exemption. Proof of this is that the rule itself, in its Article 6°, required that all properties must be appraised, using the expression “even those exempt” and given that the law does not regulate specific cases of exoneration, it is considered that the reference is to the regulation of Article 4°. Furthermore, Law 7293, which came to impact the repealed legislation, grants it treatment as an exoneration, as observed in Article 1° of the cited law by making express reference to the territorial tax, and Article 34 which came to modify the law regulating the tribute, listing which subjects should not pay the tax via exoneration. This situation is reinforced by the fact that section 4, subsection a) of the real property tax grants exoneration treatment by indicating that only those immovable properties of the State, the municipalities, the autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions that possess an express exoneration rule should not pay the tax; a contrario sensu, those that do not have such a rule must be considered liable for the tribute. It should be highlighted that the First Chamber itself, in a prior ruling, gave exoneration treatment in its vote 37-F-2004 of ten hours and thirty-five minutes of January 21, 2004. As indicated in the preceding recital, the fundamental characteristic of non-subjection is that it can be identified without the need for an express rule indicating it, something that does not occur with exoneration, which, if it does not have an indicative rule in positive text, results in the birth and payment of the tax obligation. In that sense, if the hypothetical exercise is carried out of deleting the rule, both from section 4 of the territorial tax law, the reform pursuant to Article 34 of Law 7293, and the current section 4 of the real property tax law, we find as a result that ICE would be subject to the tax. As a second aspect, there is a change in treatment between the territorial tax law and the real property tax law, precisely when referring to the exemption of the plaintiff entity. While in the previous legislation it was set forth without any conditioning, thus being a subjective release from obligation; the current rule, through Law 7509, establishes an additional condition, which is the existence of an exoneration by special law. With both aspects, we find under a finalist analysis of both rules that the legislator had provided a subjective exoneration in the territorial tax, which was regulated and delimited subsequently by Law 7293, and which was modified again in 1995, conditioning the exclusion from payment on the existence of an express rule containing an exemption in favor of the taxpayer according to Law 7509. Thus, although it could be interpreted that what was set forth in the territorial tax law could be equivalent to a non-subjection, the truth is that the subsequent legislative evolution gave it, and gives it, treatment as an exoneration. As a third aspect, we consider the doctrine previously set forth regarding the need to analyze whether, from a delimiting perspective, the tax covers or does not cover the patrimonial sphere of a particular subject, which, if it were a case of non-subjection, the taxable event would never encompass the patrimony under analysis, precisely because it falls outside the limit of the factual basis generating the tribute. Thus, we turn to the reading of section 2° of Law 7509 which expressly indicates: “The object of this tax shall be the land, the fixed and permanent installations or constructions that exist there.” Now, not from a subjective perspective, but from an objective one (nature of land and activities), we find that section 4 excludes, regardless of the owner: those that constitute watersheds or have been declared, by the Executive Branch, a forest reserve, indigenous reserve or biological reserve, national park or similar (subsection b on account of the nature of the land), those destined for firefighting (subsection j, on account of activity); and we find as being of mixed-use nature (subjective and objective elements): Immovable properties belonging to churches and religious organizations but only those dedicated to worship (subsection g, on account of activity), diplomatic headquarters and the dwelling houses of diplomatic and consular agents with reciprocity of fiscal benefits (subsection h, on account of the nature of the land), and common-use property, owned by legal entities protected under Law No. 3859 (subsection k, on account of activity). As can be observed, the plaintiff institution’s property does not fit into any of the indicated cases, whether objective or mixed, meaning that the scope of Article 2° of the territorial tax law would imply that the real estate patrimony of the plaintiff falls within the factual basis of the tribute, reaffirming that we are in the presence of a case of subjection. Now, we would proceed, therefore, to analyze whether, despite being subject to the tribute, it possesses an exoneration in its favor.

**V.-** As the cassation appellant rightly alleges, this Chamber has had the opportunity to refer on several occasions to the issue discussed in this proceeding. The central issue lies in the interpretation and application of the different rules and their validity; in this sense, it will be analyzed. For this, it is important to consider the existence of violations of substantive rules. The Decree-Law of Creation of ICE establishes tax exemptions, and based on this, the Regulating Law of all Existing Exonerations, their Repeal and their Exemptions was analyzed, whose first provision repeals exonerations with certain exceptions. Mandate 50 of the same law modifies Article 63 of the CNPT, and imposes limits on the application of exemptions. Regarding section 52 of the aforementioned Law, it modifies provision 64 of the CNPT, with respect to the fact that an exoneration, even if granted based on certain factual conditions, may be repealed or modified by later law, without liability of the State. For this Chamber, the sub judice matter points not to the examination of the exemption regime, as erroneously analyzed by the Court, but to the issue of tax non-subjection, which stems from the non-existence of the tax obligation bond.

Consequently, ICE cannot be considered the taxable person of the tax obligation. Indeed, the Territorial Tax Law, repealed by the Real Property Tax Law, provided: "Article 4. Non-subjections. The following shall not be subject to this tax, the real property of: (...) The Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (...)". The Real Property Tax Law, Article 4, stipulates: "Article 4. Real property not subject to the tax. The following are not subject to this tax: a) Real property of the State, municipalities, autonomous and semi-autonomous institutions that, by special law, enjoy exemption." Consequently, it is not even possible to assume that, regarding ICE, the taxable event (hecho generador) of the Real Property Tax occurs, when its Articles 1 and 2 impose, in favor of the municipalities, a tax on the lands, installations, or fixed or permanent constructions existing there, because the taxable event (hecho generador), according to precept 31 of the CNPT, constitutes the legal prerequisite that typifies the tax and originates the obligation. By virtue of this, it is also not possible to consider that there exists a tax relationship between the Treasury and that institute with an obligation on the latter to pay the said tax. This is so, because Article 11 Ibidem establishes that relationship upon verification of the taxable event (hecho generador) which, as analyzed, cannot exist in this case, since the legislator provided for a non-subjection (no sujeción) to the tax. By parity of reasoning, ICE is excluded as the taxable subject of the tax, pursuant to Article 15 of the aforementioned regulatory body, free from the obligation concerning the reference tax. If the Real Property Tax Law, with its antecedent, as cited, in the Territorial Tax Law, maintained the non-subjection (no sujeción) to the tax, the status of taxpayer, which is contemplated in Article 17 Ibid. of the CNPT as the person with respect to whom the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax obligation is verified, does not apply to ICE either. Consequently, it does not bear the imposition contained in the following Article 18, when it ordains: "Obligations. Taxpayers are obligated to pay the taxes and to comply with the formal duties established by this Code or by special norms." Adding to this regulatory framework is Article 17 of the Decree-Law Creating ICE, regarding the Institute's financial policy, which shall be to capitalize the net profits it obtains from the sale of electric power and from any other source it may have, in the financing and execution of national electrification plans and in the promotion of industry based on electric power. In this sense, according to the aforementioned article: "The Government shall not derive any part of those profits, as the Institute shall not be considered a source of income for the Treasury, but rather shall use all means at its disposal to increase the production of electric power as a basic industry of the Nation...". All of this, also, with the purpose of ensuring the fulfillment of the purposes and objectives provided in Articles 1 and 2 Ibidem., as well as the autonomy established in its favor in norms 4, 8, and 9, and the disposition of its equity in profits pursuant to precepts 16 and 18, all provisions of the same Law, also in accordance with the purposes and objectives stated in Articles 1 and 2 of the Law for the Strengthening and Modernization of Public Entities of the Telecommunications Sector. For the foregoing reasons, the Court erroneously interpreted and applied the legal precepts by which it estimated that a tax relationship exists between the Treasury and ICE, charging the latter, as the taxable subject, with assuming payment of the Real Property Tax, upon verification, in its judgment, of the taxable event (hecho generador) contained in Articles 1 and 2 of the Law concerning this tax. As the appellant states, according to Article 4 of this regulation, it is not obligated to pay it and, in this manner, resolution 306-2017, issued by majority vote of the Administrative Litigation Court, Third Section, at 14:25 on July 31, 2017, must be annulled, which endorsed what was ordered by the Mayor's Office of the Municipality of Nicoya on February 14, 2016, by upholding the collection of the aforementioned tax, as well as the other administrative acts of that municipality established for that purpose. Consequently, the exception of lack of right that the sentencing body issued in favor of the sued municipal corporation is not applicable, which leads to the granting of the claim in the stated terms, contrary to the criterion upheld in the appealed ruling, which for that reason must be annulled. It should be noted, despite that the parties and the sentencing body repeatedly alluded to the institute of tax exemption (exención tributaria), among the legal basis supporting the petitionary claims and even in statements in the appeal, the application of Article 4 of the Income Tax Law was cited and justified, with its antecedent in the Territorial Tax Law, both containing the non-subjection (no sujeción) to the tax. Therefore, the Chamber accepts the substantive issue in this regard, when, furthermore, the essence of what is claimed by the plaintiff is that the defendant should not collect the said Tax, as is extracted from both Laws. In this sense, it is not even possible to consider that a ruling is being made against what was requested in the claim; rather, it is done within the powers stipulated in Article 122 of the CPCA. (See resolutions of this Chamber No. 816-2018, 474-2019, 475-2019, 476-2019, 1849-2019, 777-2021, and 778-2021).

**VI.-** In virtue of the foregoing, the appeal must be granted and the appealed judgment annulled. Ruling on the merits, the claim shall be declared with merit. Resolution No. 306-2017, issued by the Administrative Litigation Court, Third Section, at 14:25 on July 31, 2017, must be annulled, which endorsed what was ordered by the Mayor's Office of the Municipality of Nicoya on February 14, 2016, which, consequently, is annulled, in accordance with Article 122, subsection k) of the CPCA. Furthermore, the notices and pronouncements for the collection of the Real Property Tax issued by the mentioned municipality against ICE, as it is not subject to paying the said tax, ordering the elimination of the corresponding charge in all manual and computer systems of the defendant against the plaintiff, to prevent future charges for that concept, aspects whose fulfillment may be analyzed in the execution of the judgment. Pursuant to precept 193 of the CPCA, given that the defendant did not appear in the process, nor before this Chamber opposing the right of the plaintiff, it is resolved without special award of costs.

**POR TANTO** The appeal is declared with merit. The impugned judgment is annulled. Ruling on the merits, the claim is granted in all its aspects. The regime of non-subjection (no sujeción) to the tax in favor of ICE regarding the Real Property Tax that the Municipality of Nicoya intends to charge it is recognized.

Resolution number 306-2017 issued by the Contentious-Administrative Tribunal, Third Section, at 14:25 hours on July 31, 2017, is annulled, which confirms the provision issued by the Mayor's Office (Alcaldía) of the Municipality of Nicoya on February 14, 2016, which consequently is also annulled, in accordance with subsection k) of article 122 of the CPCA. Likewise, the pronouncements for collection of the Property Tax (Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles), aimed at that end, issued by the aforementioned municipality against ICE, are annulled, since it is not subject to payment of the aforementioned tax. The elimination of the corresponding charge from all manual and computer systems of the defendant held against the plaintiff is ordered, to prevent future collections for that concept. Resolved without special condemnation of costs (costas).

RESULTANDO

<span style="font-family:TAHOMA; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub">EPEREZA</span>

| <p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-indent:35.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:200%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff"><img src="\" width=\"200\" height=\"65\" alt=\"\" style=\"-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline\" /><br /><span style=\"font-family:'WASP 39 L'; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub\"></span><br /><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">8S5ZZLDBRBI61</span><br /><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">IRIS ROCIO ROJAS MORALES - MAGISTRADO/A</span></p> | <p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-indent:35.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:200%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:8pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore">&#xa0;</span></p> | <p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-indent:35.4pt; text-align:justify; line-height:200%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff"><img src=" Subject: Verify: [3] E. Impact on protected areas and water resources — The Environmental Feasibility granted through Resolution No. 3590-2018-SETENA contradicts the technical criteria of the SINAC-ACOSA (Conservation Area Osa), which is legally binding in accordance with Voto 4654-2003 of the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) and Voto No. 1145-2012 of this Chamber (Sala Primera). This area supplies water to the coastal aquifer of the Costanera Sur, which is vulnerable to saline intrusion, and to the ASADA of Uvita Bahía, which supplies water for human consumption to several communities.

... (Impact on Protected Areas and Water Resources) ...

| --- | --- | | Damaris Vargas Vásquez - Magistrate/a | Ignacio José Monge Dobles - Magistrate/a |

Documento PJEDITOR  Res. 000615-F-S1-2024 SALA PRIMERA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las trece horas cuarenta y cuatro minutos del trece de junio de dos mil veinticuatro.

Proceso de conocimiento 18-006264-1027-CA, declarado de puro derecho, ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, Segundo Circuito Judicial, San José, Goicoechea, Sección I, (integrado por las personas juzgadoras Carlos Jose Mejías Rodríguez, Laura Gómez Chacón y Claudia Bolaños Salazar), interpuesto por la INSTITUTO COSTARRICENSE DE ELECTRICIDAD, representado por Luis Guillermo Alán Alvarado, representada por José Pablo Arce Piñar, contra MUNICIPALIDAD DE NICOYA. Actúa como apoderado especial judicial de la parte actora, el señor Juan Carlos Araya González. La parte demandada no cuenta con patrocinio letrado por cuanto no se apersonó al proceso y fue declarada rebelde mediante resolución de las dieciocho horas y cuarenta y siete minutos del dos de mayo de dos mil diecinueve.

Redacta el magistrado Rivas Loáiciga

CONSIDERANDO

I.- Según el elenco fáctico de la sentencia, del cual la parte recurrente no se encuentra inconforme, mediante aviso de cobro de fecha 22 de julio del 2015, la Administración Tributaria de la Municipalidad de Nicoya, comunica al ICE supuesto adeudo presentado en el pago del impuesto de bienes inmuebles por un total de ¢13.359.172,05 (trece millones trescientos cincuenta y nueve mil ciento setenta y dos colones con cinco céntimos). En fecha 28 de julio del 2015 el ICE presentó oposición al cobro por oficio 257-534-2015. Mediante oficio No. IBIV-116-2015 de fecha 9 de noviembre de 2015, se rechaza la gestión planteada. En fecha 23 de noviembre del 2015, el ICE interpuso recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio ante la Alcaldía Municipal de Nicoya, en contra del oficio No. IBIV-116-2015. Mediante resolución N° 001-2016 emitida por parte de la Unidad de Bienes Inmuebles y Valoración de la Municipalidad de Nicoya, se declara sin lugar el recurso de revocatoria y remitiendo al alcalde para conocimiento de la apelación en subsidio. Por resolución sin número, de fecha 14 de febrero de 2017, emitida por la Alcaldía Municipal de Nicoya, se declara sin lugar el recurso de apelación interpuesto en contra del oficio No. IBIV-116-2015. Mediante oficio N° 257-176-2016 de fecha 17 de marzo de 2016, el ICE formula recurso de revocatoria con apelación en subsidio ante la Sección Tercera del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo. Por resolución sin número de fecha 21 de marzo de 2016, la Alcaldía Municipal rechaza el recurso de revocatoria y admite el recurso de apelación ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección III. Mediante resolución N° 306-2017 de fecha 31 de julio de 2017, el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo en su Sección Tercera, dispuso declarar sin lugar el recurso de apelación señalado y confirma en todos los extremos la resolución de fecha 21 de marzo de 2016, emitida por la Alcaldía Municipal de Nicoya, dando por agotada la Vía Administrativa.

II.- El Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (representado por Luis Guillermo Alán Alvarado), interpuso el presente proceso en contra de la Municipalidad de Nicoya, pretendiendo: “1. Solicito al Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, sean atendidas nuestras pretensiones bajo el principio del debido proceso y se reconozca el régimen exonerativo que posee mi representado en cuanto a la obligatoriedad de pago del impuesto de bienes inmuebles que pretende cobrar la Municipalidad de Nicoya. 2. Se anule y revoque en todos sus extremos, la Resolución N° 306-2017 del 31 de julio de 2017, emitida por parte de la Sección Tercera del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, así como demás actos administrativos de cobro y resoluciones de revocatoria y apelación emitidos por la Alcaldía y otras dependencias de la Municipalidad de Nicoya, referentes al cobro del impuesto de bienes inmuebles, por cuanto el ICE no se encuentra sujeto al pago del impuesto de bienes inmuebles, así como el perjuicio económico que este cobro representa al Instituto, en el cumplimiento de sus fines. 3. Se ordene de inmediato la eliminación de dicho cobro, en todos los sistemas manuales e informáticos que posee la Municipalidad de Nicoya, en contra del Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad, para evitar futuros cobros por ese concepto. 4. Por último, solicito se condene al demandado al pago de ambas costas de este proceso judicial." La Municipalidad demandada, a falta de contestación se declara rebelde en resolución de las dieciocho horas y cuarenta y siete minutos del dos de mayo de dos mil diecinueve. Mediante sentencia de primera instancia No 100-2020-I de las 10 horas 35 minutos del 26 de agosto de 2020, dictada por el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, Segundo Circuito Judicial, San José, Goicoechea, se dispuso: “Se aprecia de oficio y se declara la falta de derecho en la demanda interpuesta. En consecuencia, se declara sin lugar en todos sus extremos la demanda incoada por el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad contra la Municipalidad de Nicoya. Se resuelve sin especial condenatoria en costas”. Inconforme la parte actora, con lo resuelto, incoó recurso de casación admitiéndose totalmente para el análisis de fondo.

Casación por razones de fondo III.- Primero. Aduce, en la sentencia, el Tribunal como medios probatorios para sustentar su resolución, se basa en los artículos 63 y 64 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, asumiendo la derogación de la disposición de la Ley Constitutiva del ICE, Ley N° 449 del 8 de abril de 1949, así como la Ley del Impuesto Territorial Ley N° 27 del 2 de marzo de 1939, esta última había sido derogada y así fue reconocido por esta representación, mediante Ley del Impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles, Ley N° 7509. A su parecer, se omiten fundamentos legales como el artículo 62 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, que, contienen las condiciones y los requisitos exigidos para el otorgamiento de las exoneraciones, en concordancia con la literalidad de la no sujeción contenida en el artículo 4 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre bienes inmuebles, Ley N° 7509. Considera, el Tribunal efectuó una indebida interpretación de las normas jurídicas, al omitir aspectos legales y análisis de la normativa que sustenten un juicio de valor en la resolución de fondo de este proceso. Arguye, del análisis del artículo 4 de la Ley de bienes inmuebles, se observa, unos de los requisitos para la no sujeción o exoneración del impuesto es que se trate de una Institución Autónoma. Transcribe los numerales 4 y 8 de la Ley n° 449, e indica, con base en esos numerales cumple con el requisito dicho. También, transcribe el artículo 20 de la Ley n° 449 y el 18 de la Ley n° 8660. Menciona que dichos numerales deben analizarse a la luz del numeral 62 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, concluyendo para el caso de la Ley N° 449 (Ley Constitutiva del ICE), la exoneración es total en cuanto a los impuestos nacionales y municipales, siendo una exoneración genérica otorgada por el Legislador a la Institución, que posteriormente fue debidamente ratificada por el Legislador con la Ley de Fortalecimiento y Modernización de las Entidades Públicas del Sector de Telecomunicaciones, Ley N° 8660 -en esta oportunidad se establece, ya no una exoneración total, sino parcial-. Menciona un extracto de la Resolución N° 2008-011210 de las 15 horas del 16 de julio de 2008, de la Sala Constitucional donde, a su entender, queda demostrada la evidente intención del Legislador de mantener las exoneraciones que posee el Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad a través de su Ley Constitutiva. Segundo: Explica, la decisión por parte del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, tiene fundamento en la interpretación y la analogía y no en la literalidad de la norma, tampoco en analizar la intención del Legislador. Aduce, debe quedar claro, al abrirse el mercado de las Telecomunicaciones el ICE debe responder por los impuestos como cualquier empresa privada, no obstante, no se dedica únicamente a las telecomunicaciones, sino, mantiene el monopolio del Estado en el Sector Eléctrico, en el cual el ICE invierte su mayor parte de recursos, sea para infraestructura, compra de propiedades (expropiaciones), maquinaria y otras mercancías necesarias para la generación eléctrica. Considera que, el Tribunal omite el análisis de esos aspectos y al mismo tiempo, es contradictorio pues por un lado utiliza la analogía para desvirtuar el espíritu del legislador, contenido en el artículo 20 del Decreto Ley 449, y, por otro lado, se ampara en la interpretación y analogía para determinar que, el ICE, no está exento del impuesto de bienes inmuebles, por cuanto, el artículo 63 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios derogó lo dispuesto en la Ley N° 449, a pesar de que la propia Ley del impuesto de bienes inmuebles en su artículo 4, es la que establece la no sujeción. La parte recurrente, ha entendido el artículo 63 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, modificado por el artículo 50 de la Ley Reguladora de Exoneraciones Vigentes, como un límite de aplicación de las exoneraciones en el tiempo. Es decir, considera que, no sería de aplicación, una exoneración que se haya otorgado con anterioridad a la Ley que cree un nuevo tributo, así lo reconoció la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en su Resolución 001175-F-S1-2011. Indica, otro aspecto contradictorio en el cual se enfrasca el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, es que, el numeral 18 de la Ley No. 8660, otorga la exención en cuestión y por otro lado indica que, ese mandato no crea exención tributaria sino que mantiene la vigencia de las que hayan sido otorgadas al ICE con anterioridad, ya sea como operador o proveedor de servicios o productos de telecomunicaciones o de electricidad en condición librada a la libre competencia, supuesto en el cual se dejó sin exoneración al pago del Impuesto sobre la Renta y del Impuesto General sobre las Ventas, el cual, dicho sea de paso, carece de sentido dada la entrada en vigencia del impuesto de valor agregado, en los demás casos, se remitió a las exoneraciones establecidas con ocasión del Decreto Ley No. 764 que adicionó el numeral 20 del Decreto-Ley No. 449. Arguye, la Sala se ha pronunciado acerca del tema que nos ocupa, y, el actuar del Tribunal, crea inseguridad jurídica frente a los demás gobiernos locales, al no seguirse la línea jurisprudencial de la Sala. Tercero: Aduce, siguiendo la temática desarrollada en los argumentos primero y segundo, el Tribunal interpreta y aplica erróneamente el artículo 4 de la Ley del Impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles y el artículo 62 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios. Arguye, es errónea, la interpretación por analogía relacionada con que la Ley del Impuesto de Bienes inmuebles, deroga lo dispuesto en la Ley N° 449, sin valorar lo dispuesto en la misma Ley sobre Bienes Inmuebles que establece la exoneración y mucho menos lo hace de la Ley de Fortalecimiento y Modernización de las Entidades Públicas del Sector de Telecomunicaciones N° 8660, que vuelve a reiterar la exoneración del ICE de todo impuesto nacional y municipal dispuesto en el artículo 20 de la Ley N° 449. Aduce, a pesar de que, el Tribunal, al realizar el análisis para diferenciar entre exoneración y no sujeción tributaria, no se expresa con claridad en las normas que compete el tema en discusión, situación que no puede ser atribuida o imputada a la Institución, ya que tal confusión se debe a una mala técnica legislativa de redacción de las normas. Sostiene, el numeral 4 de esa Ley, establece la no sujeción del impuesto para las Instituciones Autónomas como lo es el ICE, pero lo sujeta a una exoneración de dicho tributo en norma especial, situación que a nuestro criterio ha entendido y desarrollado la Sala Primera en su línea jurisprudencial, al determinar la no sujeción del ICE sobre este tributo, y por ende, no debe ser un elemento que varíe la fundamentación y posición de esta Sala, como lo pretende el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo en su Sentencia. En consecuencia, considera esta representación, que existe normativa que se ha dejado de aplicar por parte del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo en la Sentencia en este acto recurrida. Cuarto: Alega, el Tribunal, violenta los principios de razonabilidad, proporcionalidad, seguridad jurídica e igualdad, por no utilizar la sana crítica. Afirma, el ICE, continúa siendo una Institución Autónoma del Estado costarricense y por ello, no debe variarse su naturaleza jurídica e interpretarse que con la apertura en materia de Telecomunicaciones se convierte en un ente privado, dicha situación puede desvirtuar el principio de igualdad, ya que el ICE no puede ser considerado como los demás operadores del mercado de Telecomunicaciones. Esa situación le crea inseguridad jurídica, pues, considera que, el Tribunal se basa en supuestos como que, el artículo 63 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios deroga la Ley N° 449, a pesar de que, dicho cuerpo normativo se encuentra vigente en su totalidad, así como, el dejar de lado nueva legislación como la Ley N° 8660 que no es objeto de análisis, siendo esta una Ley Especial que posee. Por otra parte, arguye, la Sentencia del Tribunal, carece del principio de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, debido a que, el ICE es una Institución creada por el Estado para la prestación y comercialización de productos y servicios de electricidad y telecomunicaciones (ver en ese sentido artículos 1 y 2 de la Ley N° 449 y artículo 2 de la Ley N° 8660), por ello no podría interpretarse que al ICE se le puede medir en igualdad de condiciones que los demás operadores de Telecomunicaciones que desarrollan su comercialización en este país y que como empresas privadas deben asumir las responsabilidades tributarias establecidas. Cabe destacar que no existe a la fecha una apertura del Sector Eléctrico en Costa Rica, por lo que continúa teniendo el ICE el monopolio del Estado en este servicio, y para ello, se le obliga al Instituto a sufragar las necesidades eléctricas que demanda el país, esta obligación únicamente se puede dar a través de la creación de nuevas plantas Hidroeléctricas, plantas Geotérmicas, plantas Térmicas, eólicas, o cualquier otra fuente que pueda producir electricidad, como ejemplo el gas o solares. Considera, si el ICE posee gran cantidad de inmuebles a nivel nacional, cada una de las Municipalidades van a pretender que el ICE cancele el 0,25% del valor de sus propiedades en forma anual, ya que así lo establecen los artículos 22 y 23 de la Ley del impuesto de Bienes Inmuebles. Argumenta, es inapropiado e irracional, considerar que el ICE pueda hacer frente al pago del impuesto de todos los inmuebles que posee en el país, porque aquí se hace necesario, no solo, considerar la solicitud de cobro que efectúa la Municipalidad de Nicoya, sino, hay que considerar que este tipo de resoluciones, crean jurisprudencia para que otras Municipalidades pretendan cobrar este impuesto a mi representado, amparadas en esta resolución. Aduce, el Tribunal, no ha considerado tales argumentos y emana una resolución sobre la cual se viola el principio de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, en razón de que las mayores infraestructuras de este país las posee el ICE y no porque tenga la capacidad económica para construirlas o comprarlas, sino porque a través de sus Leyes especiales, se le ha brindado a la Institución el poder utilizar una serie de beneficios e instrumentos financieros para poder desarrollar tales obras. Por lo anterior solicita revocar la Sentencia N° 100-2020-I de las diez horas y treinta y cinco minutos del veintiséis de agosto de dos mil veinte, así como, se declare y reconozca el Régimen de no sujeción.

IV.- El Tribunal en la sentencia recurrida, como fundamento de que, la parte actora está sujeta al pago del impuesto dispuso: “VIII.- ANÁLISIS SOBRE LA SUJECIÓN AL IMPUESTO DE BIENES INMUEBLES: Considerando que el argumento dado por la accionante respecto a que su representada no está sujeta al impuesto de bienes inmuebles aparece de manera tardía (en conclusiones), la postura dada por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en su voto 816-F-S1-2018, por lo que se considera necesario entrar a valorar lo expuesto por la cámara casacional. Así, en el citado voto, la posición de la Sala es la siguiente: “…para esta Sala, la contienda apunta no al examen del régimen de exenciones, sino a la temática de la no sujeción tributaria, que parte de la inexistencia del vínculo obligacional tributario, de que el ICE no puede ser considerado sujeto pasivo y ni siquiera sería dable estimar la existencia de un hecho generador que le imponga el pago requerido por el ayuntamiento demandado. En efecto, la Ley del Impuesto Territorial, derogada mediante Ley del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles, disponía: ”Artículo 4. No sujeciones. No estarán afectos a este impuesto, los inmuebles propiedad de: (…) El Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (…)”. La Ley del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles, numeral 4, estipula: “Artículo 4. Inmuebles no afectos al impuesto. No están afectos a este impuesto: a) Los inmuebles del Estado, las municipalidades, las instituciones autónomas y semiautónomas que, por ley especial, gocen de exención”. En consecuencia, no cabe siquiera asumir que, respecto al ICE, se produzca el hecho generador del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles, cuando en su numerales 1 y 2 imponen, a favor de los ayuntamientos, un impuesto sobre los terrenos, instalaciones o construcciones fijas o permanentes existentes allí, porque el hecho generador, según el precepto 31 del CNPT, constituye el presupuesto legal que tipifica el tributo y origina la obligación. En esta virtud, tampoco es dable considerar que entre el Fisco y ese instituto medie un vínculo tributario con obligación a cargo de éste de pagar el referido tributo. Es así, por cuanto el numeral 11 Ibidem., entabla esa relación a partir de la verificación del hecho generador que, como se analizó, no puede existir en la especie, en tanto el legislador dispuso una no sujeción tributaria. Por paridad de razón, el ICE está excluido como sujeto pasivo del tributo, a tenor del numeral 15 del referido cuerpo normativo, libre de la obligación atinente al impuesto de referencia. Si la Ley del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles, con antecedente, conforme quedó citado, en la Ley del Impuesto Territorial, mantuvo la no sujeción tributaria, tampoco aplica para el ICE la calidad de contribuyente, la cual está contemplada en el numeral 17 Ibid. del CNPT, como la persona respecto a la cual se verifica el hecho generador de la obligación tributaria. Por consiguiente, no tiene a su cargo la imposición contenida en el artículo 18 siguiente, cuando estatuye: “Obligaciones. Los contribuyentes están obligados al pago de los tributos y al cumplimiento de los deberes formales establecidos por el presente Código o por normas especiales”. Se aúna a este marco normativo, el artículo 17 del Decreto-Ley de Creación del ICE, sobre la política financiera del Instituto, que será la de capitalizar las utilidades netas que obtenga de la venta de energía eléctrica y de cualquier otra fuente que las tuviere, en la financiación y ejecución de los planes nacionales de electrificación y en el impulso de la industria a base de la energía eléctrica. En este sentido, conforme al susodicho numeral: “El Gobierno no derivará ninguna parte de esas utilidades, pues el Instituto no deberá ser considerado como una fuente productora de ingresos para el Fisco, sino que deberá usar todos los medios a su disposición para incrementar la producción de energía eléctrica como industria básica de la Nación…”. Todo ello, también, con el propósito de asegurar el cumplimiento de los fines y objetivos previstos en los artículos 1 y 2 Ibidem., lo mismo que la autonomía establecida a su favor en las normas 4, 8 y 9, y la disposición de su patrimonio en utilidades conforme a los preceptos 16 y 18, disposiciones, todas, de la misma Ley, de consuno también con los propósitos y objetivos estatuidos en los artículos 1 y 2 de la Ley de Fortalecimiento y Modernización de las Entidades Públicas del Sector Telecomunicaciones…” (resaltado es nuestro. Voto 000816-F-S1-18 de las once horas del doce de setiembre de dos mil dieciocho). Como puede verse, el argumento central en la Sala Casacional gira en torno a que, en su interpretación, la Ley de Bienes Inmuebles, considera – al igual que su predecesora – al ICE como una entidad no sujeta al impuesto. Al respecto, los integrantes de esta Cámara de Jueces, con el mayor respeto propio de situaciones como la presente, comprende la exposición dada, empero, no la compartimos, por lo que debemos separarnos de la línea expuesta por nuestro superior casacional, por los motivos que de inmediato procedemos a exponer. Como un primer aspecto, estimamos que no existe total claridad con el hecho de que la antigua norma del Impuesto Territorial regulase en su numeral 4 – bajo el concepto técnico y doctrinal – casos de no sujeción, sino que mezclaba éstos con el instituto de la exención. Prueba de ello, es que la propia norma en su artículo 6° exigía que las todas las propiedades debían ser valoradas, usando la expresión “aún las exentas” y siendo que la ley no regula casos específicos de exoneración, se considera que la referencia es a la regulación del artículo 4°. Por otra parte, la ley 7293 que vino a impactar la derogada normativa, le otorga un tratamiento de exoneración, tal y como se observa en el artículo 1° de la citada ley al hacer referencia expresa al impuesto territorial y el 34 que vino a modificar la ley reguladora del tributo, enlistando cuáles sujetos no debían pagar el impuesto vía exoneración. Esta situación se refuerza con el hecho de que el numeral 4 inciso a) del impuesto de bienes inmuebles otorga tratamiento de exoneración al indicar que sólo aquellos inmuebles del Estado, las municipalidades, las instituciones autónomas y semiautónomas que poseen una norma expresa de exención no deben pagar el impuesto, a contrario sensu, aquellos que no posean tal, se deben considerar afectos al tributo. Cabe resaltar que la propia Sala Primera, en un fallo anterior, daba el tratamiento de exoneración en su voto 37-F-2004 de las diez horas y treinta y cinco minutos del veintiuno de enero de 2004. Como se indicó en el considerando trasanterior, la característica fundamental de la no sujeción es que ésta se puede identificar, sin necesidad de que exista norma expresa que la señale, cosa que no ocurre con la exoneración la cual, si no posee norma indicativa en texto positivo, lo que provoca es el nacimiento y pago de la obligación tributaria. En ese sentido, si se realiza el ejercicio hipotético de suprimir la norma, tanto del numeral 4 de la ley del impuesto territorial, la reforma conforme el 34 de la ley 7293 y el actual 4 de la ley de bienes inmuebles, encontramos como resultado que el ICE se encontraría sujeto al impuesto. Como un segundo aspecto, existe un cambio de tratamiento entre la ley del impuesto territorial y la ley de bienes inmuebles, justamente al referirse a la exención del ente actor. Mientras que en la anterior normativa la exponía sin condicionamiento alguno, tratándose, por ende, de una liberación de obligación subjetiva; la norma vigente a través de la ley 7509 establece una condición adicional, y es la existencia de una exoneración por ley especial. Con ambos aspectos, encontramos bajo un análisis finalista de ambas normas que el legislador había dispuesto una exoneración subjetiva en el impuesto territorial, la cual fue regulada y delimitada posteriormente por ley 7293, y que modificó nuevamente en el año 1995 condicionando la exclusión del pago, a la existencia de norma expresa que contenga una exención a favor del sujeto pasivo según la ley 7509. Con ello, si bien podría interpretarse que lo expuesto en la ley del impuesto territorial podía equivalerse a una no sujeción, lo cierto es que la evolución normativa subsecuente, le dio y le da, un tratamiento de exoneración. Como un tercer aspecto, consideramos la doctrina anteriormente expuesta en el sentido de tener que analizar si, desde una óptica delimitante, el impuesto abarca o no, la esfera patrimonial de determinado sujeto, el cual, si se tratase de una no sujeción, el hecho generador nunca abarcaría el patrimonio bajo análisis, justamente por encontrarse fuera del límite del presupuesto fáctico generador del tributo. Con ello, recurrimos a la lectura del numeral 2° de la ley 7509 que expresamente indica: “Son objeto de este impuesto los terrenos, las instalaciones o las construcciones fijas y permanentes que allí existan”. Ahora, no desde la perspectiva subjetiva, sino objetiva (naturaleza de terrenos y actividades) encontramos que el numeral 4 excluye, independientemente del titular: los que constituyan cuencas hidrográficas o hayan sido declarados, por el Poder Ejecutivo, reserva forestal, indígena o biológica, parque nacional o similar (inciso b en ocasión de la naturaleza del terreno), los destinados a bomberos (inciso j, en ocasión de actividad); y encontramos como de uso naturaleza mixta (elementos subjetivos y objetivos): Los inmuebles pertenecientes a iglesias y organizaciones religiosas pero sólo los que se dediquen al culto (inciso g, en ocasión de actividad), las sedes diplomáticas y las casas de habitación de los agentes diplomáticos y consulares con reciprocidad de beneficios fiscales (inciso h, en ocasión a naturaleza del terreno) y los bienes de uso común, propiedad de las personas jurídicas amparadas a la Ley No. 3859 (inciso k, en ocasión de actividad). Como puede observarse, los bienes de la institución actora no encuadran en alguno de los supuestos indicados, ya sean objetivos o mixtos, por lo que, el alcance del artículo 2° de la ley del impuesto territorial, implicaría que el patrimonio inmueble de la accionante está dentro del presupuesto fáctico del tributo, reafirmando que estamos en presencia de un supuesto de sujeción. Ahora bien, pasaríamos con ello, a analizar, si, pese a estar sujeto al tributo, posee a su favor una exoneración.” V.- Como bien lo alega el casacionista, esta Sala ha tenido oportunidad de referirse en varias ocasiones, al tema que se discute en este proceso. El tema central radica en la interpretación y aplicación de las diferentes normas y su vigencia, en ese sentido se analizará. Para ello, resulta importante considerar la existencia de violaciones a las normas sustantivas. En el Decreto-Ley de Creación del ICE establece exenciones tributarias y con base en ella se analizó la Ley Reguladora de todas las Exoneraciones Vigentes, su Derogatoria y sus Exenciones, cuyo precepto primero deroga las exenciones con algunas salvedades. El mandato 50 ibídem modifica el artículo 63 del CNPT, e impone límites de aplicación de exenciones. En cuanto al numeral 52 de la Ley mencionada, modifica el precepto 64 del CNPT, respecto a que la exención, aun cuando fuera concedida en orden a determinadas condiciones de hecho, puede ser derogada o modificada por ley posterior, sin responsabilidad del Estado. Para esta Sala, el sub júdice apunta no al examen del régimen de exenciones, como erróneamente lo analiza el Tribunal, sino a la temática de la no sujeción tributaria, la cual parte de la inexistencia del vínculo obligacional tributario. Consecuentemente, el ICE no puede ser considerado sujeto pasivo de la obligación tributaria. En efecto, la Ley del Impuesto Territorial, derogada mediante Ley del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles, disponía:” Artículo 4. No sujeciones. No estarán afectos a este impuesto, los inmuebles propiedad de: (…) El Instituto Costarricense de Electricidad (…)”. La Ley del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles, numeral 4, estipula: “Artículo 4. Inmuebles no afectos al impuesto. No están afectos a este impuesto: a) Los inmuebles del Estado, las municipalidades, las instituciones autónomas y semiautónomas que, por ley especial, gocen de exención”. En consecuencia, no cabe siquiera asumir que, respecto al ICE, se produzca el hecho generador del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles, cuando en su numerales 1 y 2 imponen, a favor de los ayuntamientos, un impuesto sobre los terrenos, instalaciones o construcciones fijas o permanentes existentes allí, porque el hecho generador, según el precepto 31 del CNPT, constituye el presupuesto legal que tipifica el tributo y origina la obligación. En esta virtud, tampoco es dable considerar que entre el Fisco y ese instituto medie un vínculo tributario con obligación a cargo de éste de pagar el referido tributo. Es así, por cuanto el numeral 11 Ibidem, entabla esa relación a partir de la verificación del hecho generador que, como se analizó, no puede existir en la especie, en tanto el legislador dispuso una no sujeción tributaria. Por paridad de razón, el ICE está excluido como sujeto pasivo del tributo, a tenor del numeral 15 del referido cuerpo normativo, libre de la obligación atinente al impuesto de referencia. Si la Ley del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles, con antecedente, conforme quedó citado, en la Ley del Impuesto Territorial, mantuvo la no sujeción tributaria, tampoco aplica para el ICE la calidad de contribuyente, la cual está contemplada en el numeral 17 Ibid. del CNPT, como la persona respecto a la cual se verifica el hecho generador de la obligación tributaria. Por consiguiente, no tiene a su cargo la imposición contenida en el artículo 18 siguiente, cuando estatuye: “Obligaciones. Los contribuyentes están obligados al pago de los tributos y al cumplimiento de los deberes formales establecidos por el presente Código o por normas especiales”. Se aúna a este marco normativo, el artículo 17 del Decreto-Ley de Creación del ICE, sobre la política financiera del Instituto, que será la de capitalizar las utilidades netas que obtenga de la venta de energía eléctrica y de cualquier otra fuente que las tuviere, en la financiación y ejecución de los planes nacionales de electrificación y en el impulso de la industria a base de la energía eléctrica. En este sentido, conforme al susodicho numeral: “El Gobierno no derivará ninguna parte de esas utilidades, pues el Instituto no deberá ser considerado como una fuente productora de ingresos para el Fisco, sino que deberá usar todos los medios a su disposición para incrementar la producción de energía eléctrica como industria básica de la Nación…”. Todo ello, también, con el propósito de asegurar el cumplimiento de los fines y objetivos previstos en los artículos 1 y 2 Ibidem., lo mismo que la autonomía establecida a su favor en las normas 4, 8 y 9, y la disposición de su patrimonio en utilidades conforme a los preceptos 16 y 18, disposiciones, todas, de la misma Ley, de consuno también con los propósitos y objetivos estatuidos en los artículos 1 y 2 de la Ley de Fortalecimiento y Modernización de las Entidades Públicas del Sector Telecomunicaciones. Por lo expuesto, el Tribunal ha interpretado y aplicado erróneamente los preceptos jurídicos con los cuales ha estimado que entre el Fisco y el ICE media una relación tributaria, con cargo a este último, como sujeto pasivo, de asumir el pago del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles, al verificarse, a su juicio, el hecho generador contenido en los numerales 1 y 2 de la Ley atinente a este tributo. Como lo refiere el impugnante, según el artículo 4 de esta normativa, no está obligado a cancelarlo y, de este modo, deberá anularse la resolución 306-2017 que en voto de mayoría emitió el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Tercera, a las 14:25 horas del 31 de Julio de 2017, avalando lo dispuesto por la Alcaldía de la Municipalidad de Nicoya del 14 de febrero de 2016, al mantener el cobro del susodicho impuesto, así como los demás actos administrativos de ese ayuntamiento establecidos para ese fin. En consecuencia, no procede la excepción de falta de derecho que el órgano sentenciador dictó en beneficio de la corporación municipal accionada, lo cual conduce al acogimiento de la demanda en los términos dichos, contrario al criterio sustentado en el fallo recurrido que por lo mismo deberá anularse. Precisa indicar, pese a que las partes y el órgano sentenciador reiteradamente aludieron al instituto de la exención tributaria, entre la base jurídica de apoyo de los extremos petitorios e incluso en manifestaciones del recurso, se citó y justificó la aplicación del canon 4 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, con antecedente en la Ley del Impuesto Territorial, contentivas, ambas, de la no sujeción tributaria. Por eso, la Sala acoge la temática de fondo en este particular, cuando, además, la esencia de lo reclamado por la parte actora estriba en que la demandada no debe cobrar el referido Tributo, como así se extrae de ambas Leyes. En este sentido, no cabe siquiera considerar que se esté resolviendo contra lo pedido en demanda; antes bien, se hace dentro de las facultades estipuladas en el artículo 122 del CPCA. (Véase resoluciones de esta Sala N° 816-2018, 474-2019, 475-2019, 476-2019, 1849-2019, 777-2021 y 778-2021).

VI.- En mérito de lo expuesto, se deberá acoger la impugnación y anular la sentencia recurrida. Fallando por el fondo, se declarará con lugar la demanda. Deberá anularse la resolución n° 306-2017 que emitió el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Tercera, a las 14:25 horas del 31 de Julio de 2017, avalando lo dispuesto por la Alcaldía de la Municipalidad de Nicoya el 14 de febrero de 2016, que, en consecuencia, se anula, de conformidad con el numeral 122 inciso k) del CPCA. Además, los avisos y pronunciamientos de cobro del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles emitidos por el mencionado municipio en contra del ICE, pues no está sujeto al pago del referido tributo, ordenándose la eliminación del correspondiente cobro en todos los sistemas manuales e informáticos de la demandada contra el actor, para evitar futuros cobros por ese concepto, aspectos cuyo cumplimiento podrán analizarse en ejecución de sentencia. De conformidad con el precepto 193 del CPCA, siendo que la parte demandada no se apersonó al proceso, ni ante esta Sala oponiéndose al derecho de la parte actora, se resuelve sin especial condenatoria en costas.

POR TANTO

Se declara con lugar el recurso. Se anula la sentencia impugnada. Fallando por el fondo, se acoge la demanda en todos sus extremos. Se reconoce el régimen de no sujeción tributaria a favor del ICE en cuanto al Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles que pretende cobrarle la Municipalidad de Nicoya. Se anula la resolución número 306-2017 que emitió el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Sección Tercera, a las 14:25 horas del 31 de Julio de 2017, la cual confirma lo dispuesto por la Alcaldía de la Municipalidad de Nicoya el 14 de febrero de 2016, que consecuentemente, también se anula, conforme al inciso k) del artículo 122 del CPCA. Asimismo, se anulan los pronunciamientos de cobro del Impuesto sobre Bienes Inmuebles, tendientes a ese fin, emitidos por el mencionado municipio en contra del ICE, pues no está sujeto al pago del referido tributo. Se ordena la eliminación del correspondiente cobro en todos los sistemas manuales e informáticos de la demandada contra el actor, para evitar futuros cobros por ese concepto. Se resuelve sin especial condenatoria en costas. EPEREZA  LUIS GUILLERMO RIVAS LOAICIGA - MAGISTRADO/A  IRIS ROCIO ROJAS MORALES - MAGISTRADO/A  CARLOS GUILLERMO ZAMORA CAMPOS - MAGISTRADO/A  DAMARIS VARGAS VÁSQUEZ - MAGISTRADO/A  IGNACIO JOSE MONGE DOBLES - MAGISTRADO/A