← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 08846-2023 Sala Constitucional · Sala Constitucional · 19/04/2023
OutcomeResultado
The Constitutional Chamber denied the unconstitutionality action as inadmissible, finding the dispute was one of legality rather than constitutionality.La Sala Constitucional declaró sin lugar la acción de inconstitucionalidad por inadmisible, al considerar que el conflicto era de legalidad y no de constitucionalidad.
SummaryResumen
The Constitutional Chamber dismissed the unconstitutionality action filed by Strike While The Iron Is Hot Limitada against Article 40 of the Income Tax Regulation, Executive Decree No. 43198-H, which governs the taxable base for real estate capital income. The company argued that the regulatory provision violated the principle of legal reservation by limiting deductible expenses to a fixed 15% or 20%, thereby altering the tax base established in Article 29 of the Income Tax Law. The Chamber found the action inadmissible on two grounds: first, the dispute was a matter of legality rather than constitutionality, since no manifest contradiction between the law and regulation was evident, so it fell within the ordinary courts' jurisdiction; second, the plaintiff's grievance arose from the Tax Administration's practical application of the provision, not an inherent constitutional defect. The ruling reaffirms that determining whether a regulation exceeds or contradicts a law is a matter of ordinary legality, unless the principle of legal force under Article 129 of the Constitution is blatantly violated.La Sala Constitucional declaró sin lugar la acción de inconstitucionalidad interpuesta por Strike While The Iron Is Hot Limitada contra el artículo 40 del Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, Decreto Ejecutivo No. 43198-H, que regula la base imponible de las rentas de capital inmobiliario. La empresa argumentó que la norma reglamentaria violaba el principio de reserva de ley al limitar los gastos deducibles a un 15 % o 20 % fijo, modificando así la base imponible establecida en el artículo 29 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta. La Sala determinó que la acción era inadmisible por dos razones: primero, porque el conflicto planteado era de legalidad y no de constitucionalidad, ya que no se evidenciaba una contradicción manifiesta entre la ley y el reglamento, correspondiendo su análisis a la jurisdicción ordinaria; segundo, porque la disconformidad del accionante derivaba de la aplicación práctica de la norma por parte de la Administración Tributaria, no de un vicio intrínseco de constitucionalidad. La sentencia reafirma el principio de que determinar si un reglamento excede o contradice una ley es un tema de legalidad ordinario, salvo que se vulnere de forma evidente el principio de fuerza de ley contenido en el artículo 129 de la Constitución.
Key excerptExtracto clave
Thus, it is not for this Constitutional Court to determine whether a regulation is contrary to a law, or whether there has been an excess of regulatory power, unless a violation of a fundamental right or constitutional principle is found. In this regard, it is pertinent to clarify that if it is evident and obvious that the regulatory provision exceeds, eliminates, or contradicts the text of the Law, there is no doubt that the principle of force, authority, or effectiveness of the Law is grossly violated; a principle that has constitutional coverage and must be protected by this Court. [...] Therefore, when a regulatory provision clearly and manifestly goes beyond, eliminates, or contradicts a Law of the Republic, Article 129 of the Constitution and the principle of force, authority, or effectiveness of the Law are violated, and the Constitutional Court does have jurisdiction over this matter, without prejudice to the jurisdiction also held by ordinary courts when the aforementioned scenario does not occur.Así, no corresponde a este Tribunal Constitucional determinar si un reglamento es contrario a una ley ni tampoco si se ha dado un exceso en la potestad reglamentaria, salvo que se constate la violación a algún derecho fundamental o principio constitucional. En este sentido, es pertinente precisar que si es evidente, y salta a la vista que la norma reglamentaria excede, suprime- o contradice el texto de la Ley- no cabe duda que, de forma grosera, se vulnera el principio de fuerza, autoridad o eficacia de la Ley; principio que tiene cobertura constitucional y que debe ser tutelado por este Tribunal. [...] Ergo, cuando de manera evidente y manifiesta una norma reglamentaria rebasa, suprime o contradice una Ley de la República, se vulnera el numeral 129 de la Carta Fundamental y el principio de fuerza, autoridad o eficacia de la Ley, y el Tribunal Constitucional sí tiene competencia en este asunto, sin demérito de la competencia que también le asiste a los integrantes de la jurisdicción ordinaria cuando no se presenta el supuesto comentado.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"no corresponde a este Tribunal Constitucional determinar si un reglamento es contrario a una ley ni tampoco si se ha dado un exceso en la potestad reglamentaria, salvo que se constate la violación a algún derecho fundamental o principio constitucional."
"it is not for this Constitutional Court to determine whether a regulation is contrary to a law, or whether there has been an excess of regulatory power, unless a violation of a fundamental right or constitutional principle is found."
Considerando V
"no corresponde a este Tribunal Constitucional determinar si un reglamento es contrario a una ley ni tampoco si se ha dado un exceso en la potestad reglamentaria, salvo que se constate la violación a algún derecho fundamental o principio constitucional."
Considerando V
"cuando de manera evidente y manifiesta una norma reglamentaria rebasa, suprime o contradice una Ley de la República, se vulnera el numeral 129 de la Carta Fundamental y el principio de fuerza, autoridad o eficacia de la Ley."
"when a regulatory provision clearly and manifestly goes beyond, eliminates, or contradicts a Law of the Republic, Article 129 of the Constitution and the principle of force, authority, or effectiveness of the Law are violated."
Considerando V
"cuando de manera evidente y manifiesta una norma reglamentaria rebasa, suprime o contradice una Ley de la República, se vulnera el numeral 129 de la Carta Fundamental y el principio de fuerza, autoridad o eficacia de la Ley."
Considerando V
"la aplicación indebida de la ley o su errónea interpretación en el caso concreto no es materia propia de conocerse mediante la acción de inconstitucionalidad."
"the improper application of the law or its erroneous interpretation in a specific case is not a matter to be addressed through an unconstitutionality action."
Considerando VI
"la aplicación indebida de la ley o su errónea interpretación en el caso concreto no es materia propia de conocerse mediante la acción de inconstitucionalidad."
Considerando VI
Full documentDocumento completo
Acción de inconstitucionalidad filed by [Nombre1], of legal age, married, with identification number CED1, attorney, resident of San Juan de Tibás, in his capacity as legal representative of the company Strike While The Iron Is Hot Limitada, with legal identification number CED2, seeking a declaration that Article 34 of the Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 18445-H is unconstitutional.
Considering:
1.- Through a brief received by the Secretariat of the Chamber at 8:58 a.m. on September 14, 2021, the petitioner requests, in summary, that Article 34 of the Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 18445-H of September 9, 1988, be declared unconstitutional, considering it contrary to Articles 9, 11, 28, 33, 49, 45, 46, and 121, subsection 13, of the Constitución Política and to the constitutional principles of legal reserve, legality, prohibition of arbitrariness, economic capacity, equality, reasonableness, and proportionality, the principle of non-confiscation, and the right to private property. He states that the challenged rule establishes, via regulation, a modification regarding the calculation basis of the tax on real estate capital income by not contemplating the figure of deductible expenses and indicating that these are limited to two single deductions of 15% or 20%, so that Article 34 determines, above the law, which expenses can be applied to the tax on real estate capital income, which he deems arbitrary insofar as the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 7092 regulates both the possibility of applying deductible expenses or the single deductions. He considers that the rule places the taxpayer in a situation of defenselessness by giving them only the possibility of applying fixed deductions without taking their economic capacity into consideration, with the aggravating factor that, if they do not pay them, they are exposed to being subject to confiscatory tax sanctions and burdens. He adds that the final paragraph of the challenged Article 34 contains elements not established in Article 29 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 7092, such as, for example, that the law does not indicate that the 15% or 20% deductions are the only amounts that can be applied to gross income; nor does it indicate anything about any restriction on deductible expenses as stated in the challenged numeral 34 when providing: “nor apply the other rules on deductibility of expenses contained in the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta”. He points out that the challenged Article 34 modifies a crucial quantitative element of the taxable event of the tax on real estate capital income by eliminating the concept of deductible expense and only mentions the word “expense”, to then make modifications to what is provided in the law. He indicates that determining via regulation that only certain deductions can be made contradicts what is provided in Article 29 of Law No. 7092, which clearly expresses the concept of “deductible expenses” (subsection a) paragraph 4), which in his opinion injures the constitutional principles of proportionality and reasonableness. He adds that the regulatory rule does not allow the company to apply the deductible expenses that occurred during the fiscal period; it is only left with the option of applying 15% of gross income as an “expense”; a situation that places his represented company and the taxpayers of the capital income tax in a situation of inequality in relation to the taxpayers of the income tax, who can apply the deductible expenses of the corresponding period. He considers that the Tax Administration, in an arbitrary manner, took away from the taxpayer the freedom to be able to choose the deductible expense stipulated in subsection 1 of Article 29 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 7092, for which reason a clear abuse of regulatory power is seen that broke the principle of legal reserve. He states that the challenged rule, by removing the deductible expenses expressed in the Law, endangers the economic capacity of the taxpayers because it arbitrarily raises their tax burden, this because the company, in some periods, may have expenses that, if they could be deducted, could exceed the 15% established by the Reglamento and applied by the Tax Administration. He argues that, according to the principle of reasonableness, for a rule or action of the State to be legitimate, it must respond to a pressing necessity that, in this case, would be to bring income to the State. He adds that the suitability of the rule or action responds to whether the challenged measure was the best option, and according to what is stated in the jurisprudence and what is expressed with respect to constitutional doctrine, the measure taken is not the best because the Reglamento does not have the power to change the tax base by eliminating the concept of deductible expense and imposing other expenses that are optional, which means that the measure contained in Article 34 of the Reglamento is disproportionate towards the taxpayers of the real estate capital income tax, making the tribute confiscatory by increasing, without alternative, their tax burden. Finally, he recalls that the principle of non-confiscation and the principle of respect for private property are contemplated in Articles 40 and 45 of the Constitución Política and provide that there cannot be tax burdens so heavy that they destroy the economic capacity of the taxpayers; however, in his opinion, this is what happens when the questioned rule is applied, which obligates the taxpayer to pay an amount that can exceed their economic capacity, without alternative, which puts their assets at risk; a situation that contravenes the basic premise of Tax Law which postulates that its ultimate goal is not to pay taxes, but to pay what corresponds according to each one's economic capacity for the benefit of the country. He concludes by requesting that the acción de inconstitucionalidad be granted, with its consequences.
2.- In order to base the standing to file this acción de inconstitucionalidad, the petitioner indicates that it stems from paragraph 1 of Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, the prior matter being an ordinary proceeding processed in expediente No. 21-000342-1027-CA in which the application by the Tax Administration of Article 34 of the Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 18445-H is discussed and in which the unconstitutionality of that rule was invoked as a reasonable means of protecting the right deemed injured.
3.- By resolution at 4:13 p.m. on March 24, 2022, the acción de inconstitucionalidad was given course, granting a hearing to the Procuraduría General de la República and the Minister of Finance.
4.- The edicts referred to in the second paragraph of Article 81 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional were published in numbers 63, 64, and 65 of the Boletín Judicial, on the 1st, 4th, and 5th of April 2022.
5.- The Procuraduría General de la República rendered its report through [Nombre2] in her capacity as Deputy Attorney General, by means of a document filed at the Secretariat of the Chamber on April 22, 2022. She indicates that in the opinion of her represented party, the admissibility requirement of the acción de inconstitucionalidad is met because the petitioner has standing under Article 75, first paragraph, of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional.
Regarding real estate capital income: she indicates that the challenged numeral refers to the so-called “real estate capital income”. She argues that the Ley de Fortalecimiento de las Finanzas Públicas No. 9635 of December 3, 2018, which came into force in July 2019, modified Law No. 7092 on Impuesto sobre la Renta, creating Chapter XI called “Rentas de Capital y Ganancias y Pérdidas de Capital”, which establishes the regime for real estate capital income, arising from leasing, subleasing, as well as from the constitution or assignment of rights or powers of use or enjoyment of real estate, all in accordance with the provisions of subsection 1) of Article 27 ter of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, which, as relevant, states:
"Article 27 ter- Taxable matter. Capital income is classified into real estate capital income, movable capital income, and capital gains and losses.
1. Real estate capital income.
(…)" She indicates that it is Article 29 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta that provides the matters concerning real estate capital income, stating the following:
"Article 29- Taxable income from real estate capital.
1. The taxable income from real estate capital shall be the difference between gross income and deductible expenses.
2. Gross income shall be understood as the total amount of the consideration.
3. For the deduction of expenses, the taxpayer may apply a fifteen percent (15%) reduction of gross income, without any need for proof and without the possibility of any other deduction.
4. Non-financial investment funds, regulated in Law No. 7732, Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores, of December 17, 1997, may apply a twenty percent (20%) reduction of gross income, as a deductible expense without any need for proof and without the possibility of any other deduction." She argues that, in this way, from July 1, 2019, when Law No. 9635 came into force, taxpayers who carry out activities related to leasing, subleasing, the constitution or assignment of rights or powers of use or enjoyment of movable goods, intangibles and other intellectual property rights, as well as real estate, may opt to pay taxes as taxpayers within the real estate capital regime, provided they have one employee (contributing to the CCSS) and declare their income for a minimum of five fiscal periods in said regime, in accordance with what is established in the law and its regulation. She warns that the law establishes that said regime is optional, that is, at the taxpayer's choice, for a period of 5 years, being able to return to the previous regime once that period of time has elapsed. She points out that Article 28 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta establishes who may be considered as taxpayers of real estate capital income, stating that, to opt for the application of this regime, natural persons, legal entities, collective entities without legal personality, and investment funds that obtain income of this type must meet certain requirements for this regime to be applicable to them. She indicates that if a taxpayer only receives income from rentals and has no other distinct lucrative activity, they may choose whether to pay taxes according to the aforementioned rules, or if they prefer to pay taxes based on the income tax (general regime) whose rate would be up to 30% calculated on the profits obtained during the fiscal period. She clarifies that this election depends on the reality of each taxpayer and, fundamentally, it is necessary to review the total deductible expenses that could be used in each tax: a) if one opts to pay taxes in the real estate capital income regime, only 15% can be deducted as deductible expenses (without any need for proof); b) while under the income tax, one could deduct all the expenses associated with the rental activity, providing for this the proof that links these expenses with the income generated and justifies them as necessary and useful for generating the income. She points out that this special regime establishes a single deduction of 15% on gross income and a tax rate of 15% on net income, or what is the same, an effective rate of 12.75% on the taxpayer's gross income, which may be applied without the need for proof of the deductible expenses necessary for the production of the taxable income. She states that, for the purposes of this acción de inconstitucionalidad, it is necessary to consider two core aspects: a) the first is that the regime is optional in nature as indicated; b) the second is that if the taxpayer opts for this regime, they will not have the need to justify their deductibility as established by Article 8 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta since, by default, the law provides that a 15% deductibility must be automatically applied to their gross income, without any need for proof of the deductible expenses.
Regarding the grounds for the acción de inconstitucionalidad: she indicates that her represented party does not share the arguments raised by the petitioner and, on the contrary, considers that the challenged article adheres to the Derecho de la Constitución. She points out that Article 34 of the Decreto Ejecutivo N°18445-H was expressly repealed by the provisions of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 43198-H of July 22, 2021, noting that in the current regulation, the article referring to real estate capital income is located in numeral 40 of that new regulatory body. She adds that both the text of the challenged Article 34 and that of Article 40 of Decreto Ejecutivo N°43198-H have identical wording, so the Procuraduría issues its opinion in relation to the challenged article - 34 of Decreto Ejecutivo N°18445-H of September 9, 1988 -. She states that, in the opinion of the petitioner, Article 34 of Decreto Ejecutivo N°18445-H makes “a modification regarding the calculation basis of the tax on real estate capital income, by removing the figure of deductible expenses or, worse still, indicating that deductible expenses are equivalent to single deductions, such as 15% or 20%”, in addition to being “faced with the irruption of the Executive Branch into the exclusive competence of the Legislative Branch, by modifying the taxable event in its quantitative aspect by varying the elements of the quantitative aspect through a regulation”. She recalls that the principle of legal reserve in tax matters is duly delimited by constitutional jurisprudence, which has been consistent in pointing out that the determination of the essential elements of taxes is a matter reserved for the law, such that the regulation cannot contain essential elements different from those found in the law, which is a limit on the regulatory power of the Administration. She indicates that the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta clearly provides the essential elements of real estate capital income, namely: taxable event (Article 27 bis), passive subject (Article 28), and tax base (Article 29), as well as the applicable rate; elements that have been correctly implemented by Article 34 of Decreto Ejecutivo 18445-H. She points out that regarding the norm accused of being unconstitutional, it suffices to make a comparative chart of its text against that of Article 29 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta to appreciate that what it contains is nothing other than the elements that have been clearly specified by the legal norm:
| Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta | Decreto Ejecutivo 18445-H |
|---|---|
| Article 29- Taxable income from real estate capital<br><br>1. The taxable income from real estate capital shall be the difference between gross income and deductible expenses.<br><br>2. Gross income shall be understood as the total amount of the consideration.<br><br>3. For the deduction of expenses, the taxpayer may apply a fifteen percent (15%) reduction of gross income, without any need for proof and without the possibility of any other deduction.<br><br>4. Non-financial investment funds, regulated in Law No. 7732, Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores, of December 17, 1997, may apply a twenty percent (20%) reduction of gross income, as a deductible expense without any need for proof and without the possibility of any other deduction. | Article 34.- Taxable base for real estate capital.<br><br>The taxable base for real estate capital is the total amount of the consideration, from which the expenses detailed below may be deducted, as applicable:<br><br>a) The amount corresponding to fifteen percent (15%) of the gross amount of the consideration, or<br><br>b) In the event that the taxpayer is a non-financial investment fund, the amount corresponding to twenty percent (20%) of the gross amount of the consideration.<br><br>The taxpayer may deduct these expenses without the need for supporting documents or any proof. These expenses are the only amounts that the taxpayer who obtains real estate capital income may deduct to determine the tax base, without it being possible to deduct amounts greater than these nor to apply the other rules on deductibility of expenses contained in the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta. |
She points out that, based on the foregoing, the essential elements of the tax are duly established by the law, so that the challenged numeral 34 practically reproduces what is provided in the legal norm, and therefore, the petitioner is not correct since the essential elements of the tax in the case of real estate capital income are clearly determined by the law and implemented in the regulation, such that there is no violation of the principle of legal reserve, nor of the constitutional precepts contained in Articles 9 and 121 of the Constitución Política. Thus, she indicates that the accusation that the regulation has modified the taxable event in its quantitative aspect is not acceptable, nor that the elements of the quantitative aspect have been varied, particularly the tax base, as accused. She argues that, for her represented party, there is no violation whatsoever by the challenged regulatory norm because it refers to the single and automatic deductibility in the same way it is treated by the law (subsection 3 of Article 29), such that the regulation would not be overreaching as the petitioner seems to understand it and, on the contrary, it adheres to what the letter of the law expresses about this special regime. She points out that by analyzing each of the essential elements of the real estate capital income tax, it is more than evident that they are clearly established in numerals 27, 28, and 29 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, so what the regulatory norm does is implement the legal norm without an over-dimensioning of what the law contains occurring. She states that following this line of argument, the Procuraduría also does not find a violation of the principle of legal certainty since the essential elements of the tax are duly established in the legal norm, which is the one that establishes a distinct tax regime and gives the option for the taxpayer who has no other lucrative activities distinct from those generating capital income to pay taxes in the terms indicated there, allowing a single deduction of 15% of gross income for expenses. She adds that this option is not unknown to the challenged regulation, as is clear from reading Article 32 of the now repealed Reglamento No. 18445-H, which established:
"Article 32.- Taxpayers who obtain only real estate capital income.
Taxpayers who obtain only real estate capital income defined in Article 27 ter, subsection 1), must pay taxes and declare in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XI of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, because they are not subject to another lucrative activity.
These taxpayers have the option to pay taxes in accordance with the provisions of Article 3 ter of this Reglamento. (As added by Article 2 of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 41818 of June 17, 2019).
In turn, she indicates that said Article 3 ter added by Decreto Ejecutivo 41818 -modified in turn by Reglamento No. 43198-H- provided:
"Article 3 ter.- Option to pay taxes on real estate income under the Impuesto sobre las Utilidades. In the case of real estate income indicated in Article 27 ter, subsection 1, of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, when taxpayers have contracted a minimum of one employee for the generation of such income, whose salary is subject to the contribution regime of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, they may opt to pay taxes on the entirety of their taxable real estate capital income in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of said law, having to notify the Tax Administration in advance and remain therein for a minimum of five years." In the Procuraduría's opinion, the accionante company's statements are based on a partial reading of the regulation and do not take into account these provisions that refer to the specificity of the established tax regime. She adds that the petitioner alleges that the challenged norm violates Articles 11 and 33 of the Constitución Política because it creates discrimination between taxpayers of the general regime and those of the real estate capital regime since the latter cannot deduct the totality of their deductible expenses given that the norm "gave the Tax Administration the tools to create online forms with which the company was not allowed to apply the deductible expenses that occurred during the fiscal period and only had the option of applying 15% of gross income as an 'expense'"; however, in the Procuraduría's opinion, there is no such violation of those principles since we are in the presence of a tax regime (real estate capital income) that is different from the general one, which can be chosen or not by the taxpayer at the time of declaring their income tax. She recalls that as it is an optional regime for the taxpayer, if they decide to pay taxes through the real estate capital income regime, they must comply with the precepts of said regime and, therefore, they will enjoy the established benefits for it, such as, for example, not presenting proof of their deductibility, so they would be in a clearly different position from that of taxpayers in the general regime. She indicates that it is not correct to affirm that the accionante company cannot apply the deductions of the general regime, but rather, as previously stated, if the real estate capital regime is opted for, only the automatic deduction of 15% or 20%, as the case may be, can be applied without the need for proof, which does not create any inequality or arbitrariness among income tax taxpayers since these are different tax regimes. She adds that, in the opinion of her represented party, there is also no violation of the principles of economic capacity and non-confiscation because those taxpayers who opt to submit to the real estate capital regime have the conditions of this regime established, so it is at their decision, as they deem convenient for their economic interests. She reiterates that this is a regime of choice by the taxpayer, who must assess their conditions to opt for the regime they wish to apply for the purposes of their income tax return, and in the case of the real estate capital regime, the legislator established a rate of 15% on the tax base, which becomes 12.75% if it is considered that the deduction percentage is 15%. She states that the principles of non-confiscation, economic capacity, and inviolability of private property regarding taxes, in light of the Derecho de la Constitución, have been analyzed by the Sala Constitucional and, in general terms, it has been stated that the tax is a means of economic policy that must be harmonized with public spending and the economic situation, its limit being the tax capacity of the individual, so the ordering of taxes must be based on the principles of generality and equitable distribution of public burdens. Likewise, this Tribunal has stated that a levy is considered confiscatory if it exceeds the economic or financial capacity of the taxpayer, or if the tax absorbs a substantial part of the taxed operation, so that, to be constitutional, taxes must not denature other fundamental rights because the Constitución ensures the inviolability of private property, as well as its free use and disposition, and prohibits confiscation, so a taxation measure that goes beyond what is reasonable and proportionate cannot be permitted (see in that sense judgment No. 5749-93 at 2:33 p.m. on November 9, 1993). She points out that, based on the foregoing, it cannot be considered that there is a violation of the principles of economic capacity or non-confiscation (including that of inviolability of private property) in the terms stated by the petitioner insofar as Article 34 of the challenged regulation does not make the real estate capital income tax confiscatory or that it violates the economic capacity of the company and, on the contrary, following the provisions of Article 29 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, the applicable deductibility in the real estate capital regime is reasonable and proportionate to the tax base for all those taxpayers who opt for this regime. She adds that if one opts to apply the real estate capital income regime, the taxpayer has benefits not available in the general regime, such as not presenting any proof regarding the expenses being deducted, so that they are automatically granted 15% or 20% deductibility regardless of whether said expenses actually occurred for the production of the taxed income or whether they have proof of the deductible expenses in order to determine if they were necessary and useful to produce the income. She argues that, on the other hand, if the taxpayer considers they have a greater amount of deductible expenses exceeding the permitted 15%, they can choose to remain within the general regime, being obliged to have proof of the deductible expenses they intend to apply. She states that for the Procuraduría, the challenged norm is not unreasonable or disproportionate since Article 29 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta provided for the automatic deductibility percentage (15% or 20% as applicable) following objective criteria, so Article 34 challenged here only reproduces what is provided in the law and considers that the petitioner is not making an integral reading of the set of regulatory provisions that govern the real estate capital income tax. She points out that, in the opinion of this advisory body, Article 34 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 18445-H of September 9, 1988, adheres to the Derecho de la Constitución and does not violate any norm or principle contained in the Constitución Política.
The Procuraduría concludes that: a) the petitioner has standing to file the present acción de inconstitucionalidad in accordance with Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. b) Decreto Ejecutivo N°18445-H of September 9, 1988, was repealed by Decreto Ejecutivo N° 43198-H of July 22, 2021. c) Article 34 of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 18445-H does not present conflicts with the Constitución Política.
6.- [Nombre3], in his capacity as Minister of Finance, renders his report by document filed at the Secretariat of the Chamber on May 19, 2022, and states that through the Ley de Fortalecimiento de las Finanzas Públicas No. 9635 of December 3, 2018 (hereinafter LFFP), Chapter XI was added to Title I of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 7092 of April 21, 1988, and its reforms (hereinafter LISR) called “Rentas de Capital y Ganancias y Pérdidas de Capital”, establishing a new tax on real estate and movable capital income as well as on capital gains and losses. He adds that through Decreto Ejecutivo No. 41818-H of June 17, 2019, the Reglamento de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No.
DE-18445-H of September 9, 1988) (hereinafter RLISR) of which the petitioner challenges its article 34, with Title II of said Regulation establishing matters related to the “Tax on Capital Income and Capital Gains and Losses” and, as relevant, “the determination of the taxable base of real estate capital” was regulated in article 34. It adds that, subsequently, through Executive Decree No. 43198-H of July 22, 2021, Executive Decree No. 41818-H was repealed and “the determination of the taxable base of real estate capital” was regulated in article 40 instead of numeral 34, both of the RLISR, now Executive Decree No. 43198-H.
“Unlike other taxes in the LISR, for example, the Income Tax, where the law requires the formal obligation to file the return at the end of the fiscal period regardless of whether or not profits were obtained, in the Tax on Capital Income not subject to withholding, the LISR does not require the filing of the return per fiscal period, but only when the taxable event occurs, consequently, in this tax, the material obligation (realization of the taxable event) arises first and then the formal obligation (filing of the return) in application of numerals 28 quáter and 31 quáter of the LISR.” b) Regarding the right and/or power to tax real estate capital income under the Income Tax regime: it argues that, for the purposes of this income, the legislator contemplated the possibility, power, or right of the taxpayer to choose the regime -in relation to the payment of income tax- under which they preferred to tax their real estate capital income, by establishing in article 28 of the Income Tax Law that:
“Taxpayers who obtain real estate capital income, for the generation of which they have contracted a minimum of one employee, may opt to be taxed on the entirety of their taxable real estate capital income, in accordance with the provisions of article 1 of this law, and must expressly communicate this option to the Tax Administration before the start of the fiscal period regulated in article 4 of this law, and maintain it for a minimum of five years” (see also article 5 of the Regulation to the LISR).
It adds that the legislator also established, in article 1 of the Income Tax Law, in which cases real estate capital income from business activity or affectation must be taxed under the income tax regime, and in that sense, paragraph 4 of that numeral states the following:
“For the purposes of this tax, the following shall also be considered lucrative activities, and must be taxed in accordance with the provisions of the income tax: the obtaining of all capital income (...) realized, obtained by individuals or legal entities and collective entities without legal personality, who carry out lucrative activities in the country, provided that these come from goods or rights whose ownership corresponds to the taxpayer and are allocated to the lucrative activity” (see also article 4 of the RLISR).
It argues that, in the same vein, it is necessary to see Transitorios II and VII of the Regulation to the current Income Tax Law No. 43198-H which, as pertinent, and specifically in this last Transitorio, indicated in its paragraph 2:
“As long as the taxpayer does not communicate that they opt to declare in accordance with the Income Tax, pursuant to the provisions of articles 28 of the Law, 5 and 6 of this Regulation, they must continue filing the self-assessment return for the Capital Income Tax and paying the corresponding Tax, unless they must remain in the Income Tax because the mentioned capital income is allocated to said tax.” It states that, in relation to the procedure that the taxpayer must follow to transfer their real estate capital income to the income tax regime (business activity and/or affectation), one must see the resolution of the Dirección General de Tributación No. DGT-R-058-2019 of 8:05 a.m. on October 3, 2019. It summarizes that the real estate capital income tax is an autonomous schedule of the income tax such that, if this were not so, the legislator would not have established the situations by which real estate capital income can or must be taxed through the income tax regime. Therefore, it points out that the legislator did not authorize in article 29 of the Income Tax Law the application, in the determination of the taxable income of the real estate capital tax, of the deductible costs and expenses of article 8 of that same law that are characteristic of the determination of the net income of the Income Tax; hence, it reiterates, they are autonomous tax schedules.
“Article 29- Taxable income of real estate capital:
(…)
3. For the deduction of expenses, the taxpayer may apply a reduction of fifteen percent (15%) of the gross income, without any proof necessary and without the possibility of any other deduction”.
It argues that this rule is clear in the determination of the net income of the real estate capital tax, that is, the legislator established for this tax schedule that the taxpayer who decides to stay in the real estate capital income regime may exceptionally deduct up to 15% for expenses, since, as analyzed, the legislator granted the taxpayer the power to transfer to or be taxed under the Income Tax regime, due to business activity and/or affectation. It adds that, in relation to the above, numeral 40 of the Regulation to the Income Tax Law (before the last reform to article 34) reiterated what was established by the legislator in numeral 29 of the Income Tax Law, that is, that the taxpayer taxed under the real estate capital income regime will only have the right to exceptionally deduct a maximum of 15% for expenses, “without the need for any receipt or proof”. It states that, according to the petitioner, the principle of legal reserve is violated by the challenged article 34 because it allows an abusive exercise of regulatory power; however, it recalls that the principle of legal reserve consists of the fact that only through a formal law emanating from the Legislative Power through the procedure provided in the Constitution for the enactment of laws, can the exercise of rights and freedoms be regulated, and in the case of tax matters, there is a legal reserve in accordance with article 121 subsection 13) of the Political Constitution, according to which establishing national taxes and contributions corresponds exclusively to the Asamblea Legislativa. It adds that only the executive regulations of those laws can develop the precepts thereof, it being understood that they cannot increase the restrictions established nor create those not established by law and that they must rigorously respect their “essential content,” and that, not even in executive regulations or other lower-ranking norms or acts, could the law validly delegate the determination of regulations or restrictions that only the Asamblea Legislativa is empowered to impose. It argues that, this being the case, all administrative activity in this matter is necessarily regulated, without discretionary powers being able to be granted to the Administration because these would obviously imply an abandonment of the legal reserve itself. It points out that article 40 of the Regulation of the Income Tax Law regulates “the determination of the taxable base of real estate capital” in place of numeral 34 which, as indicated, was repealed. It argues that said tax complies with the constituent elements of the tax regarding the establishment of the taxable matter and the taxable event in accordance with articles 27, 27 bis and 27 ter of the Income Tax Law; for its part, regulations can develop the precepts of the laws they regulate but respecting the essential content, so at no time is said principle violated. It adds that the petitioner considers the principle of legality violated because the Poder Ejecutivo must create regulations for the laws without modifying them and is only entitled to clarify and update the Law. Regarding this matter, it considers that this principle has not been violated by the Administration since the legislator, in article 28 of the Income Tax Law, contemplated the possibility, power, or right of the taxpayer to choose the income tax regime under which they preferred to tax their real estate capital income. It also recalls that article 140 subsection 3) of the Political Constitution grants the Poder Ejecutivo the constitutional power to sanction and promulgate laws, regulate them, execute them, and ensure their exact compliance; a regulatory power that allows the Poder Ejecutivo to validly issue Executive Decrees, known as regulations, which forms part of the administrative function and, therefore, is subordinated to the principle of legality, such that every regulation requires a legal-provision authorizing it, expressly or implicitly. It recalls that the Administration is empowered to issue regulations for the different enacted laws, in accordance with the provisions of numeral 140, subsections 3 and 18 of the Political Constitution, as a duty and power that jointly corresponds to the President of the Republic and the respective Minister of Government, but also, in accordance with article 140 subsection 18) of the Constitution, it may "issue the other regulations and ordinances necessary for the prompt execution of the laws". It argues that if an analysis is made of what is established in the Income Tax Law in complement to what is indicated in its regulation, it is verified that the Real Estate Capital Income Tax is an autonomous schedule of the Income Tax such that, if this were not so, the legislator would not have established the situations by which real estate capital income can or must be taxed through the income tax regime. Therefore, the legislator did not authorize in article 29 of the Income Tax Law the application, in the determination of the taxable income of the Real Estate Capital Income Tax, of the deductible costs and expenses of article 8 of the Income Tax Law that are characteristic of the determination of the net income of the Income Tax, since they are autonomous tax schedules. It indicates that, this being the case, numeral 40 of the Regulation to the Income Tax Law -before the last reform of article 34- reiterates what was established by the legislator in numeral 29 of the Income Tax Law, that is, that the taxpayer taxed under the real estate capital income regime will only have the right -exceptionally- to deduct a maximum of 15% for expenses without the need for any receipt or proof. It adds that according to the petitioner, the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness is violated because the challenged regulatory provision gives tools to the Tax Administration to create online forms with which its represented party was not allowed to apply the deductible expenses that were produced during the fiscal period, and there was only the option to apply 15% of the gross income as an “expense”. Regarding this matter, it reiterates that the legislator granted the taxpayer the power to choose whether they wanted to be taxed on real estate capital income or on income, and gave them the possibility of changing from the CED3 schedule to the CED4 schedule, provided they meet the requirements established in the Regulation to the Income Tax Law, or with the provisions of resolution No. DGT-R-058-2019; consequently, it considers that there is no arbitrary act on the part of the Administration, but rather there is objective legal support or basis for the administrative conduct being questioned. It adds that, on the other hand, the petitioner points out that there is a violation of the principle of economic capacity and non-confiscation since the challenged rules, by removing the deductible expenses expressed in the Law, endanger the economic capacity of its represented party as they arbitrarily raised its tax burden; however, regarding this matter, it recalls that article 18 of the Political Constitution provides that it is the obligation of Costa Ricans to contribute to public expenses, which means that such duty is fulfilled through the taxes that the State establishes or authorizes -as the case may be- and that these must be based on the general principles of Tax Law that are implicit in that norm. It argues that for this reason it is said that the tax must be fair, based on the contribution of all according to their economic capacity, which is reflected in the maxim that those who have a higher level of income proportionally pay more taxes, and therefore, in its opinion, that principle is not violated. On the other hand, regarding non-confiscation, it recalls that this principle of tax law means that a levy cannot be applied that implies the appropriation of all the assets and income of the subject; a principle that regulates the taxes imposed on taxpayers, so that the contribution to the support of public spending through levies cannot consist of depriving the taxpayer of all their income and properties. Therefore, in this sense, this principle seeks to protect the right to private property since the taxpayer's wealth cannot be exhausted. It indicates that, notwithstanding the above, in the matter under study, it is a decision made by the taxpayer since subsection 3) of numeral 29 of the Income Tax Law establishes the taxable base for the determination of the net income of the real estate capital income tax by indicating that “for the deduction of expenses, the taxpayer may apply a reduction of fifteen percent (15%) of the gross income, without any proof necessary and without the possibility of any other deduction”. It argues that this rule is clear in the determination of the net income of the real estate capital income tax, that is, the legislator established for this tax schedule that the taxpayer who decides to stay in the real estate capital income regime may exceptionally deduct up to 15% for expenses, since the legislator granted the taxpayer the power to transfer to or be taxed under the Income Tax regime, due to business activity and/or affectation. It adds that in the opinion of the petitioner, the principles of equality, legality, reasonableness, and proportionality are violated because there must be proportionality between the legal rule adopted and the purpose it pursues. In addition, the regulation, by making the restriction on deductible expenses, violates the principle of equality because it discriminated against Capital Income Tax taxpayers in relation to taxpayers who are subject to the Income Tax who can apply the deductible expenses or apply, if they see fit, the single 25% deduction of article 8 subsection s). Regarding this matter, it warns that for the reasons explained regarding the fact that they are two different taxes: Taxable Real Estate Capital Income and Income on Profits, there can be no violation of the principle of equality because the object of the real estate capital income tax falls on passive income, that is, a going concern is not required to obtain the profit because this is obtained by the mere fact of possessing a real estate property under lease or sublease; on the contrary, the object of the income tax falls on active income, that is, generated as a product of a business and/or professional activity. It reiterates that the legislator did not recognize the same deductible expenses for the real estate capital income tax as for the income tax, which does not imply inequality or disproportionality as the petitioner intends to see it. It states that the challenged article 34 only comes to regulate “the determination of the taxable base of real estate capital”, which can be taxed under the income tax regime or remain in the real estate capital income tax regime. It adds that regarding the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, these suppose that norms and acts of authority require -for their validity- not only to have been enacted by competent bodies and under legally established procedures, but also to pass a substantive review for their concordance with the supreme norms, principles, and values of the Constitution (formal and material), which are configured as patterns of reasonableness; that is, a public or private norm or act is only valid when, in addition to its formal conformity with the Constitution, it is reasonably founded and justified in accordance with the constitutional ideology, with which the aim is not only that the law not be irrational, arbitrary, or capricious, but also that the means selected have a real and substantial relationship with their object. It argues that, in applying this to the specific case, it is denoted that in no way are the principles of reasonableness and proportionality violated as alleged by the petitioner because article 34 of the Regulation to the Income Tax Law has not modified the taxable base characteristic of the real estate capital income tax that the legislator established in article 29 of the Income Tax Law. It states that according to the petitioner, the right to private property is violated because in these tax burdens the deductible expenses established by Law 7092 are not taken into account and the taxpayer is forced to assume a tax that puts their private property at risk as they will not be able to sustain it and will have the possibility of losing their assets; notwithstanding the above, it clarifies that the taxable base characteristic of the real estate capital income tax has not been modified since this arises as a new schedule of the CED5 Renta Law, so it is distinct and independent from other taxes, including the income tax, and therefore, the rules of other taxes cannot be applied in determining the taxable income of the real estate capital income tax, this being an autonomous schedule since its creation has fulfilled the constituent elements of the tax such as: taxable event, taxpayer, rates, calculation base, exemptions, among others, by constitutional and legal mandate (article 121 subsection 13) of the Political Constitution, in accordance with numeral 5 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Tax Code).
Conclusions:
It concludes by requesting that this unconstitutionality action be declared without merit.
7.- By resolution at 9:49 a.m. on May 20, 2022, the hearings granted to the Procuraduría General de la República and the Ministerio de Hacienda were deemed answered, and the action was passed for study by the Reporting Judge.
8.- The hearing indicated in articles 10 and 85 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction is dispensed with, based on the power granted to the Chamber by numeral 9 ibidem, deeming this resolution sufficiently founded on evident principles and norms, as well as on the jurisprudence of this Court.
9.- The prescriptions of law have been complied with in the proceedings.
Authored by Judge Garita Navarro; and,
Considering:
I.- Preliminary. Precision regarding the identification of the norm object of the action. The petitioner challenges article 34 of Executive Decree No. 18445-H of September 9, 1988, “Regulation to the Income Tax Law”, added by article 2 of Executive Decree N°41818 of June 17, 2019, a provision relating to the taxable base of real estate capital. Said norm was in force at the time of filing the action on September 14, 2021, because although Executive Decree 18445-H- was repealed by article 106 of [Placa1] of July 22, 2021, which is the “Regulation to the Income Tax Law”, this did not enter into force until December 17, 2021, the date of its publication in Gaceta No. 243, Alcance No. 257 of December 17, 2021. Now, from the analysis of the current regulations, it is observed that article 40 contains a provision with identical content and wording as article 34 of Executive Decree 18445-H, added by article 2 of Executive Decree N°41818 of June 17, 2021, challenged by the petitioner, a situation that was not contemplated by the Tribunal at the time of admitting the unconstitutionality action, by resolution at four thirteen p.m. on March twenty-fourth, two thousand twenty-two. Therefore, in order to clearly identify the norm object of the action, it is established that the object of the action is article 40 of Executive Decree No. 43198-H of July 22, 2021, published in Gaceta No. 243, Alcance No. 257 of December 17, 2021, “Regulation to the Income Tax Law”.
Regarding Admissibility:
II.- Regarding the admissibility requirements in this process.- The unconstitutionality action was established for the purpose of guaranteeing the supremacy of the Political Constitution against norms or other provisions of a general nature, for which reason, in light of this and by express will of the legislator, it is a highly technical process, so that, for its admissibility, certain requirements provided by the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction must be strictly complied with. Among the required requirements are: the adequate substantiation of the grounds for unconstitutionality with a specific citation of the Constitutional Right considered infringed (article 78), the signature of the person filing the action duly authenticated by a legal professional with due payment of legal taxes (article 78), the accreditation of standing conditions (powers of attorney and certifications), the literal certification of the petition where the objection of unconstitutionality was raised in the prior matter (article 79). In this specific matter, it is observed that the requirements stipulated in numerals 78 and 79 of the Law of procedure have been complied with.
III.- The standing rules in unconstitutionality actions and standing in the specific case.- On the other hand, it must be recalled that article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction regulates the assumptions that determine the admissibility of unconstitutionality actions, demanding the existence of a pending matter to be resolved in an administrative or judicial venue in which the unconstitutionality is invoked. This requirement is not necessary in the cases provided for in the second and third paragraphs of that article, that is, when due to the nature of the norm there is no individual or direct harm; when it is based on the defense of diffuse interests or those that concern the community as a whole, or when it is filed by the Procurador General de la República, the Contralor General de la República, the Fiscal General de la República, or the Defensor de los Habitantes, in these latter cases, within their respective jurisdictional spheres. Now, in the specific case, the Chamber considers that the petitioner has standing to file the action in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction inasmuch as, in the cognizance process substantiated before the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo under case file number 21-000342-1027-CA, the unconstitutionality of the challenged norm was alleged as a reasonable means to protect the rights they consider harmed in said process, and it is related to the matters discussed therein.
IV.- Object of the challenge. As provided in considering I of this pronouncement, the object of the action is article 40 of Executive Decree No.
43198-H of July 22, 2021, published in Gaceta No. 243, Alcance No. 257 of December 17, 2021, “Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta”, which provides:
“Article 40.- Taxable base of real estate capital. The taxable base of real estate capital is the total amount of the consideration, from which the following expenses may be deducted, as appropriate:
The taxpayer may deduct these expenses without the need for any receipts or proof. These expenses are the only amounts that a taxpayer obtaining income from real estate capital may deduct to determine the tax base, and it is not possible to deduct amounts greater than these or to apply the other rules on the deductibility of expenses contained in the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta.” The claims of unconstitutionality raised by the plaintiff are: violation of the principle of legal reserve in tax matters, violation of the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness, violation of the principle of economic capacity and non-confiscation, violation of the principle of legal certainty, violation of the principles of legality, equality, reasonableness and proportionality, because: a) the rule modifies the calculation basis of the tax on real estate capital income because it does not contemplate deductible expenses in their generality but limits them to 2 single deductions of 15% and 20%; and b) it contains elements that are not established in Article 29 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 7092.
V.- On the inadmissibility of the action by reason of the subject matter.- This Chamber, in its reiterated jurisprudence, has indicated that claims relating to the alleged excess or contradiction of a regulatory rule with respect to the law are matters of legality, the discussion of which does not correspond to this jurisdiction, but rather it is the ordinary judge who is competent to determine the scope of the interpretation and application of the Law and, consequently, it is he who is called upon to establish whether a regulatory rule violates or does not violate the legal rule. In this regard, in judgment No. 2013-013360 of 14 hours 30 minutes of October 9, 2013, it was stated that:
“[T]he incompatibility that the plaintiff raises is not between the regulatory provision and the Constitutional Law, but between the regulation and Law No. 8444 (…), all of which determines the impropriety of this action. In effect, it clearly goes beyond the scope of competence of this Chamber to elucidate whether what is provided for by the challenged regulation fully conforms or not to the provisions of Law No. 8444 (…) all of which must rather be discussed and ventilated before the Jurisdicción Contenciosa Administrativa, which, under the provisions of Article 49 of the Political Constitution, has the purpose of guaranteeing the legality of the administrative function of the State, its institutions and any other public law entity, which is precisely the subject matter of this case, that is, determining the compatibility between Law No. 8444 and its regulation, all of which is alien to the scope of competence of this Constitutional Jurisdiction through the action, in accordance with Article 10 of the Political Constitution and Article 73, subsection a) of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Consequently, this action of unconstitutionality must be rejected outright, so that the plaintiff may resort to the ordinary Jurisdiction in defense of the rights and interests he considers violated.” In a similar vein, this Tribunal has ruled in judgments No. 2012-004792 of 14 hours 30 minutes of April 18, 2012, No. 2011-008712 of 15 hours 56 minutes of June 29, 2011, No. 2020-011171 of 16 hours 04 minutes of June 17, 2020 and No. 2021-019041 of 9 hours 20 minutes of August 25, 2021. It has also been noted:
“Having analyzed the arguments, the Tribunal concludes that what is presented is a conflict of a legal nature, which is not susceptible to being heard through the action of unconstitutionality, but rather must be heard in the ordinary venue. The questioned powers and the apparent confrontation between the legal rule and the Decree constitutes a legality conflict. On repeated occasions (by way of example, in judgment No. 2000-01149 of 15:39 hours of February 2, 2000), the Chamber has held that determining whether a regulatory rule, such as the one challenged, transgresses or exceeds what is provided for in a law, is a matter of legality whose discussion does not correspond to this jurisdiction. Article 49 of the Fundamental Charter assigns the control of the legality of the administrative function of the State to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction, not the constitutional one. If this Chamber intended to oversee, through the action of unconstitutionality, the various possible hypotheses of violation of the principle of legality that could occur in administrative offices, in practice it would supplant - against the grain of the constitutional text - the courts of that matter. Consequently, if the representative of the plaintiff association considers that the challenged regulatory rule is illegal or has been applied erroneously, it may resort, as it has indeed done, to the contentious-administrative jurisdiction in defense of its rights” (see judgment No. 2021-011972 of 9 hours 30 minutes of May 26, 2021).
Thus, it is not for this Constitutional Tribunal to determine whether a regulation is contrary to a law nor whether an excess in the regulatory power has occurred, unless a violation of a fundamental right or constitutional principle is verified.
In this sense, it is pertinent to clarify that if it is evident, and it is obvious that the regulatory rule exceeds, suppresses or contradicts the text of the Law, there is no doubt that, in a gross manner, the principle of force, authority or efficacy of the Law is violated; a principle that has constitutional coverage and must be safeguarded by this Tribunal. The principle of force, authority or efficacy of the law refers us to the power (active force), resistance (passive force) and the system for challenging the Law. Based on the first aspect of the concept, the Law, once it comes into force, repeals or modifies any rule of equal or lower rank. Based on the second, the Law cannot be repealed or modified by a rule of lower rank. Finally, based on the third, the Law can only be challenged for reasons of unconstitutionality and, therefore, can only be annulled through a resolution of the Constitutional Chamber. The constitutional basis of this principle is found in numeral 129 of the Fundamental Charter, which states that the Law can only be repealed, abrogated or modified by a subsequent rule of equal rank. On the other hand, the principle of force, authority or efficacy of the law is an essential presupposition of the social and democratic State of Law, since it is based on a core idea: the parliamentary normative act is superior in rank to the normative act issued by the other Branches of Government, especially the Executive Branch, which means that all Branches of Government, when exercising regulatory power (Article 6, subsection d) of the Ley General de la Administración Pública), must adjust to the will of the legislator. If this does not occur, the normative rank of the Law is ignored, which, in the normative hierarchical scale, occupies the third place in importance after the Political Constitution and International Treaties (Articles 10 and 7) and, consequently, a key principle of the social and democratic State of Law is violated. Ergo, when a regulatory rule clearly and manifestly exceeds, suppresses or contradicts a Law of the Republic, numeral 129 of the Fundamental Charter and the principle of force, authority or efficacy of the Law are violated, and the Constitutional Tribunal does have competence in this matter, without detriment to the jurisdiction also held by the members of the ordinary jurisdiction when the commented scenario does not arise.
In the case under analysis, it is the opinion of this Tribunal that what was raised by the plaintiff as a constitutionality problem is actually an issue that must be resolved in the legality venue because it involves a potential conflict of legal rules, specifically between Article 29 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 7092 and the challenged article, in which no evident and manifest contradiction between the Law and the challenged Regulation is evidenced. Essentially, because the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta clearly establishes the essential elements of real estate capital income, namely: taxable event (Article 27 bis), passive subject (Article 28) and, of special relevance for the resolution of this action, the taxable base (Article 29), as well as the applicable rate. Article 29 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta provides:
“Article 29- Taxable income from real estate capital.
1. The taxable income from real estate capital shall be the difference between the gross income and the deductible expenses.
2. Gross income shall be understood as the total amount of the consideration.
3. For the deduction of expenses, the taxpayer may apply a reduction of fifteen percent (15%) of the gross income, without any need for proof and without the possibility of any other deduction.
4. Non-financial investment funds, regulated in Law No. 7732, Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores, of December 17, 1997, may apply a reduction of twenty percent (20%) of the gross income, as a deductible expense without any need for proof and without the possibility of any other deduction.” Therefore, it is evident that Article 40 of the Decreto Ejecutivo No. 43198-H of July 22, 2021 refers to the single and automatic deductibility in the same manner as it is handled by the law (subsection 3 of Article 29), whereby the regulation would not be going beyond its limits as the plaintiff accuses and, on the contrary, is found to be in compliance with what the letter of the law expresses regarding this special regime.
On the other hand, upon analyzing the plaintiff's arguments about the alleged excesses of the challenged regulatory article with respect to the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, it is evident that it is an issue that must be resolved in the legality venue because it involves a potential conflict of legal rules, specifically between Article 29 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 7092 and the challenged article, as they indicate: “the wording and application by the Administration of Article 34 of the Regulation goes against what is established in Article 29, subsection 1 of Law 7092” and that the challenged rule “becomes unconstitutional given that this regulatory rule is modifying a crucial quantitative element of the taxable event of the tax on real estate capital income since it eliminates the concept of deductible expense and only mentions the word “expense” and on that basis proceeds to make modifications that can only be made by Law emanating from Parliament. Determining only certain expenses through a regulation contradicts Law 7092, in its Article 29, which clearly expresses the concept of “deductible expenses.” In this way, the limits of logic and the constitutional principles of proportionality and reasonableness are grossly violated. The Executive Branch improperly appropriated the power to create a new taxable base, which leaves aside the possibility of applying the deductible expenses expressed in Articles 8 and Article 29 of Law 7092.” In consideration of the foregoing, the Chamber reaches the conclusion that the action of unconstitutionality is inadmissible by reason of its subject matter, and it is so declared.
VI.- On the disagreement with the application of the challenged rule.- Another important element to address when analyzing the appropriateness or not of conducting a substantive analysis of an action of unconstitutionality - an element that is also closely related to its subject matter - is the need to ensure that the substantive claim is not aimed at questioning the application made of the challenged rule. In this case under study, in the brief filing the action, it is observed that the plaintiff himself states that, in the underlying matter of this action, the erroneous application by the Tax Administration of Article 34 of the Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta is being discussed; a claim he makes in similar terms throughout the action brief since, from a careful reading of that memorial, it is clear that all the objections raised are limited to questioning the application of the rule to the company he represents, which in his opinion is detrimental to it. In this regard, he indicates that “Article 34 of the Regulation is generating actions by the Tax Administration in which they are not applying what the Ley de Renta says about being able to apply deductible expenses.” Furthermore, the plaintiff's objections are aimed at questioning the -normative- requirement to use Form D125, the lack of boxes on that form, the impossibility of presenting all deductible expenses without the restriction established by the challenged rule, the disagreement with the percentage of deductible expenses, the convenience or not of transferring taxpayers from the profits regime to the real estate capital income regime, the possibility that the taxpayer may be sanctioned for filing late returns, with zero tax, or with inaccurate data, for which reason they request, as a substantive claim, that the annulment of several actions and resolutions issued by the Tax Administration under the challenged rule -and those of Law 7092 which it regulates- be ordered because they consider that its application has been harmful to their represented party. On this matter, this Chamber has pointed out that “the improper application of the law or its erroneous interpretation in a specific case is not a matter that can be properly heard through the action of unconstitutionality” (see judgments No. 5966-94 of 15 hours 54 minutes of October 11, 1994 and No. 2018-010334 of 14 hours 30 minutes of June 27, 2018, among others); therefore, the plaintiff's disagreement must be resolved in the corresponding ordinary jurisdiction. It cannot be forgotten that this Chamber has clarified, regarding the nature and purpose of the constitutionality control, that:
“(…) the constitutional jurisdiction, exercised in one of its modalities through the procedures for the declaration of unconstitutionality, guarantees the primacy of the Constitution and judges the conformity or non-conformity with it of the laws, provisions or acts challenged, as well as their concordance with the norms and principles of international or community law in force in the Republic. It is the very purity of the legal system that is ventilated in this jurisdictional venue, with the comparison between the fundamental norm and the laws that develop it. (Judgment number 1319-97, of fourteen hours fifty-one minutes of March four, nineteen ninety-seven. Along the same lines, judgment number 2008-14193, of ten hours and three minutes of September twenty-four, two thousand eight). That is to say, in these processes, the individual injury that the plaintiff may exhibit is not addressed preferentially, because what is sought is constitutional supremacy; that is, the satisfaction of a general interest that the acts subject to public law… and the norms conform to the constitutional order” (see judgment No. 2012-010986 of 15 hours 05 minutes of August 14, 2012).
Consequently, the action is also inadmissible because it seeks, through this means, to discuss and analyze the application made of the challenged rule, which is a matter properly of legality.
VII.- Conclusion.- Based on the considerations noted above, this action is inadmissible to be analyzed on its merits by reason of its subject matter, because the plaintiff's disagreement lies in the alleged non-conformity of the challenged rule with Article 29 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta and in attacking the application of the challenged rule, extremes that are not subject to the jurisdiction of the constitutional court. Consequently, the action must be declared without merit, as is hereby ordered.
VIII.- Documentation provided to the case file.- The parties are warned that if they have provided any document on paper, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the court office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, any material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial," approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in the Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.-
Por tanto:
Se declara sin lugar la acción.- [Nombre4] .
[Nombre5] .
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
[Nombre6] .
Jose Roberto Garita N.
Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- 3.- By resolution issued at 16:13 on March 24, 2022, the action was admitted, and a hearing was granted to the Procuraduría General de la República and the Minister of Finance.
4.- The notices referred to in the second paragraph of Article 81 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional were published in numbers 63, 64, and 65 of the Boletín Judicial, on April 01, 04, and 05, 2022.
5.- The Procuraduría General de la República submitted its report through [Name2], in her capacity as Deputy Attorney General, via a document filed with the Secretariat of the Chamber on April 22, 2022. It indicates that, in the opinion of its represented entity, the admissibility requirement for the action is met because the plaintiff has standing under the first paragraph of Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional.
Regarding real estate capital income (rentas de capital inmobiliario): it indicates that the challenged article refers to so-called "real estate capital income" (rentas de capital inmobiliario). It argues that the Law for the Strengthening of Public Finances No. 9635 of December 3, 2018, which came into effect in July 2019, amended the Income Tax Law (Ley 7092), creating Chapter XI called "Capital Income and Capital Gains and Losses" (Rentas de Capital y Ganancias y Pérdidas de Capital), which establishes the regime for real estate capital income (rentas del capital inmobiliario), derived from leasing, subleasing, as well as the constitution or assignment of rights or powers of use or enjoyment of real estate, all in accordance with the provisions of subsection 1) of Article 27 ter of the Income Tax Law, which, as relevant, states:
"**Article 27 ter- Taxable matter**. Capital income is classified into real estate capital income, movable capital income, and capital gains and losses.
1. Real estate capital income.
(...)" It indicates that Article 29 of the Income Tax Law establishes what concerns real estate capital income (rentas del capital inmobiliario), stating the following:
"**Article 29-** Taxable income from real estate capital.
**1.** The taxable income from real estate capital shall be the difference between gross income and deductible expenses.
**2.** Gross income shall be understood as the total amount of the consideration.
**3.** For the deduction of expenses, the taxpayer may apply a reduction of fifteen percent (15%) of the gross income, without any need for proof and without the possibility of any other deduction.
**4.** Non-financial investment funds, regulated in Law No. 7732, Securities Market Regulatory Law, of December 17, 1997, may apply a reduction of twenty percent (20%) of the gross income as a deductible expense, without any need for proof and without the possibility of any other deduction." It argues that, in this way, as of July 1, 2019, when Law No. 9635 came into effect, taxpayers who carry out activities related to leasing, subleasing, constitution or assignment of rights or powers of use or enjoyment of movable goods, intangibles and other intellectual property rights, as well as real estate, may choose to pay taxes as taxpayers within the real estate capital regime (régimen de capital inmobiliario), provided they have one employee (contributing to the CCSS) and declare their income for a minimum of five fiscal periods under said regime, in accordance with the provisions of the law and its regulations. It notes that the law establishes that this regime is optional, that is, at the taxpayer's choice, for a period of 5 years, with the possibility of returning to the previous regime once that period has elapsed. It points out that Article 28 of the Income Tax Law establishes who may be considered as taxpayers of real estate capital income (rentas de capital inmobiliario), stating that, to opt for the application of this regime, natural persons, legal entities, collective entities without legal personality, and investment funds that obtain this type of income must meet certain requirements for this regime to be applicable to them. It indicates that if a taxpayer only receives income from rentals and has no other different lucrative activity, they may choose whether to pay taxes according to the aforementioned rules, or if they prefer to pay taxes based on the utility tax (régimen general) whose rate would be up to 30% calculated on the profits obtained during the fiscal period. It clarifies that this choice depends on the reality of each taxpayer and, fundamentally, it is necessary to review the total deductible expenses that could be utilized in each tax: **a)** if one opts to pay taxes under the real estate capital income regime (régimen de rentas de capital inmobiliario), only 15% can be deducted as deductible expenses (without any need for proof); **b)** while under the utility tax (impuesto sobre utilidades), one could deduct the totality of the expenses associated with the rental activity, providing proof that links these expenses with the income generated and justifies them as necessary and useful to generate the income. It points out that this special regime establishes a single deduction of 15% on gross income and a tax rate of 15% on net profits, which is the same as an effective rate of 12.75% on the taxpayer's gross income, which they may apply without any need for proof regarding the deductible expenses necessary for the production of taxable income. It states that, for the purposes of this action, two core aspects must be considered: **a)** the first is that the regime is optional, as indicated; **b)** the second is that if the taxpayer opts for this regime, they will not have the need to justify their deductibility as established in Article 8 of the Income Tax Law since, by default, the law provides that a 15% deductibility must be automatically applied to their gross income, without any need for proof of the deductible expenses.
Regarding the grounds of the unconstitutionality action: it indicates that its represented entity does not share the arguments raised by the plaintiff and, on the contrary, considers that the challenged article is in accordance with Constitutional Law. It points out that Article 34 of Decreto Ejecutivo N°18445-H was expressly repealed by the provisions of Decreto Ejecutivo N° 43198-H of July 22, 2021, and that, in the current regulation, the article referring to real estate capital income (rentas del capital inmobiliario) is located in article 40 of that new regulatory body. It adds that both the text of the challenged Article 34 and that of Article 40 of Decreto Ejecutivo N°43198-H have identical wording, so the Procuraduría issues its opinion regarding the challenged article -34 of Decreto Ejecutivo N°18445-H of September 9, 1988-. It states that, in the opinion of the plaintiff, Article 34 of Decreto Ejecutivo N°18445-H makes *"a modification regarding the calculation base of the tax on real estate capital income, by removing the figure of deductible expenses or, even worse, indicating that deductible expenses are equal to single deductions, such as those of 15% or 20%"*, in addition to being *"faced with the intrusion of the Executive Branch into the exclusive competence of the Legislative Branch, by modifying the taxable event in its quantitative aspect by varying the elements of the quantitative aspect through a regulation".* It recalls that the principle of legal reservation (principio de reserva de ley) in tax matters is duly delimited by constitutional jurisprudence, which has been consistent in pointing out that the determination of the essential elements of taxes is a matter exclusive to law, such that the regulation cannot contain essential elements different from those found in the law, which is a limit on the regulatory power of the Administration. It indicates that the Income Tax Law clearly provides the essential elements of real estate capital income (rentas del capital inmobiliario), namely: taxable event (hecho generador) (Article 27 bis), taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) (Article 28), and tax base (base imponible) (Article 29), as well as the applicable rate; elements that have been correctly executed by Article 34 of Decreto Ejecutivo 18445-H. It points out that regarding the norm accused of unconstitutionality, it suffices to make a comparative table of its text against that of Article 29 of the Income Tax Law to appreciate that what it contains is nothing other than the elements that have been clearly specified by the legal norm:
| **Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta)** | **Decreto Ejecutivo 18445-H** |
|---|---|
| **Article 29- Taxable income from real estate capital (Artículo 29- Renta imponible del capital inmobiliario)** | **Article 34.- Tax base of real estate capital (Artículo 34.- Base imponible del capital inmobiliario).** |
| 1. The taxable income from real estate capital shall be the difference between gross income and deductible expenses. | The tax base of real estate capital (base imponible del capital inmobiliario) is the total amount of the consideration, from which the expenses detailed below may be deducted, as appropriate: |
| 2. Gross income shall be understood as the total amount of the consideration. | a) The amount corresponding to fifteen percent (15%) of the gross amount of the consideration, or |
| 3. For the deduction of expenses, the taxpayer may apply a reduction of fifteen percent (15%) of the gross income, without any need for proof and without the possibility of any other deduction. | b) If the taxpayer is a non-financial investment fund, the amount corresponding to twenty percent (20%) of the gross amount of the consideration. |
| 4. Non-financial investment funds, regulated in Law No. 7732, Securities Market Regulatory Law, of December 17, 1997, may apply a reduction of twenty percent (20%) of the gross income as a deductible expense, without any need for proof and without the possibility of any other deduction. | The taxpayer may deduct these expenses without needing vouchers or any proof. These expenses are the only amounts that a taxpayer obtaining real estate capital income may deduct to determine the tax base, without it being possible to deduct amounts greater than these or to apply the other rules on deductibility of expenses contained in the Income Tax Law. |
It points out that, based on the foregoing, the essential elements of the tax are duly established by law, such that challenged article 34 practically reproduces what is provided in the legal norm, with which the plaintiff is not correct given that the essential elements of the tax, in the case of real estate capital income (rentas del capital inmobiliario), are clearly determined by law and executed in the regulation, such that there is no violation of the principle of legal reservation, nor of the constitutional precepts contained in Articles 9 and 121 of the Constitución Política. Thus, it indicates that the accusation that the regulation has modified the taxable event (hecho generador) in its quantitative aspect is not acceptable, nor that the elements of the quantitative aspect have been varied, particularly the tax base (base imponible), as is alleged. It argues that, for its represented entity, there is no violation whatsoever by the challenged regulatory norm since it refers to the single and automatic deductibility in the same way as it is treated by the law (subsection 3 of Article 29), with which the regulation would not be overstepping its bounds as the plaintiff seems to understand and, on the contrary, it is in accordance with what the letter of the law expresses about this special regime. It points out that analyzing each of the essential elements of the real estate capital income tax (impuesto sobre la renta de capital inmobiliario), it is more than evident that these are clearly established in articles 27, 28, and 29 of the Income Tax Law, so what the regulatory norm does is execute the legal norm without any over-dimensioning of what the law contains occurring. It states that following this line of argument, the Procuraduría also does not find a violation of the principle of legal certainty (principio de seguridad jurídica) since the essential elements of the tax are duly established in the legal norm that establishes a different tax regime and gives the option for the taxpayer who has no other lucrative activities other than those generating capital income (rentas de capital) to pay taxes under the terms indicated therein, allowing a single deduction of 15% of gross income for expenses. It adds that this option is not unknown to the challenged regulation, as is clear from reading Article 32 of Regulation No. 18445-H, now repealed, which established:
"**Article 32.-** **Taxpayers who obtain only real estate capital income (Contribuyentes que obtengan únicamente rentas del capital inmobiliario)**.
Taxpayers who obtain only real estate capital income defined in Article 27 ter, subsection 1), must pay taxes and declare in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XI of the Income Tax Law, because they are not engaged in any other lucrative activity.
These taxpayers have the option to pay taxes as established in Article 3 ter of this Regulation. (Thus added by Article 2 of decreto ejecutivo N° 41818 of June 17, 2019)." In turn, it points out that this Article 3 ter added by Decreto Ejecutivo 41818 -modified in turn by Regulation No.
43198-H- provided:
"*Article 3 ter.- Option to tax real estate income under the Income Tax (Impuesto sobre las Utilidades).* In the case of real estate income indicated in article 27 ter, subsection 1, of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta), when taxpayers have contracted a minimum of one employee for the generation of said income, whose salary is subject to the contribution regime of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, they may opt to tax the entirety of their taxable real estate capital income in accordance with the provisions of article 1 of said law, having to communicate this previously to the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) and remain under it for a minimum of five years." In the opinion of the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría), the plaintiff company's assertions stem from a partial reading of the regulation and do not take into account these provisions that refer to the specificity of the tax regime being established. It adds that the plaintiff alleges the challenged rule violates articles 11 and 33 of the Political Constitution because it creates discrimination between taxpayers under the general regime and those under the real estate capital regime, since the latter cannot deduct the entirety of their deductible expenses given that the rule "gave the Tax Administration the tools to create online forms with which the company was not allowed to apply the deductible expenses incurred during the fiscal period and only had the option of applying 15% of gross income as an 'expense'"; however, in the opinion of the Attorney General's Office, there is no such violation of those principles since we are in the presence of a tax regime (that of real estate capital income) that is different from the general one, which the taxpayer may or may not choose at the time of declaring their income tax. It recalls that, being a regime optional for the taxpayer, if they decide to be taxed under the real estate capital income regime, they must comply with the precepts of said regime and, therefore, will enjoy the benefits established for it, such as, for example, not presenting proof of their deductibility, so they would be in a position clearly different from that of taxpayers under the general regime. It indicates that it is not correct to affirm that the plaintiff company cannot apply the deductions of the general regime, but rather that, as previously noted, if one opts for the real estate capital regime, only the automatic deduction can be applied, without need of proof, of 15% or 20% as the case may be, which does not create any inequality or arbitrariness among income tax taxpayers since they are different tax regimes. It adds that, in its represented party's opinion, there is also no violation of the principles of economic capacity and non-confiscation because those taxpayers who choose to submit to the real estate capital regime have the conditions of this regime established, so it is within their decision, according to what they deem convenient for their economic interests. It reiterates that we are in the presence of a regime of choice on the part of the taxpayer, who must assess their conditions to opt for the regime they wish to apply for the purposes of their income tax declaration, and, in the case of the real estate capital regime, the legislator established a rate of 15% on the taxable base, which becomes 12.75% if one considers that the deduction percentage is 15%. It states that the principles of non-confiscation, economic capacity, and inviolability of private property regarding taxes, in light of Constitutional Law, have been analyzed by the Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) and, in general terms, it has been noted that tax is a means of economic policy that must be harmonized with public spending and the economic situation, its limit being the taxpaying capacity of the individual, so that the ordering of taxes must be based on the principles of generality and equitable distribution of public burdens. Likewise, this Tribunal has noted that a levy is considered confiscatory if it exceeds the economic or financial capacity of the taxpayer, or if the tax absorbs a substantial part of the taxed operation, so that, to be constitutional, taxes must not denaturalize other fundamental rights because the Constitution ensures the inviolability of private property, as well as its free use and disposition, and prohibits confiscation, so a taxation measure that goes beyond what is reasonable and proportionate cannot be permitted (see in this regard judgment No. 5749-93 of 14 hours 33 minutes of November 9, 1993). It points out that, based on the foregoing, it cannot be considered that there is a violation of the principles of economic capacity or non-confiscation (including that of inviolability of private property) in the terms indicated by the plaintiff, insofar as article 34 of the challenged regulation does not make the income tax on real estate capital confiscatory or make it threaten the company's economic capacity, and, on the contrary, following the provisions of article 29 of the Income Tax Law, the deductibility applicable in the real estate capital regime is reasonable and proportionate to the taxable base of the tax for all those taxpayers who opt for this regime. It adds that if one chooses to apply the real estate capital income regime, the taxpayer has benefits not available in the general regime, such as not presenting any proof of the expenses deducted, so that a 15% or 20% deductibility is automatically granted regardless of whether such expenses were actually incurred for the production of the taxed income or whether proof of the deductible expenses is available for determining if they were necessary and useful to produce the income. It argues that, on the other hand, if the taxpayer considers they have a greater amount of deductible expenses exceeding the permitted 15%, they can choose to remain within the general regime, falling under the obligation to have proof of the deductible expenses they intend to apply. It states that for the Attorney General's Office, the challenged rule is not unreasonable or disproportionate since article 29 of the Income Tax Law provided the automatic deductibility percentage (15% or 20% as the case may be) following objective criteria, so article 34 challenged here merely reproduces what is provided in the law, and it considers that the plaintiff is not carrying out a comprehensive reading of the set of regulatory provisions governing the tax on real estate capital income. It points out that, in the opinion of that advisory body, article 34 of Executive Decree No. 18445-H of September 9, 1988, is in accordance with Constitutional Law and does not violate any rule or principle contained in the Political Constitution.
The Attorney General's Office concludes that: **a)** the plaintiff has standing to file this action in accordance with the provisions of article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional). **b)** Executive Decree No. 18445-H of September 9, 1988, was repealed by Executive Decree No. 43198-H of July 22, 2021. **c)** article 34 of Executive Decree No. 18445-H does not conflict with the Political Constitution.
**6.-** [Nombre3] submits their report in their capacity as Minister of Finance (Ministro de Hacienda) through a document filed with the Secretariat of the Chamber (Secretaría de la Sala) on May 19, 2022, and states that through the Law for the Strengthening of Public Finances (Ley de Fortalecimiento de las Finanzas Públicas) No. 9635 of December 3, 2018 (hereinafter LFFP), Chapter XI was added to Title I of the Income Tax Law No. 7092 of April 21, 1988, and its amendments (hereinafter LISR) called *"Capital Income and Capital Gains and Losses,"* establishing a new tax on real estate and movable capital income as well as on capital gains and losses. It adds that through Executive Decree No. 41818-H of June 17, 2019, the Regulations to the Income Tax Law No. DE-18445-H of September 9, 1988 (hereinafter RLISR) were reformed, regarding which the plaintiff challenges its article 34, establishing in Title II of said Regulations what relates to the *"Tax on Capital Income and Capital Gains and Losses"* and, in what is relevant, article 34 regulated *"the determination of the taxable base of real estate capital"*. It adds that, subsequently, through Executive Decree No. 43198-H of July 22, 2021, Executive Decree No. 41818-H was repealed and article 40 regulated *"the determination of the taxable base of real estate capital"* instead of numeral 34, both of the RLISR, now Executive Decree No. 43198-H.
**a)** *On the Object of the Tax on Real Estate Capital Income*: it states that this arises as a new schedule of the Income Tax Law, that is, distinct and independent from other taxes, including the income tax (Impuesto sobre las Utilidades), therefore, the rules of other taxes cannot be applied in determining the taxable income of the Tax on Real Estate Capital Income (hereinafter IRCI), as it is an autonomous schedule, and, in that sense, it recalls that the national legislator, when creating a tax, must clearly establish its constitutive elements, namely, taxable event (hecho generador), taxable person (sujeto pasivo), rates, calculation base, exemptions, among others, this by constitutional and legal mandate (article 121 subsection 13) of the Political Constitution in accordance with numeral 5 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios - Tax Code (Código Tributario)-). It argues that, in relation to the foregoing, the Tax on Real Estate Capital Income falls on *"passive capital income"*, that is, a going concern is not required to obtain the profit because it is obtained by the mere fact of owning a real estate property for lease or sublease, among others (see constitutive elements of the tax in articles 27, 27 bis, and 27 ter of the LISR); therefore, unlike the income tax (Impuesto sobre las Utilidades), in the Tax on Real Estate Capital Income, profits are not generated as a product of the development of a business and/or professional activity (lucrative activity). It adds that, on the other hand, this is governed by the realization principle (article 3 subsection b) of the RLISR), while the Income Tax is governed by the accrual principle. It indicates that through official communication No. DGT-992-2021 of September 3, 2021, the General Directorate of Taxation (Dirección General de Tributación) established, regarding the difference between formal duties in the Tax on Real Estate Capital Income and in the Income Tax, the following:
"Unlike other taxes of the LISR, for example, the Income Tax, where the law requires the formal obligation to file the declaration at the end of the fiscal period regardless of whether or not profits were obtained, in the Tax on Capital Income not subject to withholding, the LISR does not require filing the declaration per fiscal period, but only when the taxable event occurs, consequently, in this tax, the material obligation (realization of the taxable event) arises first, and the formal obligation (filing of the declaration) arises afterwards, in application of numerals 28 quáter and 31 quáter of the LISR." **b)** *On the right and/or power to tax real estate capital income under the Income Tax regime*: it argues that, for the purposes of this income, the legislator contemplated the possibility, power, or right of the taxpayer to choose the regime - in relation to the payment of income tax - under which they preferred to tax their real estate capital income, by establishing in article 28 of the Income Tax Law that:
"Taxpayers who obtain real estate capital income, for whose generation they have contracted a minimum of one employee, may opt to tax the entirety of their taxable real estate capital income in accordance with the provisions of article 1 of this law, having to expressly communicate this option to the Tax Administration before the start of the fiscal period regulated in article 4 of this law, and maintain it for a minimum of five years" (see also article 5 of the Regulations to the LISR).
It adds that the legislator also established, in article 1 of the Income Tax Law, in which cases real estate capital income from business activity or allocation (afectación) must be taxed under the income tax regime, and in that sense, paragraph 4 of that numeral states the following:
"For the purposes of this tax, the obtaining of all capital income (...) made, obtained by individuals or legal entities and collective entities without legal personality, that carry out lucrative activities in the country, shall also be considered lucrative activities, having to be taxed in accordance with the provisions of the income tax, provided that this income comes from assets or rights whose ownership corresponds to the taxpayer and are allocated to the lucrative activity" (see also article 4 of the RLISR).
It argues that, in the same sense, it is necessary to look at Transitory Provisions II and VII of the Regulations to the current Income Tax Law No. 43198-H which, in what is relevant, and specifically in this last Transitory Provision, indicated in its paragraph 2:
"As long as the taxpayer does not communicate that they opt to declare in accordance with the Income Tax, pursuant to the provisions of articles 28 of the Law, 5 and 6 of these Regulations, they must continue filing the self-assessment declaration of the Tax on Capital Income and paying the corresponding Tax, unless they must remain under the Income Tax because the mentioned capital income is allocated to said tax." It states that, in relation to the procedure the taxpayer must follow to transfer their real estate capital income to the income tax regime (business activity and/or allocation), the resolution of the General Directorate of Taxation No. DGT-R-058-2019 of 8:05 a.m. on October 3, 2019, should be consulted. It summarizes that the tax on real estate capital income is an autonomous schedule from the income tax, for, if this were not so, the legislator would not have established the situations through which real estate capital income can or must be taxed under the income tax regime; therefore, it points out that the legislator did not authorize in article 29 of the Income Tax Law the application, in determining the taxable income of the tax on real estate capital, of the deductible costs and expenses of article 8 of that same law, which are specific to determining the net income of the Income Tax; therefore, it reiterates, they are autonomous tax schedules.
**c)** *On the Determination of Taxable Income in the IRCI*: it points out that numeral 29 subsection 1 of the Income Tax Law establishes that the taxable income of real estate capital shall be the difference between gross income and deductible expenses; however, it is not correct to interpret the foregoing in the sense that the rule refers to the deductible expenses of article 8 of that law because, as analyzed, if that were the case, the creation of an autonomous tax schedule, or the two options the legislator authorized for declaring real estate capital income under the Income Tax regime, would have no reason to exist. It recalls that the object of the real estate capital income tax falls on passive income, unlike the object of the income tax, which falls on active income, that is, generated as a product of a business and/or professional activity. It argues that, under this approach, the legislator did not recognize the same deductible expenses for the real estate capital income tax as for the income tax, and therefore, only admitted - exceptionally - a maximum expense deduction of 15%. It adds that, in correlation with the foregoing, subsection 3) of numeral 29 of the Income Tax Law, which establishes the taxable base for determining the net income of the real estate capital income tax, states:
"Article 29- Taxable income of real estate capital: (...) 3. For the deduction of expenses, the taxpayer may apply a reduction of fifteen percent (15%) of gross income, without any need for proof and without the possibility of any other deduction." It argues that this rule is clear in determining the net income of the real estate capital tax, that is, the legislator established for this tax schedule that the taxpayer who decides to remain in the real estate capital income regime may deduct exceptionally up to 15% for expenses, because, as analyzed, the legislator granted the taxpayer the power to transfer to or be taxed under the Income Tax regime, due to business activity and/or allocation. It adds that, in relation to the foregoing, numeral 40 of the Regulations to the Income Tax Law (before the latest reform, article 34) reiterated what was established by the legislator in numeral 29 of the Income Tax Law, that is, that the taxpayer taxed under the real estate capital income regime shall only be entitled, exceptionally, to deduct a maximum of 15% for expenses, *"without the need for any supporting document or proof whatsoever"*. It states that, according to the plaintiff, the principle of legal reserve (reserva de ley) is violated by the challenged article 34 because it allows an abusive exercise of regulatory power; however, it recalls that the principle of legal reserve consists of the fact that only through a formal law emanating from the Legislative Power through the procedure provided in the Constitution for the issuance of laws, can the exercise of rights and freedoms be regulated, and in tax matters, there is a legal reserve in accordance with article 121 subsection 13) of the Political Constitution, according to which establishing national taxes and contributions corresponds exclusively to the Legislative Assembly. It adds that only the executive regulations (reglamentos ejecutivos) of those laws can develop the precepts of those laws, it being understood that they cannot increase the restrictions established nor create those not established by law and that they must rigorously respect their "essential content," and that, not even in executive regulations or other lower-ranking rules or acts, could the law validly delegate the determination of regulations or restrictions that only the Legislative Assembly is empowered to impose. It argues that, this being the case, all administrative activity in this matter is necessarily regulated, without the Administration being able to be granted discretionary powers because these would obviously imply an abandonment of the legal reserve itself. It points out that article 40 of the Regulations to the Income Tax Law regulates *"the determination of the taxable base of real estate capital"* instead of numeral 34 which, as indicated, was repealed. It argues that said tax complies with the constitutive elements of the tax regarding the establishment of the taxable matter and the taxable event in accordance with articles 27, 27 bis, and 27 ter of the Income Tax Law; for their part, regulations can develop the precepts of the laws they regulate but respecting the essential content, so this principle is not violated at any time. It adds that the plaintiff considers the principle of legality violated because the Executive Power must create the regulations for the laws without modifying them and is only responsible for clarifying and updating the Law. On this matter, it believes that this principle has not been violated by the Administration since the legislator, in article 28 of the Income Tax Law, contemplated the possibility, power, or right of the taxpayer to choose the income tax regime under which they preferred to tax their real estate capital income.
It also recalls that Article 140, subsection 3) of the Political Constitution grants the Executive Branch the constitutional power to sanction and promulgate laws, regulate them, execute them, and ensure their exact compliance; a regulatory power that allows the Executive Branch to validly issue Executive Decrees, known as regulations, which forms part of the administrative function and, therefore, is subordinated to the principle of legality, such that every regulation requires a legal norm that authorizes it, expressly or implicitly. It recalls that the Administration is empowered to issue regulations to the various promulgated laws, in accordance with the provisions of numeral 140, subsections 3 and 18 of the Political Constitution, as a duty and attribution that corresponds jointly to the President of the Republic and the respective Government Minister, but also, in accordance with Article 140, subsection 18) of the Constitution, it may "issue the other regulations and ordinances necessary for the prompt execution of the laws." It argues that if an analysis is made of the provisions of the Income Tax Law in conjunction with what is stated in its regulation, it is verified that the Tax on Real Estate Capital Income is an autonomous schedule of the Tax on Profits, which, if it were not so, the legislator would not have established the situations by which real estate capital income can or must be taxed under the tax on profits regime; therefore, the legislator did not authorize, in Article 29 of the Income Tax Law, the application, in determining the taxable income for the Tax on Real Estate Capital Income, of the deductible costs and expenses of Article 8 of the Income Tax Law, which are specific to determining the net income for the Tax on Profits, given that they are autonomous tax schedules. It indicates that, this being the case, numeral 40 of the Regulations to the Income Tax Law—before the last reform of Article 34—reiterates what was established by the legislator in numeral 29 of the Income Tax Law, that is, that the taxpayer taxed under the real estate capital income regime will only have the right, exceptionally, to deduct a maximum of 15% for expenses without the need for any receipt or proof. It adds that, according to the petitioner, the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness is violated because the challenged regulatory norm gives the Tax Administration tools to create online forms with which its represented party was not allowed to apply the deductible expenses that were incurred during the fiscal period, and the only option was to apply 15% of gross income as an "expense." On this point, it reiterates that the legislator granted the taxpayer the power to choose whether it wanted to be taxed on real estate capital income or on profits, and gave it the possibility to change from the CED3 schedule to the CED4 schedule, provided it meets the requirements established in the Regulations to the Income Tax Law, or with the provisions of resolution No. DGT-R-058-2019; consequently, it considers that there is no arbitrary act on the part of the Administration, but rather there is objective legal support or basis for the administrative conduct being questioned. It adds that, on the other hand, the petitioner states that there is a violation of the principle of economic capacity and non-confiscation because the challenged norms, by removing the deductible expenses expressed in the Law, endanger the economic capacity of its represented party, given that they arbitrarily increased its tax burden; however, on this point, it recalls that Article 18 of the Political Constitution provides that it is the obligation of Costa Ricans to contribute to public expenses, which means that such duty is fulfilled through the taxes that the State establishes or authorizes—as the case may be—and that these must be based on the general principles of Tax Law that are implicit in that norm. It argues that for this reason it is said that the tax must be just, based on the contribution of all according to their economic capacity, which is reflected in the maxim that those with a higher income level pay proportionally more taxes, and therefore, in its opinion, that principle is not violated. On the other hand, regarding non-confiscation, it recalls that this principle of tax law means that a levy cannot be applied that implies the appropriation of all the subject's assets and income; a principle that regulates the taxes imposed on taxpayers, so that the contribution to sustaining public spending through levies cannot consist of depriving the taxpayer of all their income and properties; therefore, in this sense, this principle seeks to protect the right to private property, since the taxpayer's wealth cannot be exhausted. It indicates that, notwithstanding the foregoing, in the matter under study, it concerns a decision made by the taxpayer, since subsection 3) of numeral 29 of the Income Tax Law establishes the tax base for determining the net income of the real estate capital income tax by stating that "for the deduction of expenses, the taxpayer may apply a reduction of fifteen percent (15%) of gross income, without the need for any proof and without the possibility of any other deduction." It argues that this norm is clear in determining the net income of the real estate capital income tax, that is, the legislator established for this tax schedule that the taxpayer who decides to remain in the real estate capital income regime may deduct, exceptionally, up to 15% for expenses, because the legislator granted the taxpayer the power to move to or be taxed under the Tax on Profits regime, due to business activity and/or allocation. It adds that, in the petitioner's opinion, the principles of equality, legality, reasonableness, and proportionality are violated because there must be proportionality between the legal rule adopted and the purpose it pursues, in addition to the regulation, by restricting deductible expenses, violating the principle of equality because it discriminated against Real Estate Capital Income taxpayers in relation to taxpayers subject to the Tax on Profits, who can apply deductible expenses or apply, if they see fit, the single deduction of 25% from Article 8, subsection s). On this point, it warns that for the reasons explained regarding the fact that these are two different taxes: Taxable Real Estate Capital Income and Income from Profits, there cannot be a violation of the principle of equality because the object of the real estate capital income tax falls on passive income, that is, a going concern is not required to obtain the profit because it is obtained by the mere fact of possessing a real estate property under lease or sublease; conversely, the object of the tax on profits falls on active income, that is, income generated as a product of a business and/or professional activity. It reiterates that the legislator did not recognize the same deductible expenses for the real estate capital income tax as for the tax on profits, which does not imply inequality or disproportionality, as the petitioner seeks to claim. It states that the challenged Article 34 only comes to regulate "the determination of the tax base of real estate capital," which can be taxed under the tax on profits regime or remain in the real estate capital income tax regime. It adds that regarding the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, these assume that norms and acts of authority require—for their validity—not only to have been promulgated by competent bodies and under legally established procedures, but also to pass substantive review for their concordance with the supreme norms, principles, and values of the Constitution (formal and material), which are configured as patterns of reasonableness; that is, that a norm or public or private act is only valid when, in addition to its formal conformity with the Constitution, it is reasonably founded and justified according to the constitutional ideology, thereby seeking not only that the law is not irrational, arbitrary, or capricious, but also that the selected means have a real and substantial relationship with its object. It argues that, applying this to the specific case, it is evident that the principles of reasonableness and proportionality are in no way violated as alleged by the petitioner, because Article 34 of the Regulations to the Income Tax Law has not modified the tax base specific to the real estate capital income tax established by the legislator in Article 29 of the Income Tax Law. It states that, according to the petitioner, the right to private property is violated because these tax burdens do not take into account the deductible expenses established by Law 7092 and the taxpayer is forced to assume a tax that puts their private property at risk, as they will not be able to sustain themselves and will have the possibility of losing their assets; notwithstanding the foregoing, it clarifies that the tax base specific to the real estate capital income tax has not been modified, since this was created as a new schedule of the Income Tax Law, making it distinct and independent from other taxes, including the tax on profits, and therefore, the rules of other taxes cannot be applied in determining the taxable income of the real estate capital income tax, as it is an autonomous schedule, given that in its creation, the constituent elements of the tax have been fulfilled, such as: taxable event, taxpayer, rates, calculation basis, exemptions, among others, by constitutional and legal mandate (Article 121, subsection 13) of the Political Constitution, in concordance with numeral 5 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Tax Code).
Conclusions:
It concludes by requesting that this action of unconstitutionality be declared without merit.
7.- By resolution of 9:49 a.m. on May 20, 2022, the hearings granted to the Procuraduría General de la República and the Ministry of Finance were deemed answered, and the action was referred for study by the Reporting Judge.
8.- The hearing indicated in Articles 10 and 85 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction is dispensed with, based on the power granted to the Chamber by numeral 9 ibidem, as this resolution is deemed sufficiently grounded in evident principles and norms, as well as in the jurisprudence of this Court.
9.- The legal prescriptions have been fulfilled in the proceedings.
Drafted by Judge Garita Navarro; and,
Considering:
I.- Preliminary. Clarification on the identification of the norm subject to the action. The petitioner challenges Article 34 of Executive Decree No. 18445-H of September 9, 1988, "Regulations to the Income Tax Law," added by Article 2 of Executive Decree No. 41818 of June 17, 2019, a provision regarding the tax base of real estate capital. Said norm was in force at the time of filing the action on September 14, 2021, because although Executive Decree 18445-H was repealed by Article 106 of [Placa1] of July 22, 2021, which is the "Regulations to the Income Tax Law," it did not enter into force until December 17, 2021, the date of its publication in the Gazette No. 243, Alcance No. 257 of December 17, 2021. Now, from the analysis of the current regulations, it is observed that Article 40 contains a provision with identical content and wording to Article 34 of Executive Decree 18445-H, added by Article 2 of Executive Decree No. 41818 of June 17, 2021, challenged by the appellant, a situation that was not contemplated by the Court at the time of granting leave to proceed with the action of unconstitutionality, by resolution of 4:13 p.m. on March 24, 2022. Therefore, in order to clearly identify the norm subject to the action, it is established that the object of the action is Article 40 of Executive Decree No. 43198-H of July 22, 2021, published in Gazette No. 243, Alcance No. 257 of December 17, 2021, "Regulations to the Income Tax Law." Regarding Admissibility:
II.- On the admissibility requirements in this process.- The action of unconstitutionality was instituted for the purpose of guaranteeing the supremacy of the Political Constitution against norms or other provisions of a general nature; therefore, based on this and by the express will of the legislator, it is a process of high technical degree, such that, for its admissibility, certain requirements provided by the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction must be strictly met. Among the requirements demanded are: the adequate grounding of the grounds of unconstitutionality with a specific citation of the Constitutional right considered infringed (Article 78), the signature of the party filing the action duly authenticated by a legal professional with the due payment of legal taxes (Article 78), the accreditation of the conditions of standing (powers of attorney and certifications), the literal certification of the brief where the reservation of unconstitutionality was made in the prior matter (Article 79). In this specific matter, it is observed that the requirements stipulated in numerals 78 and 79 of the Procedural Law have been met.
III.- The rules of standing in actions of unconstitutionality and standing in the specific case.- Furthermore, it must be recalled that Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction regulates the presuppositions that determine the admissibility of actions of unconstitutionality, requiring the existence of a matter pending resolution in an administrative or judicial venue in which unconstitutionality is invoked. This requirement is not necessary in the cases provided for in the second and third paragraphs of that article, that is, when due to the nature of the norm there is no individual or direct injury; when it is based on the defense of diffuse interests or those that concern the community as a whole, or when it is filed by the Procurador General de la República, the Contralor General de la República, the Fiscal General de la República, or the Defensor de los Habitantes, in these latter cases, within their respective spheres of competence. Now, in the specific case, the Chamber considers that the petitioner has standing to file the action in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, insofar as, in the main proceeding being processed before the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo under file number 21-000342-1027-CA, the unconstitutionality of the challenged norm was alleged as a reasonable means to protect the rights considered injured in said proceeding, and it is related to the extremes discussed therein.
IV.- Object of the challenge. As set forth in considering I of this pronouncement, the object of the action is Article 40 of Executive Decree No. 43198-H of July 22, 2021, published in Gazette No. 243, Alcance No. 257 of December 17, 2021, "Regulations to the Income Tax Law," which provides:
"Article 40 - Tax base of real estate capital. The tax base of real estate capital is the total amount of the consideration, from which the expenses detailed below may be deducted, as applicable:
The taxpayer may deduct these expenses without the need for receipts or any proof. These expenses are the only amounts that a taxpayer obtaining real estate capital income may deduct to determine the tax base, without it being possible to deduct amounts greater than these nor to apply the other rules on deductibility of expenses contained in the Income Tax Law." The objections of unconstitutionality raised by the petitioner are: violation of the principle of legal reservation in tax matters, violation of the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness, injury to the principle of economic capacity and non-confiscation, violation of the principle of legal certainty, injury to the principles of legality, equality, reasonableness, and proportionality, in that: **a)** the provision modifies the calculation base of the tax on real estate capital income because it does not contemplate deductible expenses in their generality but rather limits them to 2 single deductions of 15% and 20%; and **b)** it contains elements not established in Article 29 of Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 7092.
**V.- On the inadmissibility of the action by reason of its object.-** This Chamber, in its reiterated jurisprudence, has indicated that claims relating to the alleged excess or contradiction of a regulatory provision with respect to the law are matters of legality, whose discussion does not correspond to this jurisdiction; rather, it is the ordinary judge who is competent to determine the scope of the interpretation and application of the Law and, consequently, it is he who is called upon to establish whether a regulatory provision violates or does not violate the legal provision. In this regard, in judgment No. 2013-013360 of 14 hours 30 minutes of October 9, 2013, it was stated that:
"[T]he incompatibility raised by the plaintiff is not between the regulatory provision and the Law of the Constitution, but between the regulation and Law No. 8444 (…), all of which determines the impropriety of this action. Indeed, it clearly exceeds the scope of this Chamber's competence to determine whether what is provided for by the questioned regulation fully conforms or not to the provisions of Law No. 8444 (…) all of which must instead be discussed and ventilated before the Administrative Contentious Jurisdiction, which, under the provisions of Article 49 of the Constitución Política, has the purpose of guaranteeing the legality of the administrative function of the State, its institutions, and any other public law entity, which is precisely the object of this matter, that is, determining the compatibility between Law No. 8444 and its regulation, all of which is outside the scope of competence of this Constitutional Jurisdiction by way of action, in accordance with Article 10 of the Constitución Política and Article 73, subsection a) of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Consequently, this action of unconstitutionality must be rejected outright, so that the plaintiff may resort to the ordinary Jurisdiction in defense of the rights and interests it deems violated." In a similar sense, this Court has ruled in judgments No. 2012-004792 of 14 hours 30 minutes of April 18, 2012, No. 2011-008712 of 15 hours 56 minutes of June 29, 2011, No. 2020-011171 of 16 hours 04 minutes of June 17, 2020, and No. 2021-019041 of 9 hours 20 minutes of August 25, 2021. It has likewise been noted:
"Having analyzed the arguments, the Court concludes that what has been presented is a conflict of a legal nature, which is not susceptible to being heard through the action of unconstitutionality, but rather must be heard through the ordinary channel. The questioned powers and the apparent confrontation between the legal provision and the Decree constitute a conflict of legality. On repeated occasions (by way of example, in judgment No. 2000-01149 of 15:39 hours of February 2, 2000) this Chamber has held that determining whether a regulatory provision, such as the one challenged, transgresses or exceeds what is provided in a law is a matter of legality whose discussion does not correspond to this jurisdiction. Article 49 of the Carta Fundamental assigns control of the legality of the State's administrative function to the administrative contentious jurisdiction, not to the constitutional jurisdiction. If this Chamber were to attempt to oversee, through the action of unconstitutionality, the various possible hypotheses of violation of the principle of legality that may occur in administrative offices, in practice it would supplant —against the grain of the constitutional text— the courts of that subject matter. Consequently, if the representative of the plaintiff association considers that the questioned regulatory provision is illegal or has been applied erroneously, he may resort, as indeed he has done, to the administrative contentious jurisdiction in defense of his rights" (see judgment No. 2021-011972 of 9 hours 30 minutes of May 26, 2021).
Thus, it does not correspond to this Constitutional Court to determine whether a regulation is contrary to a law nor whether an excess of regulatory authority has occurred, unless a violation of a fundamental right or constitutional principle is verified.
In this sense, it is pertinent to clarify that if it is evident, and it is obvious that the regulatory provision exceeds, suppresses, or contradicts the text of the Law —there is no doubt that, in a gross manner, the principle of force, authority, or efficacy of the Law is violated; a principle that has constitutional coverage and must be protected by this Court. The principle of force, authority, or efficacy of law refers us to the potency (active force), resistance (passive force), and challenge regime of the Law. Based on the first aspect of the concept, the Law, once it enters into force, repeals or modifies any provision of equal or lower rank. Based on the second, the Law cannot be repealed or modified by a provision of lower rank. Finally, based on the third, the Law can only be challenged on grounds of unconstitutionality and, therefore, can only be annulled through a ruling of this Constitutional Chamber. The constitutional basis of this principle is in Article 129 of the Carta Fundamental, which states that the Law can only be repealed, abrogated, or modified by a later provision of equal rank. Furthermore, the principle of force, authority, or efficacy of law is an essential presupposition of the social and democratic Rule of Law, since it departs from a core idea: the parliamentary normative act is superior in rank to the normative act issued by the other Branches of State, especially the Executive Branch, which means that all Branches of State, when exercising normative authority (Article 6, subsection d) of the Ley General de la Administración Pública), must conform to the will of the legislator. If this does not occur, the normative rank of the Law is disregarded, a Law which, in the normative hierarchical scale, occupies the third place in importance after the Constitución Política and International Treaties (Articles 10 and 7) and, consequently, a key principle of the social and democratic Rule of Law is violated. Ergo, when a regulatory provision manifestly and clearly surpasses, suppresses, or contradicts a Law of the Republic, Article 129 of the Carta Fundamental and the principle of force, authority, or efficacy of the Law are violated, and the Constitutional Court does have competence in this matter, without prejudice to the competence also held by the members of the ordinary jurisdiction when the commented assumption is not present.
In the case under analysis, it is the criterion of this Court that what was raised by the petitioner as a problem of constitutionality is actually a matter that must be resolved through the legality channel, as it concerns a potential conflict of legal provisions, specifically between Article 29 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 7092 and the challenged article, in which an evident and manifest contradiction between the Law and the challenged Regulation is not shown. Essentially, because the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta clearly provides the essential elements of real estate capital income, namely: taxable event (generating event, hecho generador) (Article 27 bis), taxpayer (passive subject, sujeto pasivo) (Article 28) and, of special relevance for the resolution of this action, the taxable base (base imponible) (Article 29), as well as the applicable rate. Article 29 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta provides:
***"Article 29- Taxable income from real estate capital.*** *1. The taxable income from real estate capital shall be the difference between the gross income (renta bruta) and the deductible expenses (gastos deducibles).* *2. Gross income shall be understood as the total amount of the consideration.* *3. For the deduction of expenses, the taxpayer may apply a reduction of fifteen percent (15%) of the gross income, without need of any proof and without the possibility of any other deduction.* *4. Non-financial investment funds, regulated in Law No. 7732, Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores, of December 17, 1997, may apply a reduction of twenty percent (20%) of the gross income, as a deductible expense without need of any proof and without the possibility of any other deduction."* Therefore, it is evident that Article 40 of Decreto Ejecutivo No. 43198-H of July 22, 2021, refers to the single and automatic deductibility in the same manner as it is treated by the law (subsection 3 of Article 29), such that the regulation would not be exceeding its limits as the petitioner accuses and, on the contrary, it adheres to what the letter of the law expresses regarding this special regime.
On the other hand, having analyzed the petitioner's arguments regarding the alleged excesses of the challenged regulatory article with respect to the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, it is evident that this is a matter to be resolved through the legality channel, as it concerns a potential conflict of legal provisions, specifically between Article 29 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 7092 and the challenged article, as he states: "*the drafting and application by the Administration of Article 34 of the Regulation goes against what is established in Article 29, subsection 1 of Law 7092*" and that the questioned provision "*becomes unconstitutional because that regulatory provision is modifying a crucial quantitative element of the taxable event of the tax on real estate capital income, since it eliminates the concept of deductible expense and only mentions the word "expense" and from there proceeds to make modifications that can only be made by Law emanating from Parliament. Determining only certain expenses via regulation contradicts Law 7092, in its Article 29, which clearly expresses the concept of "deductible expenses." In this way, the limits of logic and the constitutional principles of proportionality and reasonableness are grossly violated. The Executive Branch improperly appropriated the authority to create a new taxable base, which leaves aside the possibility of applying the deductible expenses expressed in Articles 8 and Article 29 of Law 7092.*" In light of the foregoing, this Chamber reaches the conclusion that the action of unconstitutionality is inadmissible by reason of its object, and it is so declared.
**VI.- On the disagreement with the application of the challenged provision.-** Another important element to address when analyzing the appropriateness or not of conducting an analysis on the merits of an action of unconstitutionality —an element which is also closely related to its object— is the need to ensure that the substantive claim is not aimed at questioning the application that was made of the challenged provision. In this case under study, in the brief filing the action, it is observed that the petitioner himself states that, in the underlying matter for this action, what is being discussed is the erroneous application by the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) of Article 34 of the Regulation to the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta; a claim he raises in similar terms throughout the action brief, for, from a careful reading of that brief, it is clear that all the objections raised are limited to questioning the application of the provision to the company he represents, which, in his view, harms it. In this sense, he indicates that "*Article 34 of the Regulation is generating actions by the Tax Administration in which they are not applying what the Income Tax Law states regarding being able to apply deductible expenses*." Furthermore, the petitioner's objections are aimed at questioning the —normative— requirement to use Form D125, the lack of boxes in that form, the impossibility of presenting all deductible expenses without the restriction established by the challenged provision, the disagreement with the percentage of deductible expenses, the convenience or not of transferring taxpayers from the profits (utilidades) regime to the real estate capital income regime, the possibility that the taxpayer may be penalized for filing late returns, returns with zero tax, or with inaccurate data, for which reason he requests, as his substantive claim, that the annulment be ordered of various actions and resolutions issued by the Tax Administration under the protection of the challenged provision —and of those of Law 7092 which it regulates— because he considers its application has been harmful to his represented party. On this matter, this Chamber has indicated that "*the improper application of the law or its erroneous interpretation in the specific case is not a proper matter to be heard through the action of unconstitutionality*" (see judgments No. 5966-94 of 15 hours 54 minutes of October 11, 1994, and No. 2018-010334 of 14 hours 30 minutes of June 27, 2018, among others); therefore, the petitioner's disagreement must be resolved in the corresponding ordinary jurisdiction. It cannot be forgotten that this Chamber has specified, regarding the nature and purpose of constitutional review, that:
"*(…) the constitutional jurisdiction, exercised in one of its modalities through the procedures for a declaration of unconstitutionality, guarantees the primacy of the Constitution and judges the conformity or non-conformity with it of the laws, provisions, or acts challenged, as well as their concordance with the norms and principles of international or community law in force in the Republic. It is the very purity of the legal system that is ventilated in this jurisdictional venue, with the comparison between the fundamental norm and the laws that develop it. (Judgment number 1319-97, of fourteen hours fifty-one minutes of March fourth, nineteen ninety-seven. In the same sense, judgment number 2008-14193, of ten hours and three minutes of September twenty-fourth, two thousand eight). That is to say, in these proceedings, the individual harm that the plaintiff may exhibit is not addressed preferentially, because what is sought is constitutional supremacy; that is, the satisfaction of a general interest that acts subject to public law… and norms conform to the constitutional order*" (see judgment No. 2012-010986 of 15 hours 05 minutes of August 14, 2012).
Consequently, the action is also inadmissible because it seeks, through this channel, that the application made of the challenged provision be discussed and analyzed, which is a matter of legality.
**VII.- Conclusion.-** Based on the considerations indicated supra, this action is inadmissible to be analyzed on its merits by reason of its object, because the petitioner's disagreement lies in the alleged non-conformity of the challenged provision with Article 29 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta and in attacking the application of the challenged provision, issues that are not the object of the constitutional jurisdiction's cognizance. Consequently, the action must be declared without merit, as is hereby ordered.
**VIII.- Documentation provided to the case file.-** The parties are warned that if they have provided any paper document, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device or one produced by new technologies, these must be picked up from the office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment.
Otherwise, any material not removed within this period shall be destroyed, as provided in the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", approved by the Corte Plena in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.-
Por tanto:
Se declara sin lugar la acción.- <table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="width:100%; border-collapse:collapse"><tr><td style="padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore"> </span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt; background-color:#ffffff"><img src="" width="162" height="74" alt="" style="-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline" /></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub">[Nombre4]</span><span style="font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces">  </span><span style="font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub">.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub">Presidente</span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore"> </span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><img src="" width="164" height="74" alt="" style="-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline" /></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub">[Nombre5]</span><span style="font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces">  </span><span style="font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub">.</span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore"> </span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><img src="" width="162" height="74" alt="" style="-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline" /></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub">Paul Rueda L.</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><img src=" <figure><img src="\" width=\"162\" height=\"74\" alt=\"\" style=\"-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline\" /></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub\">Luis Fdo.</span></p> Salazar A.</span></p></td><td style=\"padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p></td><td style=\"padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><img src=\"\" width=\"164\" height=\"74\" alt=\"\" style=\"-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline\" /></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub\">Jorge Araya G.</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style=\"padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><img src=\"\" width=\"162\" height=\"74\" alt=\"\" style=\"-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline\" /></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub\">[Nombre6]</span><span style=\"font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">  </span><span style=\"font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub\">.</span></p></td><td style=\"padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p></td><td style=\"padding-right:5.65pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><img src=\"\" width=\"162\" height=\"74\" alt=\"\" style=\"-aw-left-pos:0pt; -aw-rel-hpos:column; -aw-rel-vpos:paragraph; -aw-top-pos:0pt; -aw-wrap-type:inline\" /></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub\">Jose Roberto Garita N.</span></p></td></tr></table><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:8pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">Documento Firmado Digitalmente</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">-- Código verificador --</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-family:'WASP 39 L'; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\"></span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\"> </span><span style=\"font-family:Tahoma; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">KXTBKQCIVOG61 </span></p><div style=\"-aw-headerfooter-type:footer-primary; clear:both\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:8pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">EXPEDIENTE N° 21-018059-0007-CO </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:1pt; font-size:8pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:1pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">Teléfonos: [Telf1] /</span><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">  </span><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">(). Fax: [Telf2] / [Telf3]. Dirección electrónica: www.poder-judicial.go.cr/salaconstitucional. Dirección: ([Dirección1] ,</span><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">  </span><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">,</span><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">        </span><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">). Recepción de asuntos de grupos vulnerables: Edificio Corte Suprema de Justicia, San José, [Dirección2] , [Dirección3]</span><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">  </span><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">, [Dirección4]</span><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">   </span><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">, [Dirección5]</span><span style=\"font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">   </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span style=\"-aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt\"><span style=\"-aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p></div></div></body></html>" Furthermore, the claimant’s objections are directed at questioning the –normative– requirement to use Declaration Form D125, the lack of boxes in that form, the impossibility of presenting all deductible expenses without the restriction established by the challenged rule, the disagreement with the percentage of deductible expenses, the convenience or otherwise of transferring taxpayers from the utilities regime to the real estate capital income regime, the possibility that the taxpayer may be sanctioned for filing late returns, with zero tax, or with inaccurate data, for which reason it requests, as its substantive claim, that the annulment of various actions and resolutions issued by the Tax Administration under the challenged rule –and those of Law 7092 which it regulates– be ordered because it considers that its application has been harmful to its represented party. On this point, this Chamber has stated that "the improper application of the law or its erroneous interpretation in a specific case is not a matter properly cognizable through the acción de inconstitucionalidad" (see judgments No. 5966-94 of 15 hours 54 minutes of October 11, 1994 and No. 2018-010334 of 14 hours 30 minutes of June 27, 2018, among others); therefore, the claimant's disagreement must be resolved in the appropriate ordinary jurisdiction. It cannot be forgotten that this Chamber has specified, regarding the nature and purpose of constitutional review, that:
"(…) the constitutional jurisdiction, exercised in one of its modalities through the procedures for declaration of unconstitutionality, guarantees the primacy of the Constitution and judges the conformity or non-conformity with it of the laws, provisions, or acts challenged, as well as their concordance with the norms and principles of international or community law in force in the Republic. It is the very purity of the legal system that is aired in this jurisdictional venue, with the comparison between the fundamental norm and the laws that develop it. (Judgment number 1319-97, of fourteen hours fifty-one minutes of March fourth, nineteen ninety-seven. In the same sense, judgment number 2008-14193, of ten hours and three minutes of September twenty-fourth, two thousand eight). That is to say, in these proceedings, the individual injury that the plaintiff may exhibit is not attended to preferentially, since what is pursued is constitutional supremacy; that is, the satisfaction of a general interest that acts subject to public law… and norms conform to the constitutional order" (see judgment No. 2012-010986 of 15 hours 05 minutes of August 14, 2012).
Consequently, the acción is also inadmissible because it seeks, through this avenue, to discuss and analyze the application that was made of the challenged rule, which is a matter properly pertaining to legality.
VII.- Conclusion.- Based on the considerations indicated supra, this acción is inadmissible for analysis on the merits due to its object, because the claimant's disagreement lies in the alleged non-conformity of the challenged rule with Article 29 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta and in attacking the application of the challenged rule, extremes which are not subject to the cognizance of the constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the acción must be declared without merit, as is hereby ordered.
CO05/23 ARTICLE 129 OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION. “…The constitutional basis of this principle is in numeral 129 of the Fundamental Charter, which states that a Law can only be repealed, abrogated, or modified by another later norm of equal rank. Furthermore, the principle of the force, authority, or efficacy of law is an essential presupposition of the social and democratic Rule of Law, since it starts from a core idea: the parliamentary normative act is superior in rank to the normative act issued by the other Branches of State, especially the Executive Branch, which supposes that all Branches of State, when exercising normative authority (Article 6, subsection d, of the Ley General de la Administración Pública), must adjust to the will of the legislator. If this does not occur, the normative rank of the Law is disregarded which, in the normative hierarchical scale, occupies third place in importance after the Political Constitution and International Treaties (Articles 10 and 7) and, consequently, a key principle of the social and democratic Rule of Law is violated. Ergo, when a regulatory norm evidently and manifestly exceeds, suppresses, or contradicts a Law of the Republic, numeral 129 of the Fundamental Charter and the principle of the force, authority, or efficacy of the Law are violated, and the Constitutional Court does have competence in this matter, without detriment to the competence that also assists the members of the ordinary jurisdiction when the commented assumption does not arise…” CO05/23 For the deduction of expenses, the taxpayer may apply a reduction of fifteen percent (15%) of gross income, without need of any proof and without the possibility of any other deduction.</span></p><p style=\"margin:0pt 40.2pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">4.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\"> Non-financial investment funds, regulated in Law No. 7732, Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores, of 17 December 1997, may apply a reduction of twenty percent (20%) of gross income, as a deductible expense without need of any proof and without the possibility of any other deduction.”</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">It argues that, in this way, as of 1 July 2019 when Law No. 9635 enters into force, taxpayers who carry out activities related to leases, subleases, constitution or assignment of rights or faculties of use or enjoyment of movable property, intangibles and other intellectual property rights, as well as of</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">  </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">immovable property, may choose to pay taxes as taxpayers within the real estate capital regime, provided that they have one employee (contributing to the CCSS) and declare their income for a minimum of five fiscal periods in said regime, in accordance with the provisions of the law and its regulations. It notes that the law establishes that said regime is optional, that is, at the taxpayer's choice, for a period of 5 years, being able to return to the previous regime once that period of time has elapsed. It points out that Article 28 of the Income Tax Law establishes who may be considered taxpayers of real estate capital income, noting that, to opt for the application of this regime, individuals, legal entities, collective entities without legal personality, and investment funds that obtain income of this type must meet certain requirements for this regime to be applicable to them. It indicates that if a taxpayer only receives rental income and has no other different lucrative activity, they may choose whether to pay taxes according to the rules mentioned above, or, if they prefer to pay taxes based on the income tax (general regime), whose rate would be up to 30% calculated on the profits obtained during the fiscal period. It clarifies that this choice depends on the reality of each taxpayer and, fundamentally, requires reviewing the total deductible expenses that could be utilized under each tax: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">a)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\"> if one chooses to pay taxes under the real estate capital income regime, only 15% can be deducted as deductible expenses (without need of any proof); </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">b)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\"> whereas under the income tax, the totality of expenses associated with the rental activity could be deducted, providing proof that links these expenses to the income generated and justifies them as necessary and useful to generate the income. It points out that this special regime establishes a single deduction of 15% on gross income and a tax rate of 15% on net income, or what is the same, an effective rate of 12.75% on the taxpayer's gross income, which the taxpayer may apply without need of proof regarding the deductible expenses necessary for the production of taxable income. It states that, for the purposes of this action, it is necessary to take into account two core aspects: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">a)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\"> the first is that the regime is optional in nature as indicated; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">b)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\"> the second is that if the taxpayer opts for this regime, they will not need to justify their deductibility as established by Article 8 of the Income Tax Law, since, by default, the law provides that 15% deductibility must be automatically applied to their gross income, without need of any proof of deductible expenses.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; text-decoration:underline; vertical-align:sub\">Regarding the grounds for the unconstitutionality action</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">: it indicates that its represented party does not share the arguments raised by the claimant and, on the contrary, considers that the challenged article adheres to the Law of the Constitution. It points out that Article 34 of Executive Decree No. 18445-H was expressly repealed by the provisions of Executive Decree No. 43198-H of 22 July 2021, with the result that, in the current regulation, the article referring to real estate capital income is located in numeral 40 of that new regulatory body. It adds that both the text of the challenged Article 34 and that of Article 40 of Executive Decree No. 43198-H have identical wording, for which reason the Attorney General's Office pronounces itself in relation to the challenged article -34 of Executive Decree No. 18445-H of 9 September 1988-. It states that, in the opinion of the claimant, Article 34 of Executive Decree No. 18445-H makes </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">“a modification regarding the basis for calculating the tax on real estate capital income, by removing the figure of deductible expenses or, worse yet, by indicating that deductible expenses are equal to single deductions, such as those of 15% or 20%”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">, in addition to there being </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">“an irruption of the Executive Branch into the exclusive competence of the Legislative Branch, by modifying the taxable event in its quantitative aspect by varying the elements of the quantitative aspect by means of a regulation”.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\"> It recalls that the principle of legal reserve in tax matters is duly delimited by constitutional case law, which has been consistent in pointing out that the determination of the essential elements of taxes is a matter reserved to law, such that the regulation cannot contain essential elements different from those found in the law, which is a limit to the regulatory power of the Administration. It indicates that the Income Tax Law clearly provides the essential elements of real estate capital income, namely: taxable event (Article 27 bis), passive subject (Article 28) and taxable base (Article 29), as well as the applicable rate; elements that have been correctly implemented by Article 34 of Executive Decree 18445-H. It points out that, regarding the norm accused of being unconstitutional,</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">  </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">it suffices to make a comparative table of its text versus that of Article 29 of the Income Tax Law to see that what the latter contains is nothing other than the elements that have been clearly specified by the legal norm:</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><table cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" style=\"border:1pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse\"><tr><td style=\"width:209.8pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:4.9pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">Income Tax Law</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p></td><td style=\"width:215.2pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">Executive Decree 18445-H</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p></td></tr><tr><td style=\"width:209.8pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:1pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:4.9pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">Article 29- Taxable income from real estate capital</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">1. Taxable income from real estate capital shall be the difference between gross income and deductible expenses.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">2. Gross income shall be understood as the total amount of the consideration.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">3. For the deduction of expenses, the taxpayer may apply a reduction of fifteen percent (15%) of gross income, without need of any proof and without the possibility of any other deduction.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">4. Non-financial investment funds, regulated in Law No. 7732, Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores, of 17 December 1997, may apply a reduction of twenty percent (20%) of gross income, as a deductible expense without need of any proof and without the possibility of any other deduction.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p></td><td style=\"width:215.2pt; padding-right:4.9pt; padding-left:5.65pt; vertical-align:top\"><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\">Article 34.- Taxable base of real estate capital.</span><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:sub\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">The taxable base of real estate capital is the total amount of the consideration, from which the expenses detailed below may be deducted, as applicable:</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">a) The amount corresponding to fifteen percent (15%) of the gross amount of the consideration, or</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">b) If the taxpayer is a non-financial investment fund, the amount corresponding to twenty percent (20%) of the gross amount of the consideration.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">The taxpayer may deduct these expenses without having receipts or any proof. These expenses are the only amounts that a taxpayer who obtains income from real estate capital may deduct to determine the tax base, without it being possible to deduct amounts greater than these or to apply the other rules on expense deductibility contained in the Income Tax Law.</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p></td></tr></table><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">It points out that, from the foregoing, the essential elements of the tax are duly established by law, so that the challenged numeral 34 practically reproduces what is provided in the legal norm, and therefore, the claimant is not correct, since the essential elements proper to the tax in the case of real estate capital income are clearly determined by law and implemented in the regulation, such that there is no violation of the principle of legal reserve, nor of the constitutional precepts contained in Articles 9 and 121 of the Political Constitution. Thus, it indicates that the accusation that the regulation has modified the taxable event in its quantitative aspect is not acceptable, nor that the elements of the quantitative aspect have been varied, in particular the taxable base (base imponible), as is accused. It argues that, for its represented party, there is no violation by the challenged regulatory norm because it refers to the single and automatic deductibility in the same manner as it is treated by the law (subsection 3 of Article 29), with which, the regulation would not be overreaching as the claimant seems to understand it and, on the contrary, it adheres to what the letter of the law expresses regarding this special regime. It points out that by analyzing each of the essential elements of the tax on real estate capital income, it is more than evident that these are clearly established in numerals 27, 28, and 29 of the Income Tax Law, so the regulatory norm merely implements the legal norm without any over-dimensioning of what the law contains. It states that following this line of argument, the Attorney General's Office also finds no violation of the principle of legal certainty since the essential elements of the tax are duly established in the legal norm, which is what establishes a distinct tax regime and gives the option for the taxpayer who has no other lucrative activities different from those that generate capital income to pay taxes in the terms indicated therein, allowing a single deduction of 15% of gross income for expenses. It adds that this option is not unknown to the challenged regulation, as is evident from the reading of Article 32 of the already repealed Regulation No. 18445-H, which establishes:</span></p><p style=\"margin:0pt 40.2pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">“</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">Article 32.-</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">Taxpayers who obtain only real estate capital income</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">.</span></p><p style=\"margin:0pt 40.2pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">Taxpayers who obtain only real estate capital income as defined in Article 27 ter, paragraph 1), must pay taxes and declare in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XI of the Income Tax Law, because they are not subject to another lucrative activity.</span></p><p style=\"margin:0pt 40.2pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">These taxpayers have the option to pay taxes in accordance with Article 3 ter of this Regulation.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">(Thus added by Article 2 of Executive Decree No. 41818 of 17 June 2019).</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">In turn, it points out that said Article 3 ter, added by Executive Decree 41818 -amended in turn by Regulation No. 43198-H- provided:</span></p><p style=\"margin:0pt 40.2pt 0pt 56.7pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">\"</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">Article 3 ter.- Option to pay real estate taxes under the Income Tax.</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">In the case of real estate income indicated in Article 27 ter, paragraph 1, of the Income Tax Law, when taxpayers have contracted a minimum of one employee for the generation of said income, whose salary is subject to the contribution regime of the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, they may opt to pay taxes on the entirety of their taxable real estate capital income in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of said law, and must communicate it beforehand to the Tax Administration and remain in it for a minimum of five years.\"</span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff\"><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">In the opinion of the Attorney General's Office, the claimant company's affirmations are based on a partial reading of the regulation and do not take into account these provisions that refer to the specificity of the tax regime established. It adds that the claimant alleges that the challenged norm violates Articles 11 and 33 of the Political Constitution because it creates discrimination between taxpayers of the general regime and those of the real estate capital regime, since the latter cannot deduct the totality of their deductible expenses given that the norm “</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub\">gave the tools to the Tax Administration to create online forms with which the company was not allowed to apply the deductible expenses that arose during the fiscal period, and there was only the option of applying 15% of gross income as an ‘expense’</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">”; however, in the opinion of the Attorney General's Office, there is no such violation of those principles since we are in the presence of a tax regime (the real estate capital income regime) that is different from the general one, which may be chosen or not by the taxpayer at the time of declaring their income tax. It recalls that as it is an optional regime for the taxpayer, if the taxpayer decides to pay taxes through the real estate capital income regime,</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:spaces\">  </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub\">they must comply with the precepts of said regime and, therefore, will enjoy the benefits established for it, such as, for example, not presenting proof of their deductibility, so they would be in a clearly different position from that of taxpayers in the general regime. It indicates that it is not correct to state that the claimant company cannot apply the deductions of the general regime, but rather, as previously noted, if one opts for the real estate capital regime, only the automatic deduction without need of proof of 15% or 20%, as the case may be, can be applied, which does not create inequality or arbitrariness among income tax taxpayers since these are different tax regimes. It adds that, in the opinion of its represented party, there is also no violation of the principles of economic capacity and non-confiscation, given that those taxpayers who choose to submit to the real estate capital regime have the conditions of this regime established, so it is within their decision, as they deem convenient for their economic interests. It reiterates that we are in the presence of a regime of choice by the taxpayer, who must evaluate their conditions to opt for the regime they wish to apply for their income tax declaration, and, in the case of the real estate capital regime, the legislator established a rate of 15% on the taxable base, which results in 12.75% if it is considered that the deduction percentage is 15%. It states that the principles of non-confiscation, economic capacity, and inviolability of private property of taxes in light of the Law of the Constitution have been analyzed by the Constitutional Chamber, and in general terms, it has been pointed out that the tax is a means of economic policy that must be harmonized with public spending and the economic situation, its limit being the tax capacity of the individual, so that the ordering of taxes must be based on the principles of generality and equitable distribution of public burdens. Similarly, this Court has pointed out that a levy that exceeds the economic or financial capacity of the taxpayer is considered confiscatory, or if the tax absorbs a substantial part of the taxed operation, so that, to be constitutional, taxes must not denature other fundamental rights because the Constitution ensures the inviolability of private property, as well as its free use and disposal, and prohibits confiscation, so a taxation measure that goes beyond what is reasonable and proportionate cannot be permitted (see in this regard judgment No. 5749-93 of 14 hours 33 minutes of 9 November 1993). It points out that, based on the foregoing, it cannot be considered that there is a violation of the principles of economic capacity or non-confiscation (including that of inviolability of private property) in the terms indicated by the claimant, insofar as Article 34 of the challenged regulation does not make the tax on real estate capital income confiscatory or threaten the economic capacity of the company, and, on the contrary, following the provisions of Article 29 of the Income Tax Law, the deductibility applicable in the real estate capital regime is reasonable and proportionate to the taxable base of the tax for all those taxpayers who opt for this regime. It adds that if one opts to apply the real estate capital income regime, the taxpayer has benefits that are not available in the general regime, such as not presenting any proof of the expenses deducted, so that 15% or 20% deductibility is automatically granted, regardless of whether said expenses actually occurred for the production of the taxed income or whether proof of the deductible expenses is available in order to determine if they were necessary and useful to produce the income. It argues that, on the other hand, if the taxpayer considers that they have a greater amount of deductible expenses exceeding the allowed 15%, they may choose to remain within the general regime, being under the obligation to have proof of the deductible expenses they intend to apply. It states that for the Attorney General's Office, the challenged norm is not unreasonable or disproportionate, since Article 29 of the Income Tax Law provided for the automatic deductibility percentage (15% or 20%, as the case may be) following objective criteria, so that Article 34 challenged here merely reproduces the provisions of the law, and it considers that the claimant is not making an integral reading of the set of regulatory provisions that regulate the tax on real estate capital income. It points out that, in the opinion of this advisory body, Article 34 of Executive Decree No.
18445-H of September 9, 1988, is in accordance with Constitutional Law and does not violate any rule or principle contained in the Political Constitution.
**The Attorney General's Office concludes that:** **a)** The claimant has standing to file this action in accordance with the provisions of Article 75 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law.
**b)** Executive Decree No. 18445-H of September 9, 1988, was repealed by Executive Decree No. 43198-H of July 22, 2021.
**c)** Article 34 of Executive Decree No. 18445-H does not conflict with the Political Constitution.
**6.-** [Name3] submits their report in their capacity as Minister of Finance through a document filed with the Secretariat of the Chamber on May 19, 2022, and states that through the Public Finance Strengthening Law No. 9635 of December 3, 2018 (hereinafter LFFP), Chapter XI was added to Title I of the Income Tax Law No. 7092 of April 21, 1988, and its amendments (hereinafter LISR), called *"Capital Income and Capital Gains and Losses,"* establishing a new tax on real estate and movable capital income as well as on capital gains and losses. They add that through Executive Decree No. 41818-H of June 17, 2019, the Regulations to the Income Tax Law No. DE-18445-H of September 9, 1988 (hereinafter RLISR) were amended, regarding which the claimant challenges its Article 34, establishing in Title II of said Regulations the provisions related to the *"Tax on Capital Income and Capital Gains and Losses"* and, of relevance, Article 34 regulated *"the determination of the taxable base of real estate capital."* They add that, subsequently, through Executive Decree No. 43198-H of July 22, 2021, Executive Decree No. 41818-H was repealed, and Article 40 regulated *"the determination of the taxable base of real estate capital"* instead of numeral 34, both of the RLISR, now Executive Decree No. 43198-H.
**a)** *Regarding the object of the Tax on Real Estate Capital Income:* they state that this arises as a new schedule (cédula) of the Income Tax Law, that is, distinct and independent from other taxes, including the tax on profits (utilidades); therefore, the rules of other taxes cannot be applied in determining the taxable income of the Tax on Real Estate Capital Income (hereinafter IRCI), as it is an autonomous schedule. In that sense, they recall that the national legislator, when creating a tax, must clearly establish its constitutive elements, namely, taxable event (hecho generador), taxpayer (sujeto pasivo), rates, calculation base, exemptions, among others, by constitutional and legal mandate (Article 121, subsection 13 of the Political Constitution in concordance with numeral 5 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures -Tax Code-). They argue that, in relation to the above, the Tax on Real Estate Capital Income falls on *"passive capital income,"* meaning a going concern is not required to obtain the profit because it is obtained merely by owning real property for lease or sublease, among others (see the constitutive elements of the tax in Articles 27, 27 bis, and 27 ter of the LISR); therefore, unlike the tax on profits, in the Tax on Real Estate Capital Income, profits are not generated as a product of developing a business and/or professional activity (lucrative activity). They add that, furthermore, it is governed by the realization principle (realizado) (Article 3, subsection b) of the RLISR), while the Tax on Profits is governed by the accrual principle (devengo). They indicate that through official communication No. DGT-992-2021 of September 3, 2021, the General Directorate of Taxation established the following regarding the difference between the formal duties in the Tax on Real Estate Capital Income and in the Tax on Profits:
"Unlike other taxes in the LISR, for example, the Tax on Profits, where the law requires the formal obligation to file the return at the end of the fiscal period regardless of whether profits have been obtained or not, in the Tax on Capital Income not subject to withholding, the LISR does not require the filing of the return per fiscal period, but only when the taxable event is realized. Consequently, in this tax, the material obligation (realization of the taxable event) arises first, and then the formal obligation (filing of the return), in application of numerals 28 quáter and 31 quáter of the LISR." **b)** *Regarding the right and/or power to tax real estate capital income under the Tax on Profits regime:* they argue that, for the purposes of these incomes, the legislator contemplated the possibility, power, or right of the taxpayer to choose the regime — in relation to the payment of the income tax — under which they preferred to tax their real estate capital income, by establishing in Article 28 of the Income Tax Law that:
"Taxpayers who obtain income from real estate capital, for whose generation they have contracted a minimum of one employee, may opt to be taxed on the totality of their taxable real estate capital income, in accordance with the provisions of Article 1 of this law, and must expressly communicate this option to the Tax Administration before the start of the fiscal period regulated in Article 4 of this law, and maintain it for a minimum of five years." (see also Article 5 of the RLISR).
They add that the legislator also established, in Article 1 of the Income Tax Law, in which cases real estate capital income from business activity or allocation (afectación) must be taxed under the Tax on Profits regime, and in that sense, paragraph 4 of that numeral states the following:
"For the purposes of this tax, the obtaining of all capital income (...) realized, obtained by individuals or legal entities and collective entities without legal personality, that carry out lucrative activities in the country, shall also be considered lucrative activities, having to be taxed according to the provisions of the tax on profits, provided that these come from assets or rights whose ownership corresponds to the taxpayer and are allocated to the lucrative activity" (see also Article 4 of the RLISR).
They argue that, in the same sense, it is necessary to review Transitory Provisions II and VII of the current Regulations to the Income Tax Law No. 43198-H which, as relevant, and specifically in the latter Transitory Provision, indicated in its paragraph 2:
"As long as the taxpayer does not communicate that they opt to declare according to the Tax on Profits, as provided in Articles 28 of the Law, 5 and 6 of these Regulations, they must continue filing the self-assessment return for the Tax on Capital Income and paying the corresponding Tax, unless they must remain in the Tax on Profits because the aforementioned capital income is allocated to said tax." They state that, regarding the procedure the taxpayer must follow to transfer their real estate capital income to the Tax on Profits regime (business activity and/or allocation), one must refer to the resolution of the General Directorate of Taxation No. DGT-R-058-2019 of 8:05 a.m. on October 3, 2019. They summarize that the tax on real estate capital income is an autonomous schedule from the tax on profits, because if it were not so, the legislator would not have established the situations by which real estate capital income can or must be taxed through the Tax on Profits regime. Therefore, they indicate that the legislator did not authorize in Article 29 of the Income Tax Law the application, in determining the taxable income of the tax on real estate capital, of the deductible costs and expenses of Article 8 of the same law, which are specific to determining the net income of the Tax on Profits. Thus, they reiterate, they are autonomous tax schedules.
**c)** *Regarding the determination of Taxable Income in the IRCI:* they indicate that numeral 29, subsection 1 of the Income Tax Law establishes that the taxable income of real estate capital shall be the difference between gross income and deductible expenses; however, it is not correct to interpret the above in the sense that the norm refers to the deductible expenses of Article 8 of that law because, as analyzed, if that were the case, the creation of an autonomous tax schedule, or the two options the legislator authorized for declaring real estate capital income under the Tax on Profits regime, would have no reason to exist. They recall that the object of the tax on real estate capital income falls on passive income, unlike the object of the tax on profits which falls on active income, that is, generated as a product of a business and/or professional activity. They argue that, under this approach, the legislator did not recognize the same deductible expenses for the tax on real estate capital income as for the tax on profits, and therefore, only admitted — exceptionally — a maximum deduction of expenses of 15%. They add that, in correlation with the above, subsection 3) of numeral 29 of the Income Tax Law, which establishes the taxable base for determining the net income of the tax on real estate capital income, establishes:
"Article 29- Taxable income of real estate capital: (...) 3. For the deduction of expenses, the taxpayer may apply a reduction of fifteen percent (15%) of the gross income, without any need for proof and without the possibility of any other deduction." They argue that this rule is clear in determining the net income of the real estate capital tax; that is, the legislator established for this tax schedule that the taxpayer who decides to remain in the real estate capital income regime, may exceptionally deduct up to 15% for expenses, because, as analyzed, the legislator granted the taxpayer the power to move to or be taxed under the Tax on Profits regime, through business activity and/or allocation. They add that, in relation to the above, numeral 40 of the Regulations to the Income Tax Law (before the last reform to Article 34) reiterated what was established by the legislator in numeral 29 of the Income Tax Law, that is, that the taxpayer who is taxed under the real estate capital income regime will only have the right exceptionally to deduct up to a maximum of 15% for expenses, *"without the need for any receipt or proof."* They state that, according to the claimant, the principle of legal reservation (reserva de ley) is violated by the challenged Article 34 because it allows an abusive exercise of regulatory power; however, they recall that the principle of legal reservation consists in that only through a formal law issued by the Legislative Branch through the procedure provided in the Constitution for the issuance of laws, can the exercise of rights and freedoms be regulated. In tax matters, there is a legal reservation in accordance with Article 121, subsection 13) of the Political Constitution, according to which establishing national taxes and contributions corresponds exclusively to the Legislative Assembly. They add that only the executive regulations (reglamentos ejecutivos) of those laws can develop the precepts thereof, it being understood that they cannot increase the restrictions established nor create those not established by law, and that they must rigorously respect their "essential content," and that, not even in executive regulations or other norms or acts of lower rank, could the law validly delegate the determination of regulations or restrictions that only the Legislative Assembly is empowered to impose. They argue that, thus, all administrative activity in this matter is necessarily regulated, without discretionary powers being able to be granted to the Administration because these would obviously imply an abandonment of the legal reservation itself. They indicate that Article 40 of the Regulations to the Income Tax Law regulates *"the determination of the taxable base of real estate capital"* instead of numeral 34 which, as indicated, was repealed. They argue that said tax complies with the constitutive elements of the tax regarding the establishment of the taxable matter and the taxable event in accordance with Articles 27, 27 bis, and 27 ter of the Income Tax Law; for its part, regulations can develop the precepts of the laws they regulate but respecting the essential content, so this principle is not violated at any time. They add that the claimant considers the principle of legality violated because the Executive Branch must create the regulations for the laws without modifying them and only has the power to clarify and update the Law. On this matter, they consider that this principle has not been violated by the Administration, since the legislator, in Article 28 of the Income Tax Law, contemplated the possibility, power, or right of the taxpayer to choose the income tax regime under which they preferred to tax their real estate capital income. They also recall that Article 140, subsection 3) of the Political Constitution grants the Executive Branch the constitutional power to sanction and promulgate laws, regulate them, execute them, and ensure their exact compliance; a regulatory power that allows the Executive Branch to validly issue Executive Decrees, known as regulations, which is part of the administrative function and, therefore, subordinated to the principle of legality, so that every regulation requires a norm of legal rank that authorizes it, expressly or implicitly. They recall that the Administration is empowered to issue regulations for the various laws promulgated, in accordance with the provisions of numeral 140, subsections 3 and 18 of the Political Constitution, as a duty and attribution that corresponds jointly to the President of the Republic and the respective Government Minister, but also in accordance with Article 140, subsection 18) of the Constitution, it can *"issue the other regulations and ordinances necessary for the prompt execution of the laws."* They argue that if an analysis is made of what is established in the Income Tax Law in complement with what is indicated in its Regulations, it is verified that the Tax on Real Estate Capital Income is an autonomous schedule from the Tax on Profits; if it were not so, the legislator would not have established the situations by which real estate capital income can or must be taxed through the tax on profits regime. Therefore, the legislator did not authorize in Article 29 of the Income Tax Law the application, in determining the taxable income of the Tax on Real Estate Capital Income, of the deductible costs and expenses of Article 8 of the Income Tax Law which are specific to determining the net income of the Tax on Profits, since these are autonomous tax schedules. They indicate that, thus, numeral 40 of the Regulations to the Income Tax Law — before the last reform of Article 34 — reiterates what was established by the legislator in numeral 29 of the Income Tax Law, that is, that the taxpayer who is taxed under the real estate capital income regime will only have the right — exceptionally — to deduct up to a maximum of 15% for expenses without the need for any receipt or proof. They add that according to the claimant, the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness is violated because the challenged regulatory norm gives the Tax Administration tools to create online forms through which their represented party was not allowed to apply the deductible expenses that occurred during the fiscal period, and there was only the option to apply the 15% of gross income as an "expense." On this matter, they reiterate that the legislator granted the taxpayer the power to choose whether they wanted to be taxed on real estate capital income or on profits, and gave them the possibility to change from the CED3 schedule to the CED4 schedule, provided they meet the requirements established in the Regulations to the Income Tax Law, or with what is provided in resolution No. DGT-R-058-2019; consequently, they consider that there is no arbitrary act on the part of the Administration, but rather there is objective legal support or foundation for the administrative conduct being questioned. They add that, on the other hand, the claimant indicates that there is a violation of the principle of economic capacity and non-confiscation because the challenged norms, by removing the deductible expenses expressed in the Law, endanger the economic capacity of their represented party since they arbitrarily raised their tax burden; however, on this matter, they recall that Article 18 of the Political Constitution provides that it is the obligation of Costa Ricans to contribute to public expenses, which means that this duty is fulfilled through the taxes that the State establishes or authorizes — as the case may be — and that these must be based on the general principles of Tax Law that are implicit in that norm. They argue that this is why it is said that the tax must be fair, based on the contribution of all according to their economic capacity, which is reflected in the maxim that those with a higher level of income pay proportionally more taxes, and therefore, in their opinion, this principle is not violated. On the other hand, regarding non-confiscation, they recall that this principle of tax law means that a levy that implies the appropriation of all the assets and income of the subject cannot be applied; a principle that regulates the taxes imposed on taxpayers, so that the contribution to the sustenance of public spending through levies cannot consist of depriving the taxpayer of all their income and property. Therefore, in this sense, this principle seeks to protect the right to private property, since the wealth of the taxpayer cannot be exhausted. They indicate that, notwithstanding the above, in the matter under study, this is a decision that the taxpayer makes, since subsection 3) of numeral 29 of the Income Tax Law establishes the taxable base for determining the net income of the tax on real estate capital income by stating that *"for the deduction of expenses, the taxpayer may apply a reduction of fifteen percent (15%) of the gross income, without any need for proof and without the possibility of any other deduction."* They argue that this rule is clear in determining the net income of the tax on real estate capital income; that is, the legislator established for this tax schedule that the taxpayer who decides to remain in the real estate capital income regime may exceptionally deduct up to 15% for expenses, because the legislator granted the taxpayer the power to move to or be taxed under the Tax on Profits regime, through business activity and/or allocation. They add that, in the claimant's opinion, the principles of equality, legality, reasonableness, and proportionality are violated because there must be proportionality between the legal rule adopted and the purpose it pursues. Furthermore, that the regulation, by imposing the restriction on deductible expenses, violates the principle of equality because it discriminated against Real Estate Capital Income taxpayers in relation to taxpayers subject to the Tax on Profits, who can apply the deductible expenses or apply, if they see fit, the single 25% deduction of Article 8, subsection s).
On this matter, it warns that, for the reasons explained regarding the fact that these are two different taxes: Taxable Income from Real Estate Capital and Income Tax on Profits, there can be no violation of the principle of equality because the object of the real estate capital income tax falls on passive income, i.e., it does not require an ongoing business to obtain the gain because this is obtained by the mere fact of owning a real estate property under lease or sublease; on the contrary, the object of the tax on profits falls on active income, i.e., generated as a product of a business and/or professional activity. It reiterates that the legislator did not recognize the same deductible expenses for the real estate capital income tax as for the tax on profits, which does not imply inequality or disproportionality as the claimant seeks to view it. It states that the challenged Article 34 only comes to regulate *"the determination of the taxable base of real estate capital"*, which can be taxed under the regime of the tax on profits or remain under the regime of the real estate capital income tax. It adds that regarding the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, these suppose that norms and acts of authority require—for their validity—not only to have been promulgated by competent bodies and under legally established procedures, but also to pass a substantive review for their concordance with the supreme norms, principles, and values of the Constitution (formal and material), which are configured as patterns of reasonableness; that is, that a norm or public or private act is only valid when, in addition to its formal conformity with the Constitution, it is reasonably founded and justified according to constitutional ideology, thereby seeking not only that the law is not irrational, arbitrary, or capricious, but also that the selected means have a real and substantial relationship with its object. It argues that, in applying this to the specific case, it is denoted that in no way are the principles of reasonableness and proportionality violated as alleged by the claimant, since Article 34 of the Regulation to the Income Tax Law has not modified the taxable base specific to the real estate capital income tax that the legislator established in Article 29 of the Income Tax Law. It states that according to the claimant, the right to private property is violated because these tax burdens do not take into account the deductible expenses established by Law 7092 and the taxpayer is forced to assume a tax that puts their private property at risk since they will not be able to sustain it and will have the possibility of losing their assets; notwithstanding the foregoing, it clarifies that the taxable base specific to the tax on real estate capital income has not been modified since this was born as a new schedule of the Income Tax Law, making it distinct and independent from other taxes, including the tax on profits, and, therefore, the rules of other taxes cannot be applied in determining the taxable income of the tax on real estate capital income, this because it is an autonomous schedule since its creation has fulfilled the constitutive elements of the tax such as: triggering event, taxpayer, rates, basis of calculation, exemptions, among others, this by constitutional and legal mandate (Article 121, subsection 13) of the Political Constitution, in concordance with numeral 5 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Tax Code).
Conclusions:
It concludes by requesting that this unconstitutionality action be declared without merit.
**7.-** By resolution at 9 hours 49 minutes of May 20, 2022, the hearings granted to the Attorney General's Office and the Ministry of Finance were deemed answered, and the action was passed for study to the Reporting Judge.
**8.-** The hearing indicated in Articles 10 and 85 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction is dispensed with, based on the power granted to the Chamber by numeral 9 ibidem, deeming this resolution sufficiently founded on evident principles and norms, as well as on the jurisprudence of this Tribunal.
**9.-** In the proceedings, the prescriptions of law have been fulfilled.
Redacted by Judge **Garita Navarro**; and, **Considering:** **I.- Preliminary. Clarification on the identification of the norm subject to the action.** The claimant challenges Article 34 of Executive Decree No. 18445-H of September 9, 1988, "Regulation to the Income Tax Law," added by Article 2 of Executive Decree No. 41818 of June 17, 2019, a provision relating to the taxable base of real estate capital. This norm was in force at the time of filing the action on September 14, 2021, because although Executive Decree 18445-H was repealed by Article 106 of [Placa1] of July 22, 2021, which is the "Regulation to the Income Tax Law," it did not enter into force until December 17, 2021, the date of its publication in Gazette No. 243, Supplement No. 257 of December 17, 2021. Now, from the analysis of the current regulations, it is observed that Article 40 contains a provision with identical content and wording to Article 34 of Executive Decree 18445-H, added by Article 2 of Executive Decree No. 41818 of June 17, 2021, challenged by the appellant, a situation that was not contemplated by the Tribunal at the time of admitting the unconstitutionality action, by resolution at sixteen hours thirteen minutes of March twenty-fourth, two thousand twenty-two. Therefore, in order to clearly identify the norm subject to the action, it is established that the object of the action is Article 40 of Executive Decree No. 43198-H of July 22, 2021, published in Gazette No. 243, Supplement No. 257 of December 17, 2021, "Regulation to the Income Tax Law." **On Admissibility:** **II.- On the admissibility requirements in this process.-** The unconstitutionality action was established with the purpose of guaranteeing the supremacy of the Political Constitution over norms or other provisions of a general nature, so that, by virtue of this and by express will of the legislator, it is a process of a high technical degree, such that, for its admissibility, certain requirements established by the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction must be strictly met. Among the required elements are: the adequate substantiation of the grounds for unconstitutionality with a specific citation of the Constitutional right considered infringed (Article 78), the signature of the person filing the action duly authenticated by a legal professional with the due payment of legal taxes (Article 78), the accreditation of the standing conditions (powers and certifications), the literal certification of the writ where the reservation of unconstitutionality was made in the prior matter (Article 79). In this specific matter, it is observed that the requirements stipulated in numerals 78 and 79 of the procedural Law have been met.
**III.- The standing rules in unconstitutionality actions and standing in the specific case.** - Furthermore, it must be recalled that Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction regulates the assumptions that determine the admissibility of unconstitutionality actions, requiring the existence of a matter pending resolution in an administrative or judicial venue in which unconstitutionality is invoked. This requirement is not necessary in the cases provided for in the second and third paragraphs of that article, i.e., when by the nature of the norm there is no individual or direct injury; when it is based on the defense of diffuse interests or those that concern the community as a whole, or when it is filed by the Attorney General, the Comptroller General, the Prosecutor General, or the Ombudsman, in these latter cases, within their respective spheres of competence. Now, in the specific case, the Chamber considers that the claimant has standing to file the action in accordance with the provisions of the first paragraph of Article 75 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction since, in the main proceeding being processed before the Administrative Litigation Tribunal under case file number 21-000342-1027-CA, the unconstitutionality of the challenged norm was alleged as a reasonable means to protect the rights considered harmed in that proceeding, and it is related to the matters under discussion therein.
**IV.- Object of the challenge.** As ordered in Considering I of this pronouncement, the object of the action is Article 40 of Executive Decree No. 43198-H of July 22, 2021, published in Gazette No. 243, Supplement No. 257 of December 17, 2021, "Regulation to the Income Tax Law," which provides:
*"Article 40.- Taxable base of real estate capital. The taxable base of real estate capital is the total amount of the consideration, from which the expenses detailed below may be deducted, as applicable:* *a) The amount corresponding to fifteen percent (15%) of the gross amount of the consideration, or* *b) In the event that the taxpayer is a non-financial investment fund, the amount corresponding to twenty percent (20%) of the gross amount of the consideration.* *The taxpayer may deduct these expenses without the need for receipts or any proof. These expenses are the only amounts that the taxpayer obtaining real estate capital income may deduct to determine the tax base, without it being possible to deduct amounts greater than these or to apply the other rules on expense deductibility contained in the Income Tax Law. "* The complaints of unconstitutionality raised by the claimant are: infringement of the principle of legal reservation in tax matters, violation of the principle of prohibition of arbitrariness, injury to the principle of economic capacity and non-confiscation, infringement of the principle of legal certainty, injury to the principles of legality, equality, reasonableness and proportionality, because: **a)** the norm modifies the basis of calculation of the tax on real estate capital income because it does not contemplate deductible expenses in their generality but rather limits them to 2 single deductions of 15% and 20%; and **b)** it contains elements that are not established in Article 29 of the Income Tax Law No. 7092.
**V.- On the inadmissibility of the action by reason of the object.-** This Chamber, in its reiterated jurisprudence, has indicated that claims relating to the alleged excess or contradiction of a regulatory norm with respect to the law are matters of legality, the discussion of which does not correspond to this jurisdiction, but rather it is for the ordinary judge to determine the scope of the interpretation and application of the Law and, consequently, it is they who are called to establish whether a regulatory norm violates or does not violate the legal norm. In this regard, in judgment No. 2013-013360 at 14 hours 30 minutes of October 9, 2013, it was indicated that:
*"[T]he incompatibility raised by the actor is not between the regulatory provision and Constitutional Law, but between the regulation and Law No. 8444 (…), all of which determines the impropriety of this action. Indeed, it clearly goes beyond the scope of the Chamber's competencies to elucidate whether what is provided by the questioned regulation fully conforms or not to the provisions of Law No. 8444 (…) all of which must rather be discussed and aired before the Administrative Litigation Jurisdiction, which, under the provisions of Article 49 of the Political Constitution, aims to guarantee the legality of the administrative function of the State, its institutions, and any other public law entity, which constitutes precisely the object of this matter, that is, to determine the compatibility between Law No. 8444 and its regulation, all of which is outside the scope of competencies of this Constitutional Jurisdiction by way of action, in accordance with Article 10 of the Political Constitution and Article 73, subsection a) of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction. Consequently, this unconstitutionality action must be summarily rejected, so that the actor may resort to the ordinary Jurisdiction in defense of the rights and interests they consider violated."* Similarly, this Tribunal has pronounced in judgments No. 2012-004792 at 14 hours 30 minutes of April 18, 2012, No. 2011-008712 at 15 hours 56 minutes of June 29, 2011, No. 2020-011171 at 16 hours 04 minutes of June 17, 2020, and No. 2021-019041 at 9 hours 20 minutes of August 25, 2021. It has also been stated:
*"Having analyzed the arguments, the Tribunal concludes that what has been presented is a conflict of a legal nature, which is not susceptible to being heard through the unconstitutionality action, but rather must be heard in the ordinary venue. The questioned competencies and the apparent confrontation between the legal norm and the Decree, suppose a legality conflict. On repeated occasions (by way of example, in judgment No. 2000-01149 at 15:39 hours of February 2, 2000) the Chamber has held that determining whether a regulatory norm, like the one challenged, transgresses or exceeds what is provided in a law, is a matter of legality whose discussion does not correspond to this jurisdiction. Article 49 of the Fundamental Charter assigns the control of the legality of the administrative function of the State to the administrative litigation jurisdiction, not to the constitutional one. If this Chamber were to attempt to oversee, through the unconstitutionality action, the various possible hypotheses of infringement of the principle of legality that may occur in administrative offices, in practice it would supplant—against the constitutional text—the courts of that matter. Consequently, if the representative of the claimant association considers that the questioned regulatory norm is illegal or has been applied erroneously, it can resort, as it has indeed done, to the administrative-litigation jurisdiction in defense of its rights"* (see judgment No. 2021-011972 at 9 hours 30 minutes of May 26, 2021).
Thus, it does not fall to this Constitutional Court to determine whether a regulation is contrary to a law, nor whether there has been an excess in the regulatory power, unless a violation of a fundamental right or constitutional principle is found.
In this regard, it is pertinent to specify that if it is evident, and it is obvious, that the regulatory provision exceeds, suppresses, or contradicts the text of the Law, there is no doubt that, in a crude manner, the principle of force, authority, or efficacy of the Law is violated; a principle that has constitutional coverage and must be protected by this Court. The principle of force, authority, or efficacy of law refers us to the power (active force), resistance (passive force), and the system for challenging the Law. Based on the first aspect of the concept, the Law, once it comes into effect, repeals or amends any provision of equal or lower rank. Based on the second, the Law cannot be repealed or amended by a provision of lower rank. Lastly, based on the third, the Law can only be challenged for reasons of unconstitutionality and, therefore, can only be annulled through a resolution of the Constitutional Chamber. The constitutional basis of this principle is in Article 129 of the Constitution, which states that the Law can only be repealed, abrogated, or amended by a later provision of equal rank. Furthermore, the principle of force, authority, or efficacy of law is an essential presupposition of the social and democratic Rule of Law, since it stems from a core idea: the parliamentary normative act is superior in rank to the normative act issued by the other Branches of Government, especially the Executive Branch, which means that all Branches of Government, when exercising normative authority (Article 6(d) of the General Public Administration Law), must conform to the will of the legislator. If this does not occur, the normative rank of the Law is disregarded; the Law, in the hierarchical normative scale, occupies the third place in importance after the Political Constitution and International Treaties (Articles 10 and 7) and, consequently, a key principle of the social and democratic Rule of Law is violated. Therefore, when a regulatory provision clearly and manifestly exceeds, suppresses, or contradicts a Law of the Republic, Article 129 of the Constitution and the principle of force, authority, or efficacy of the Law are violated, and the Constitutional Court does have jurisdiction in this matter, without prejudice to the jurisdiction also held by members of the ordinary courts when the aforementioned situation does not arise.
In the case under analysis, it is this Court's opinion that what the petitioner raised as a constitutional issue is actually a matter that must be resolved through the legality review process, as it involves a potential conflict of legal norms, specifically between Article 29 of the Income Tax Law No. 7092 and the challenged article, in which no obvious and manifest contradiction between the Law and the challenged Regulation is evident. Essentially, because the Income Tax Law clearly establishes the essential elements of income from real estate capital, specifically: the taxable event (Article 27 bis), the taxpayer (Article 28), and, of particular relevance for the resolution of this action, the taxable base (Article 29), as well as the applicable rate. Article 29 of the Income Tax Law provides as follows:
***“Article 29- Taxable income from real estate capital.*** *1. The taxable income from real estate capital shall be the difference between gross income and deductible expenses.* *2. Gross income shall be understood as the total amount of the consideration.* *3. For the deduction of expenses, the taxpayer may apply a reduction of fifteen percent (15%) of gross income, without the need for any proof and without the possibility of any other deduction.* *4. Non-financial investment funds, regulated in Law No. 7732, Securities Market Regulatory Law, of December 17, 1997, may apply a reduction of twenty percent (20%) of gross income as a deductible expense without the need for any proof and without the possibility of any other deduction.”* It is therefore evident that Article 40 of Executive Decree No. 43198-H of July 22, 2021, refers to the single, automatic deductibility in the same manner as dealt with by the law (subsection 3 of Article 29), whereby the regulation would not be overreaching as accused by the petitioner and, on the contrary, is in compliance with what the letter of the law states regarding this special regime.
Moreover, upon analyzing the petitioner's arguments regarding the alleged overreaching of the challenged regulatory article with respect to the Income Tax Law, it is evident that it is a matter that must be resolved through the legality review process, as it involves a potential conflict of legal norms, specifically between Article 29 of the Income Tax Law No. 7092 and the challenged article, as it states: “*the wording and application by the Administration of Article 34 of the Regulation goes against what is established in Article 29, subsection 1 of Law 7092*” and that the challenged provision “*becomes unconstitutional given that this regulatory provision is modifying a crucial quantitative element of the taxable event of the real estate capital income tax, since it eliminates the concept of deductible expense and only mentions the word ‘expense,’ and from there, it proceeds to make modifications that can only be made by Law issued by Parliament. Determining only certain expenses via regulation contradicts Law 7092, in its Article 29, which clearly expresses the concept of ‘deductible expenses.’ In this way, the limits of logic and the constitutional principles of proportionality and reasonableness are grossly violated. The Executive Branch improperly appropriated the power to create a new taxable base, which disregards the possibility of applying the deductible expenses expressed in Articles 8 and Article 29 of Law 7092.”* In light of the foregoing, the Chamber arrives at the conclusion that the unconstitutionality action is inadmissible by reason of its object, and it is so declared.
**VI.- Regarding the disagreement with the application of the challenged provision.-** Another important element to address when analyzing the appropriateness of carrying out a substantive analysis of an unconstitutionality action—an element that is also closely related to its object—is the need to ensure that the underlying claim is not aimed at questioning the application that was made of the challenged provision. In this case under study, the petitioner's filing brief observes that the petitioner himself affirms that, in the underlying matter of this action, the improper application by the Tax Administration of Article 34 of the Regulation to the Income Tax Law is being disputed; a claim he makes in similar terms throughout the action brief, since from a careful reading of that filing, it is clear that all the objections raised are limited to questioning the application of the provision to the company he represents, which, in his opinion, harms it. In this sense, he indicates that “*Article 34 of the Regulation is generating actions by the Tax Administration in which they are not applying what the Income Tax Law says regarding the ability to apply deductible expenses*.” Furthermore, the petitioner's objections are aimed at questioning the—normative—requirement to use form D125, the lack of boxes on that form, the impossibility of presenting all deductible expenses without the restriction established by the challenged provision, the disagreement with the percentage of deductible expenses, the convenience or not of transferring taxpayers from the profits regime to the real estate capital income regime, the possibility of the taxpayer being penalized for filing late returns, with zero tax, or with inaccurate data, for which reason he requests, as the underlying claim, that the annulment of several actions and resolutions issued by the Tax Administration under the challenged provision—and those of Law 7092 which it regulates—be ordered, because he considers that its application has been detrimental to his represented party. On this point, this Chamber has stated that “*the improper application of the law or its erroneous interpretation in the specific case is not a matter properly heard through the unconstitutionality action*” (see rulings No. 5966-94 of 3:54 p.m. on October 11, 1994, and No. 2018-010334 of 2:30 p.m. on June 27, 2018, among others); therefore, the petitioner's disagreement must be resolved in the appropriate ordinary courts. It must not be forgotten that this Chamber has specified, regarding the nature and purpose of constitutional review, that:
“(…) the constitutional jurisdiction, exercised in one of its modalities through the procedures for a declaration of unconstitutionality, guarantees the primacy of the Constitution and judges the conformity or disconformity with it of the challenged laws, provisions, or acts, as well as their concordance with the norms and principles of international or community law in force in the Republic. It is the very purity of the legal system that is aired in this jurisdictional venue, by comparing the fundamental norm and the laws that develop it. (Ruling number 1319-97, of two fifty-one p.m. on March fourth, nineteen ninety-seven. In the same sense, ruling number 2008-14193, of ten a.m. and three minutes on September twenty-fourth, two thousand eight). That is to say, in these proceedings, the individual harm that the plaintiff may exhibit is not addressed preferentially, as what is sought is constitutional supremacy; that is, the satisfaction of a general interest that acts subject to public law… and norms conform to the constitutional order” (see ruling No. 2012-010986 of 3:05 p.m. on August 14, 2012).
Consequently, the action is also inadmissible in that it seeks, through this channel, to discuss and analyze the application made of the challenged provision, which is a matter properly within the purview of the legality review process.
**VII.- Conclusion**.- Based on the considerations stated above, this action is inadmissible for substantive analysis by reason of its object, because the petitioner's disagreement lies in the alleged non-conformity of the challenged provision with Article 29 of the Income Tax Law and in attacking the application of the challenged provision, matters which are not subject to the cognizance of the constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the action must be declared without merit, as is hereby ordered.
**VIII.- Documentation provided to the case file.-** The parties are warned that if they have provided any paper document, as well as objects or evidence contained in any additional electronic, computer, magnetic, optical, telematic device, or one produced by new technologies, these must be withdrawn from the court office within a maximum period of 30 business days, counted from the notification of this ruling.
Otherwise, all material not removed within this period shall be destroyed, as provided in the "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial," approved by the Corte Plena in session N° 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published in Boletín Judicial number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, in session N° 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.-
Por tanto:
Se declara sin lugar la acción.-
|  | ||
| [Nombre4] . | ||
| Presidente |
|  | ||
| [Nombre5] . |
|  | ||
| Paul Rueda L. |
The request lacks a coherent source text chunk to translate because the provided content is a long, opaque base64-encoded string (likely an image) and a tiny HTML snippet showing an image tag and a name abbreviation. There is no Costa Rican Spanish legal document excerpt present in the text you’ve actually pasted (the MIME block and the fragment `<p>...<span>Luis Fdo.</span></p>` are not a legal text chunk).
Therefore, based on the explicit instruction to *only* translate the provided chunk and not invent context, I must output the English translation of what was given:
--- Luis Fdo.
Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
[Nombre6] .
Jose Roberto Garita N.
Digitally Signed Document -- Verification code --
Revisión del Documento Res. Nº 2023008846 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas treinta minutos del diecinueve de abril de dos mil veintitres .
Acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por [Nombre1] , mayor, casado, con cédula CED1, abogado, vecino de San Juan de Tibás, en su condición de apoderado judicial de la empresa Strike While The Iron Is Hot Limitada, con cédula jurídica CED2, para que se declare inconstitucional el artículo 34 del Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 18445-H.
Resultando:
1.- Por escrito recibido en la Secretaría de la Sala a las 8 horas 58 minutos del 14 de septiembre de 2021, el accionante solicita, en resumen, que se declare la inconstitucionalidad del artículo 34 del Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 18445-H de 9 de septiembre de 1988, por estimarlo contrario a los artículos 9, 11, 28, 33, 49, 45, 46 y 121, inciso 13, de la Constitución Política y a los principios constitucionales de reserva de ley, legalidad, interdicción de la arbitrariedad, capacidad económica, igualdad, razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, principio de no confiscatoriedad y derecho a la propiedad privada. Manifiesta que la norma impugnada, establece, vía reglamento, una modificación con respecto a la base del cálculo del impuesto a las rentas de capital inmobiliario al no contemplar la figura de los gastos deducibles e indicar que éstos se limitan a dos deducciones únicas de 15% o 20%, de modo que el artículo 34 determina, por encima de la ley, cuáles son los gastos que se pueden aplicar en el impuesto a las rentas de capital inmobiliario, lo que estima que es arbitrario en tanto la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 7092 regula tanto la posibilidad de aplicar los gastos deducibles o las deducciones únicas. Considera que la norma coloca al contribuyente en una situación de indefensión al darle solamente la posibilidad de aplicar deducciones fijas sin tomar en consideración su capacidad económica, con el agravante de que, de no pagarlas, se expone a ser objeto de sanciones y cargas tributarias confiscatorias. Añade que el párrafo final del artículo 34 impugnado, contiene elementos que no están establecidos en el artículo 29 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 7092, como por ejemplo que la ley no indica que las deducciones del 15% o del 20% sean los únicos importes que se pueden aplicar a la renta bruta; tampoco indica nada sobre alguna restricción a los gastos deducibles como expresa el numeral 34 impugnado al disponer: “ni aplicar las demás normas sobre deducibilidad de gastos contenidas en la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta”. Señala que el artículo 34 impugnado, modifica un elemento cuantitativo crucial del hecho generador del impuesto a las rentas de capital inmobiliario al eliminar el concepto de gasto deducible y solamente menciona la palabra “gasto”, para luego hacer modificaciones a lo dispuesto en la ley. Indica que determinar vía reglamento que solamente se pueden hacer ciertas deducciones, contradice lo dispuesto en el artículo 29 de la Ley No. 7092, que claramente expresa el concepto de “gastos deducibles” (inciso a) párrafo 4º), lo que en su criterio lesiona los principios constitucionales de proporcionalidad y razonabilidad. Añade que la norma reglamentaria no le permite a la empresa aplicar los gastos deducibles que se produjeron durante el período fiscal, solo le queda la opción de aplicar el 15% del ingreso bruto como “gasto”; situación que coloca a su representada y a los contribuyentes del impuesto de rentas de capital, en una situación de desigualdad en relación con los contribuyentes del impuesto de utilidades, quienes sí pueden aplicar los gastos deducibles del período correspondiente. Considera que la Administración Tributaria, de manera arbitraria, le arrebató al contribuyente la libertad de poder elegir el gasto deducible estipulado en el inciso 1 del artículo 29 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 7092, por lo que se aprecia claramente un abuso en la potestad reglamentaria que rompió el principio de reserva de ley. Manifiesta que la norma impugnada, al remover los gastos deducibles expresados en la Ley, pone en peligro la capacidad económica de los contribuyentes pues eleva su carga tributaria de forma arbitraria, ello por cuanto la empresa, en algunos períodos, puede tener gastos que, de poder ser deducidos, podrían superar el 15% establecido por el Reglamento y aplicado por la Administración Tributaria. Argumenta que, según el principio de razonabilidad, para que una norma o actuación del Estado sea legítima, debe responder a una necesidad imperiosa que, en este caso, sería llevar ingresos al Estado. Añade que la idoneidad de la norma o actuación, responde a si la medida impugnada fue la mejor opción, y según lo expuesto en la jurisprudencia y lo expresado con respecto a la doctrina constitucional, la medida tomada no es la mejor pues el Reglamento no tiene la potestad de cambiar la base imponible al eliminar el concepto de gasto deducible e imponer otros gastos que son facultativos, lo que significa que la medida contenida en el artículo 34 del Reglamento, es desproporcional hacia los contribuyentes del impuesto a las rentas de capital inmobiliario, convirtiéndose el tributo en confiscatorio al aumentar, sin alternativa, su carga tributaria. Finalmente, recuerda que el principio de no confiscatoriedad y el principio de respeto a la propiedad privada, están contemplados en los artículos 40 y 45 de la Constitución Política y disponen que no puede haber cargas impositivas tan fuertes que destruyan la capacidad económica de los contribuyentes; sin embargo, en su criterio, esto es lo que ocurre cuando se aplica la norma cuestionada que obliga al contribuyente a pagar un monto que puede sobrepasar su capacidad económica, sin alternativa, lo cual pone en riesgo su haber; situación que contraviene la premisa básica del Derecho Tributario que postula que su fin último no es pagar tributos, sino pagar lo que corresponde según la capacidad económica de cada uno para el beneficio del país. Finaliza solicitando que se declare con lugar la acción, con sus consecuencias.
2.- A efecto de fundamentar la legitimación para promover esta acción de inconstitucionalidad, la parte accionante señala que proviene del párrafo 1º del artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, siendo el asunto previo un proceso ordinario que se tramita en el expediente No. 21-000342-1027-CA en el que se discute la aplicación por parte de la Administración Tributaria del artículo 34 del Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 18445-H y en el que se invocó la inconstitucionalidad de esa norma como medio razonable de amparar el derecho que se estima lesionado.
3.- Por resolución de las 16 horas 13 minutos de 24 de marzo de 2022, se le dio curso a la acción, confiriéndole audiencia a la Procuraduría General de la República y al Ministro de Hacienda.
4.- Los edictos a los que se refiere el párrafo segundo del artículo 81 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional fueron publicados en los números 63, 64 y 65 del Boletín Judicial, de los días 01, 04 y 05 de abril de 2022.
5.- La Procuraduría General de la República rindió su informe a través de [Nombre2] en su condición de Procuradora General Adjunta, mediante documento presentado en la Secretaría de la Sala el 22 de abril de 2022. Indica que en criterio de su representada, se cumple el requisito de admisibilidad de la acción por cuanto la parte accionante está legitimada al amparo del artículo 75 párrafo primero de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional.
Sobre las rentas de capital inmobiliario: indica que el numeral impugnado hace referencia a las llamadas “rentas de capital inmobiliario”. Argumenta que la Ley de Fortalecimiento de las Finanzas Públicas No. 9635 del 3 de diciembre del 2018 que entró en vigencia en julio del 2019, modificó la Ley 7092 del Impuesto sobre la Renta, creando el capítulo XI denominado “Rentas de Capital y Ganancias y Pérdidas de Capital”, el cual establece el régimen de rentas del capital inmobiliario, provenientes del arrendamiento, subarrendamiento, así como de la constitución o cesión de derechos o facultades de uso o goce de bienes inmuebles, todo ello de conformidad con lo que dispone el inciso 1) del artículo 27 ter de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, el cual, en lo que interesa, señala:
“Artículo 27 ter- Materia imponible. Las rentas del capital se clasifican en rentas del capital inmobiliario, rentas del capital mobiliario y ganancias y pérdidas del capital.
1. Rentas del capital inmobiliario.
(…)” Indica que es el artículo 29 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta el que dispone lo concerniente a las rentas del capital inmobiliario, señalando lo siguiente:
“Artículo 29- Renta imponible del capital inmobiliario.
1. La renta imponible del capital inmobiliario será la diferencia entre la renta bruta y los gastos deducibles.
2. Se entenderá por renta bruta el importe total de la contraprestación.
3. Para la deducción de gastos, el contribuyente podrá aplicar una reducción del quince por ciento (15%) del ingreso bruto, sin necesidad de prueba alguna y sin posibilidad de ninguna otra deducción.
4. Los fondos de inversión no financieros, regulados en la Ley N.° 7732, Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores, de 17 de diciembre de 1997, podrán aplicar una reducción del veinte por ciento (20%) del ingreso bruto, como gasto deducible sin necesidad de prueba alguna y sin posibilidad de ninguna otra deducción.” Aduce que, de esta manera, a partir del 1° de julio de 2019 cuando entra en vigencia la Ley No. 9635, los contribuyentes que realicen actividades referidas a arrendamientos, subarrendamientos, constitución o cesión de derechos o facultades de uso o goce de bienes muebles, intangibles y otros derechos de propiedad intelectual, así como de bienes inmuebles, podrán optar por tributar como contribuyentes dentro del régimen de capital inmobiliario, siempre que cuenten con un empleado (cotizando en la CCSS) y que declare sus rentas durante un mínimo de cinco períodos fiscales en dicho régimen, de acuerdo con lo establecido en la ley y su reglamento. Advierte que la ley establece que dicho régimen es optativo, es decir, a escogencia del contribuyente, por un período de 5 años, pudiendo regresar al régimen anterior, una vez transcurrido ese período de tiempo. Señala que el artículo 28 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta establece quienes podrán considerarse como contribuyentes de las rentas de capital inmobiliario, señalando que, para optar a la aplicación de este régimen, las personas físicas, jurídicas, entes colectivos sin personalidad jurídica y los fondos de inversión que obtengan rentas de este tipo, deberán cumplir con ciertos requisitos para que les sea aplicable este régimen. Indica que si un contribuyente solamente recibe ingresos por alquileres y no tiene otra actividad lucrativa distinta, podrá elegir si tributa conforme a las reglas antes mencionadas, o bien, si prefiere tributar con base en el impuesto sobre utilidad (régimen general) cuya tarifa sería de hasta un 30% calculado sobre las ganancias obtenidas durante el período fiscal. Aclara que esta elección depende de la realidad de cada contribuyente y, fundamentalmente, se requiere revisar el total de gastos deducibles que se podrían aprovechar en cada impuesto: a) si se opta por tributar en el régimen de rentas de capital inmobiliario solamente se puede descontar un 15% por concepto de gastos deducibles (sin necesidad de prueba alguna); b) mientras que en el impuesto sobre utilidades podría descontar la totalidad de los gastos asociados a la actividad de alquiler aportando para ello la prueba que vincule estos gastos con la renta generada y los justifique como necesarios y útiles para generar la renta. Señala que este régimen especial establece una deducción única del 15% sobre los ingresos brutos y una tarifa del 15% del impuesto sobre las utilidades netas, o lo que es lo mismo, una tasa efectiva del 12.75% sobre los ingresos brutos del contribuyente, el cual podrá aplicar sin necesidad de prueba sobre los gastos deducibles necesarios para la producción de la renta gravable. Manifiesta que, a efectos de la presente acción, es necesario tener en cuenta dos aspectos medulares: a) el primero es que el régimen es de carácter optativo según lo indicado; b) el segundo es que si el contribuyente opta por este régimen, no tendrá la necesidad de justificar su deducibilidad conforme lo establece el artículo 8 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la renta ya que, por default, la ley dispone que se debe aplicar automáticamente un 15% de deducibilidad sobre su renta bruta, sin necesidad de prueba alguna de los gastos deducibles.
Sobre los fundamentos de la acción de inconstitucionalidad: indica que su representada no comparte los argumentos planteados por la parte accionante y, por el contrario, considera que el artículo impugnado se encuentra apegado al Derecho de la Constitución. Señala que el artículo 34 del Decreto Ejecutivo N°18445-H fue expresamente derogado por lo dispuesto en el Decreto Ejecutivo N° 43198-H del 22 de julio del 2021, siendo que, en el reglamento vigente, el artículo referente a las rentas del capital inmobiliario se ubica en el numeral 40 de ese nuevo cuerpo normativo. Añade que, tanto el texto del artículo 34 impugnado como el del artículo 40 del Decreto Ejecutivo N°43198-H, tienen una idéntica redacción, por lo que la Procuraduría se pronuncia en relación con el artículo impugnado -34 del Decreto Ejecutivo N°18445-H del 9 de septiembre de 1988-. Manifiesta que, en criterio de la parte accionante, el artículo 34 del Decreto Ejecutivo N°18445-H, hace “una modificación con respecto a la base del cálculo del impuesto a las rentas de capital inmobiliario, al remover la figura de los gastos deducibles o peor aún el indicar que los gastos deducibles son iguales a deducciones únicas, como las de 15% o 20%”, además de que se está “ante la irrupción del Poder Ejecutivo en la competencia exclusiva del Poder Legislativo, al modificar el hecho generador en su aspecto cuantitativo al variar los elementos del aspecto cuantitativo por medio de un reglamento”. Recuerda que el principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria se encuentra debidamente delimitado por la jurisprudencia constitucional, la cual ha sido conteste al señalar que es materia privativa de ley la determinación de los elementos esenciales de los tributos, de suerte tal que el reglamento no puede contener elementos esenciales diferentes de los que se encuentran en la ley, lo cual es un límite a la potestad reglamentaria de la Administración. Indica que la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta dispone claramente los elementos esenciales de las rentas del capital inmobiliario a saber: hecho generador (artículo 27 bis), sujeto pasivo (artículo 28) y base imponible (artículo 29), así como tarifa aplicable; elementos que han sido correctamente ejecutados por el artículo 34 del Decreto Ejecutivo 18445-H. Señala que en lo referente a la norma acusada de inconstitucional, basta con hacer un cuadro comparativo sobre su texto frente al del artículo 29 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta para apreciar que lo que contiene éste no es otra cosa que los elementos que han sido claramente especificados por la norma legal:
Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta Decreto Ejecutivo 18445-H Artículo 29- Renta imponible del capital inmobiliario 1. La renta imponible del capital inmobiliario será la diferencia entre la renta bruta y los gastos deducibles.
2. Se entenderá por renta bruta el importe total de la contraprestación.
3. Para la deducción de gastos, el contribuyente podrá aplicar una reducción del quince por ciento (15%) del ingreso bruto, sin necesidad de prueba alguna y sin posibilidad de ninguna otra deducción.
4. Los fondos de inversión no financieros, regulados en la Ley N.° 7732, Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores, de 17 de diciembre de 1997, podrán aplicar una reducción del veinte por ciento (20%) del ingreso bruto, como gasto deducible sin necesidad de prueba alguna y sin posibilidad de ninguna otra deducción.
Artículo 34.- Base imponible del capital inmobiliario.
La base imponible del capital inmobiliario es el importe total de la contraprestación, al cual se le podrá deducir los gastos que se detallan de seguido, según corresponda:
El contribuyente podrá deducir estos gastos sin necesidad de contar con comprobantes ni prueba alguna. Estos gastos son los únicos importes que podrá deducir el contribuyente que obtenga rentas del capital inmobiliario para determinar la base de imposición, sin que sea posible deducir montos mayores a estos ni aplicar las demás normas sobre deducibilidad de gastos contenidas en la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta.
Señala que, a partir de lo anterior, los elementos esenciales del tributo se encuentran debidamente establecidos por la ley, de manera que el numeral 34 impugnado prácticamente lo que hace es reproducir lo dispuesto en la norma legal, con lo cual, no lleva razón la parte accionante toda vez que los elementos esenciales propios del tributo en el caso de las rentas del capital inmobiliario, se encuentran claramente determinados por la ley y ejecutados en el reglamento, de suerte tal que no existe vulneración al principio de reserva de ley, ni a los preceptos constitucionales contenidos en los artículos 9 y 121 de la Constitución Política. Así las cosas, indica que no es aceptable la acusación de que el reglamento ha modificado el hecho generador en su aspecto cuantitativo, como tampoco que se hayan variado los elementos del aspecto cuantitativo, en particular la base imponible, como se acusa. Argumenta que, para su representada, no hay vulneración alguna por parte de la norma reglamentaria acusada pues ella se refiere a la deducibilidad única y automática de la misma manera que es tratada por la ley (inciso 3 del artículo 29), con lo cual, el reglamento no estaría extralimitándose como parece entenderlo el accionante y, por el contrario, se encuentra apegado a lo que la letra de la ley expresa sobre este régimen especial. Señala que analizando cada uno de los elementos esenciales del impuesto sobre la renta de capital inmobiliario, es más que evidente que éstos se encuentran establecidos claramente en los numerales 27, 28 y 29 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, por lo que la norma reglamentaria lo que hace es ejecutar la norma legal sin que se presente sobredimensionamiento de lo que la ley contiene. Manifiesta que siguiendo esa línea argumentativa, la Procuraduría tampoco encuentra una vulneración al principio de seguridad jurídica puesto que los elementos esenciales del tributo se encuentran debidamente establecidos en la norma legal que es la que establece un régimen tributario distinto y da la opción de que el contribuyente que no tenga otras actividades lucrativas distintas de las que generan rentas de capital, tribute en los términos que ahí se indica, permitiendo una deducción única del 15 % del ingreso bruto por concepto de gastos. Añade que esa opción no es desconocida por el reglamento impugnado, tal y como se desprende de la lectura del artículo 32 del Reglamento No. 18445-H ya derogado, al establecer:
“Artículo 32.- Contribuyentes que obtengan únicamente rentas del capital inmobiliario.
Los contribuyentes que obtengan únicamente rentas de capital inmobiliario definidos en el artículo 27 ter, inciso 1), deben tributar y declarar conforme a las disposiciones del capítulo XI de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, debido a que no se encuentran afectos a otra actividad lucrativa.
Estos contribuyentes tienen la opción de tributar conforme lo establecido en el artículo 3 ter de este Reglamento. (Así adicionado por el artículo 2° del decreto ejecutivo N° 41818 del 17 de junio del 2019).
A su vez, señala que ese artículo 3 ter adicionado por el Decreto Ejecutivo 41818 -modificado a su vez por el Reglamento No. 43198-H- disponía:
"Artículo 3 ter.- Opción para tributar rentas inmobiliarias en el Impuesto sobre las Utilidades. En el caso de las rentas inmobiliarias indicadas en el artículo 27 ter, inciso 1, de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, cuando los contribuyentes tengan contratado un mínimo de un empleado para la generación de dichas rentas, cuyo salario esté sometido al régimen de cotización de la Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social, podrán optar por tributar por la totalidad de su renta imponible del capital inmobiliario de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 1 de dicha ley, debiendo comunicarlo de previo a la Administración Tributaria y mantenerse en el mismo por un mínimo de cinco años." En criterio de la Procuraduría, las afirmaciones de la sociedad accionante parten de una lectura parcial del reglamento y no toman en cuenta estas disposiciones que refieren a la especificidad del régimen tributario que se establece. Añade que la parte accionante alega que la norma impugnada vulnera los artículos 11 y 33 de la Constitución Política porque crea una discriminación entre los contribuyentes del régimen general y los del régimen de capital inmobiliario pues estos últimos no pueden deducirse la totalidad de sus gastos deducibles en vista de que la norma “le dio las herramientas a la Administración Tributaria para crear formularios en línea con los cuales no se le permitió a la empresa, el aplicar los gastos deducibles que se produjeron durante el período fiscal y solamente estaba la opción de aplicar el 15% del ingreso bruto como “gasto”; sin embargo, en criterio de la Procuraduría, no existe tal violación a esos principios puesto que se está en presencia de un régimen tributario (el de rentas del capital inmobiliario) que es diferente al general, el cual puede ser escogido o no por el contribuyente al momento de declarar su impuesto sobre la renta. Recuerda que al tratarse de un régimen optativo por parte del contribuyente, si éste decide tributar por medio del régimen de rentas del capital inmobiliario, debe de cumplir con los preceptos de dicho régimen y, por tanto, gozará de los beneficios establecidos para éste como por ejemplo, no presentar prueba de su deducibilidad, de modo que se estaría en una posición claramente diferente a la de los contribuyentes del régimen general. Indica que no es correcto afirmar que la empresa accionante no puede aplicar las deducciones del régimen general, sino que, como se señaló anteriormente, si se opta por el régimen del capital inmobiliario solamente se puede aplicar la deducción automática y sin necesidad de prueba del 15% o 20% según sea el caso, lo cual no crea desigualdad ni arbitrariedad alguna entre los contribuyentes del impuesto sobre la renta puesto que se trata de regímenes fiscales diferentes. Añade que, en criterio de su representada, tampoco se da vulneración de los principios de capacidad económica y no confiscatoriedad por cuanto, aquellos contribuyentes que opten por someterse al régimen de capital inmobiliario, tienen establecidas las condiciones de este régimen por lo que está en su decisión, según crean conveniente para sus intereses económicos. Reitera que se está en presencia de un régimen de elección por parte del contribuyente quien debe valorar sus condiciones para optar por el régimen que desea aplicar a efectos de su declaración del impuesto sobre la renta y, en el caso del régimen de capital inmobiliario, el legislador estableció una tarifa de 15% sobre la base imponible, la cual deviene en 12.75% si se considera que el porcentaje de deducción es del 15%. Manifiesta que los principios de no confiscatoriedad, capacidad económica e inviolabilidad de la propiedad privada de los tributos a la luz del Derecho de la Constitución, han sido analizados por la Sala Constitucional y, en términos generales se ha señalado que el impuesto es un medio de política económica que debe armonizarse con el gasto público y la coyuntura económica siendo su límite la capacidad tributaria del particular, de modo que la ordenación de los impuestos debe basarse en los principios de generalidad y equitativa distribución de las cargas públicas. De igual manera se ha señalado por este Tribunal que se considera confiscatorio el gravamen que exceda la capacidad económica o financiera del contribuyente, o bien, si el impuesto absorbe una parte sustancial de la operación gravada, de modo que, para ser constitucionales, los tributos no deben desnaturalizar otros derechos fundamentales porque la Constitución asegura la inviolabilidad de la propiedad privada, así como su libre uso y disposición y prohíbe la confiscación, por lo que no se puede permitir una medida de Tributación que vaya más allá de lo razonable y proporcionado (ver en ese sentido sentencia No. 5749-93 de las 14 horas 33 minutos de 9 de noviembre de 1993). Señala que, a partir de lo anterior, no se puede considerar que exista una vulneración a los principios de capacidad económica o no confiscatoriedad (incluyendo el de inviolabilidad de la propiedad privada) en los términos señalados por la parte accionante en el tanto, el artículo 34 del reglamento impugnado, no hace que el impuesto sobre la renta del capital inmobiliario sea confiscatorio o que atente contra la capacidad económica de la empresa y, por el contrario, siguiendo lo dispuesto por el artículo 29 de la Ley del Impuesto de la Renta, la deducibilidad aplicable en el régimen de capital inmobiliario sea razonable y proporcional a la base imponible del tributo para todos aquellos contribuyentes que opten por este régimen. Agrega que si se opta por aplicar el régimen de las rentas del capital inmobiliario, el contribuyente tiene beneficios que no se tiene en el régimen general como el no presentar prueba alguna sobre los gastos que se deduce, de modo que automáticamente se le otorga un 15% o 20% de deducibilidad sin importar si dichos gastos efectivamente se dieron para la producción de la renta gravada o bien, si se cuenta con las pruebas sobre los gastos deducibles a efecto de determinar si fueron necesarios y útiles para producir la renta. Argumenta que, por otra parte, si el contribuyente considera que tiene una mayor cantidad de gastos deducibles que excede el 15 % permitido, puede optar por seguir dentro del régimen general, quedando en la obligación de contar con las pruebas sobre los gastos deducibles que pretenda aplicar. Manifiesta que para la Procuraduría no es irrazonable o desproporcionada la norma impugnada puesto que el artículo 29 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta dispuso el porcentaje automático de deducibilidad (15% o 20% según sea el caso) siguiendo criterios objetivos, por lo que el artículo 34 que aquí se impugna lo único que hace es reproducir lo dispuesto en la ley y considera que la parte accionante no está haciendo una lectura integral del conjunto de disposiciones reglamentarias que regulan el impuesto sobre rentas de capital inmobiliario. Señala que, a criterio de ese órgano asesor, el artículo 34 Decreto Ejecutivo No. 18445-H del 9 de septiembre de 1988, se encuentra apegado al Derecho de la Constitución y no vulnera ninguna norma o principio contenido en la Constitución Política.
Concluye la Procuraduría que:
6.- Rinde su informe [Nombre3] en su condición de Ministro de Hacienda mediante documento presentado en la Secretaría de la Sala el 19 de mayo de 2022 y manifiesta que mediante la Ley de Fortalecimiento de las Finanzas Públicas No. 9635 de 3 de diciembre de 2018 (en adelante LFFP), se adicionó el Capítulo XI al Título I de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 7092 de 21 de abril de 1988 y sus reformas (en adelante LISR) denominado “Rentas de Capital y Ganancias y Pérdidas de Capital”, estableciéndose un nuevo impuesto sobre las rentas de capital inmobiliario y mobiliario así como sobre las ganancias y pérdidas de capital. Añade que mediante el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 41818-H del 17 de junio del 2019 se reformó el Reglamento de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. DE-18445-H del 9 de septiembre de 1988) (en adelante RLISR) respecto del cual el accionante impugna su artículo 34, estableciéndose en el Título II de dicho Reglamento lo relativo al “Impuesto sobre las Rentas de Capital y Ganancias y Pérdidas de Capital” y, en lo que interesa, se reguló en el artículo 34 “la determinación de la base imponible del capital inmobiliario”. Agrega que, posteriormente, mediante el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 43198-H de 22 de julio de 2021, se derogó el Decreto Ejecutivo No. 41818-H y se reguló en el artículo 40 “la determinación de la base imponible del capital inmobiliario” en lugar del numeral 34, ambos del RLISR, ahora Decreto Ejecutivo No. 43198-H.
“A diferencia de otros impuestos de la LISR, por ejemplo, el Impuesto sobre las Utilidades, que la ley exige la obligación formal de presentar la declaración al final del período fiscal independientemente de que se hayan o no obtenido utilidades, en el Impuesto por Rentas de Capital que no son objeto de retención, la LISR no exige la presentación de la declaración por período fiscal, sino únicamente cuando se realiza el hecho generador, por consiguiente, en este impuesto, primero nace la obligación material (realización del hecho generador) y después la obligación formal (presentación de la declaración) en aplicación de los numerales 28 quáter y 31 quáter de la LISR.” b) Sobre el derecho y/o facultad para tributar las rentas de capital inmobiliario bajo el régimen del Impuesto sobre las Utilidades: argumenta que, para efectos de estas rentas, el legislador contempló la posibilidad, facultad, o el derecho del contribuyente de elegir el régimen -en relación con el pago del impuesto sobre la renta- por el cual prefería tributar sus rentas de capital inmobiliario, ello al establecer en el artículo 28 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta que:
“Los contribuyentes que obtengan rentas del capital inmobiliario, para cuya generación tengan contratado un mínimo de un empleado, podrán optar por tributar por la totalidad de su renta imponible del capital inmobiliario, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el artículo 1 de esta ley, debiendo comunicar, expresamente, esta opción a la Administración Tributaria antes del inicio del período fiscal regulado en el artículo 4 de esta ley, y mantenerla por un mínimo de cinco años” (ver también el artículo 5 del Reglamento a LISR).
Añade que el legislador también estableció, en el artículo 1 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, en qué casos las rentas de capital inmobiliario por actividad empresarial o afectación, deberán tributar bajo el régimen del impuesto sobre las utilidades, y en ese sentido se señala en el párrafo 4 de ese numeral, lo siguiente:
“A los efectos de este impuesto, también tendrán la consideración de actividades lucrativas, debiendo tributar conforme a las disposiciones del impuesto a las utilidades, la obtención de toda renta de capital (...) realizadas, obtenidas por las personas físicas o jurídicas y entes colectivos sin personalidad jurídica, que desarrollen actividades lucrativas en el país, siempre y cuando estas provengan de bienes o derechos cuya titularidad corresponda al contribuyente y se encuentren afectos a la actividad lucrativa” (ver también artículo 4 del RLISR).
Argumenta que, en el mismo sentido, es necesario ver los Transitorios II y VII del Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta vigente No. 43198-H que, en lo conducente, y específicamente en este último Transitorio, indicó en su párrafo 2:
“En el tanto el contribuyente no comunique que opta por declarar conforme al Impuesto sobre las Utilidades, según lo dispuesto en los artículos 28 de la Ley, 5 y 6 de este Reglamento, deberá continuar presentando la declaración auto liquidativa del Impuesto sobre las Rentas de Capital y pagando el Impuesto que corresponda, salvo que deba mantenerse en el Impuesto sobre las Utilidades debido a que las rentas de capital mencionadas están afectas a dicho impuesto.” Manifiesta que, en relación con el procedimiento que debe seguir el contribuyente para trasladar sus rentas de capital inmobiliario al régimen del impuesto sobre las utilidades (actividad empresarial y/o afectación), debe verse la resolución de la Dirección General de Tributación No. DGT-R-058-2019 de las 8 horas 05 minutos del 03 de octubre del 2019. Resume que el impuesto a rentas de capital inmobiliario, es una cédula autónoma del impuesto sobre las utilidades que, de no ser así, el legislador no hubiera establecido las situaciones por las cuales se puede o se debe tributar las rentas de capital inmobiliario mediante el régimen del impuesto sobre las utilidades, por lo tanto, señala que el legislador no autorizó en el artículo 29 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta a aplicar en la determinación de la renta imponible del impuesto sobre capital inmobiliario, los costos y gastos deducibles del artículo 8 de esa misma ley que son propios de la determinación de la renta neta del Impuesto sobre la Utilidades, por tanto, reitera, son cédulas de impuestos autónomas.
“Artículo 29- Renta imponible del capital inmobiliario:
(…)
3. Para la deducción de gastos, el contribuyente podrá aplicar una reducción del quince por ciento (15%) del ingreso bruto, sin necesidad de prueba alguna y sin posibilidad de ninguna otra deducción”.
Argumenta que esta norma es clara en la determinación de la renta neta del impuesto de capital inmobiliario, es decir, el legislador estableció para esta cédula de impuesto que el contribuyente que decida quedarse en el régimen de rentas de capital inmobiliario, podrá deducir de manera excepcional hasta un 15% por concepto de gastos, por cuanto, como se analizó, el legislador le otorgó la facultad al contribuyente de trasladarse o de tributar bajo el régimen del Impuesto sobre las Utilidades, por actividad empresarial y/o por afectación. Agrega que, en relación con lo anterior, el numeral 40 del Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta (antes de la última reforma al artículo 34) reiteraba lo establecido por el legislador en el numeral 29 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, es decir, que el contribuyente que tribute por el régimen de rentas de capital inmobiliario solo tendrá derecho de manera excepcional a deducirse un máximo de un 15% por gastos, “sin necesidad de comprobante o prueba alguna”. Manifiesta que, según el accionante, se vulnera el principio de reserva de ley por el artículo 34 impugnado porque permite un ejercicio abusivo de la potestad reglamentaria; sin embargo, recuerda que el principio de reserva de ley consiste en que solamente mediante ley formal emanada del Poder Legislativo por el procedimiento previsto en la Constitución para la emisión de las leyes, se puede regular el ejercicio de derechos y libertades y en caso de materia tributaria, existe reserva de ley de conformidad con el artículo 121 inciso 13) de la Constitución Política, según el cual corresponde exclusivamente a la Asamblea Legislativa el establecer los impuestos y contribuciones nacionales. Añade que, solo los reglamentos ejecutivos de esas leyes pueden desarrollar los preceptos de aquéllas, entendiéndose que no pueden incrementar las restricciones establecidas ni crear las no establecidas por la ley y que deben respetar rigurosamente su “contenido esencial” y que, ni aun en los reglamentos ejecutivos u otras normas o actos de rango inferior, podría válidamente la ley delegar la determinación de regulaciones o restricciones que solo la Asamblea Legislativa está habilitada a imponer. Aduce que, así las cosas, toda actividad administrativa en esta materia es necesariamente reglada, sin poder otorgarse a la Administración potestades discrecionales porque estas implicarían obviamente un abandono de la propia reserva de ley. Señala que el artículo 40 del Reglamento de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta regula “la determinación de la base imponible del capital inmobiliario” en lugar del numeral 34 que, como se indicó, fue derogado. Argumenta que dicho impuesto cumple con los elementos constitutivos del tributo en cuanto al establecimiento de la materia imponible y el hecho generador de conformidad con los artículos 27, 27 bis y 27 ter de la Ley del Impuesto Sobre la Renta; por su parte, los reglamentos pueden desarrollar los preceptos de las leyes que regulan pero respetando el contenido esencial, por lo que en ningún momento se violenta dicho principio. Añade que el accionante considera vulnerado el principio de legalidad porque el Poder Ejecutivo debe crear la reglamentación a las leyes sin modificarlas y solamente le corresponde aclarar y actualizar la Ley. Sobre el particular, estima que ese principio no se ha vulnerado por la Administración toda vez que el legislador, en el artículo 28 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, contempló la posibilidad, facultad o el derecho del contribuyente de elegir el régimen del impuesto sobre la renta por el cual prefería tributar sus rentas de capital inmobiliario. También recuerda que el artículo 140 inciso 3) de la Constitución Política, le otorga al Poder Ejecutivo la facultad constitucional de sancionar y promulgar las leyes, reglamentarlas, ejecutarlas y velar por su exacto cumplimiento; potestad reglamentaria que permite al Poder Ejecutivo emitir, válidamente Decretos Ejecutivos, conocidos como reglamentos, lo que forma parte de la función administrativa y, por ende, subordinada al principio de legalidad, de modo que todo reglamento exige una norma de rango legal que lo autorice, expresa o implícitamente. Recuerda que la Administración está facultada para emitir reglamentos a las diferentes leyes promulgadas, de conformidad con lo dispuesto en el numeral 140, incisos 3 y 18 de la Constitución Política, como un deber y atribución que corresponde conjuntamente al Presidente de la República y al respectivo Ministro de Gobierno, pero también de acuerdo con el artículo 140 inciso 18) de la Constitución, puede "expedir los demás reglamentos y ordenanzas necesarios para la pronta ejecución de las leyes". Argumenta que si se hace un análisis de lo establecido en la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta en complemento con lo señalado en su reglamento, se constata que el Impuesto sobre las Rentas de Capital Inmobiliario es una cédula autónoma del Impuesto sobre las Utilidades que, de no ser así, el legislador no hubiera establecido las situaciones por las cuales se puede o se debe tributar las rentas de capital inmobiliario mediante el régimen del impuesto sobre las utilidades, por lo tanto, el legislador no autorizó en el artículo 29 de la Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta a aplicar en la determinación de la renta imponible del Impuesto sobre las Rentas de Capital Inmobiliario, los costos y gastos deducibles del artículo 8 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta que son propios de la determinación de la renta neta del Impuesto sobre la Utilidades, ya que como son cédulas de impuestos autónomas. Indica que, así las cosas, el numeral 40 del Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta -antes de la última reforma del artículo 34- reitera lo establecido por el legislador en el numeral 29 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, es decir, que el contribuyente que tribute por el régimen de rentas de capital inmobiliario solo tendrá derecho -de manera excepcional- a deducirse un máximo de un 15% por gastos sin necesidad de comprobante o prueba alguna. Añade que según el accionante se vulnera el principio de interdicción de la arbitrariedad porque la norma reglamentaria recurrida le da herramientas a la Administración Tributaria para crear formularios en línea con los cuales no se le permitió a su representada, aplicar los gastos deducibles que se produjeron durante el período fiscal y solamente estaba la opción de aplicar el 15% del ingreso bruto como “gasto”. Sobre el particular, reitera que el legislador le otorgó la facultad al contribuyente de elegir si quería tributar por rentas de capital inmobiliario o por utilidades, y le dio la posibilidad de cambiar de la cédula del CED3 por la cédula del CED4 , siempre y cuando cumpla con los requisitos que se establecen en el Reglamento a la Ley de Impuesto Sobre la Renta, o bien con lo dispuesto en la resolución No. DGT-R-058-2019; en consecuencia, considera que no existe un acto arbitrario por parte de la Administración sino que hay sustento o fundamento jurídico objetivo en la conducta administrativa que se cuestiona. Añade que, por otra parte, el accionante señala que existe violación al principio de capacidad económica y no confiscatoriedad ya que las normas impugnadas al remover los gastos deducibles expresados en la Ley, ponen en peligro la capacidad económica de su representada toda vez que elevaron su carga tributaria de forma arbitraria; sin embargo, sobre el particular recuerda que el artículo 18 de la Constitución Política dispone que es obligación de los costarricenses contribuir para los gastos públicos, lo que significa que tal deber se cumple por medio de los tributos que el Estado establezca o autorice -según sea el caso- y que estos deben fundamentarse en los principios generales del Derecho Tributario que están implícitos en esa norma. Argumenta que por ello se dice que el tributo debe ser justo, basado en la contribución de todos según su capacidad económica, lo que se refleja en la máxima de que paguen proporcionalmente más impuestos quienes cuentan con un mayor nivel de renta y por tanto, en su criterio, no se vulnera ese principio. Por otro lado, sobre la no confiscatoriedad, recuerda que ese principio del derecho tributario significa que no se puede aplicar un gravamen que implique la apropiación de todos los bienes y rentas del sujeto; principio que regula los tributos impuestos a los contribuyentes, de modo que la contribución al sostenimiento del gasto público a través de gravámenes, no puede consistir en privar al contribuyente de todas sus rentas y propiedades por lo que, en tal sentido, este principio persigue proteger el derecho a la propiedad privada ya que no se puede agotar la riqueza del contribuyente. Indica que, no obstante lo anterior, en el asunto bajo estudio, se trata de una decisión que toma el contribuyente ya que el inciso 3) del numeral 29 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta establece la base imponible para la determinación de la renta neta del impuesto de renta al capital inmobiliario al señalar que “para la deducción de gastos, el contribuyente podrá aplicar una reducción del quince por ciento (15%) del ingreso bruto, sin necesidad de prueba alguna y sin posibilidad de ninguna otra deducción”. Argumenta que esa norma es clara en la determinación de la renta neta del impuesto de renta al capital inmobiliario, es decir, el legislador estableció para esta cédula de impuesto que el contribuyente que decida quedarse en el régimen de rentas de capital inmobiliario, podrá deducirse de manera excepcional hasta un 15% por concepto de gastos, por cuanto el legislador le otorgó la facultad al contribuyente de trasladarse o de tributar bajo el régimen del Impuesto sobre las Utilidades, por actividad empresarial y/o por afectación. Añade que en criterio del accionante, se vulneran los principios de igualdad, legalidad, razonabilidad y proporcionalidad porque debe existir una proporcionalidad entre la regla jurídica adoptada y el fin que persigue, además de que el reglamento al realizar la restricción sobre los gastos deducibles, violenta el principio de igualdad porque se discriminó a los contribuyentes de Rentas de Capital Inmobiliario con relación a los contribuyentes que se encuentran sujetos al Impuesto sobre las Utilidades quienes sí pueden aplicar los gastos deducibles o aplicar si lo tienen a bien, la deducción única del 25% del artículo 8 inciso s). Sobre el particular, advierte que por las razones explicadas en cuanto a que se trata de dos impuestos diferentes: Renta Imponible de Capital Inmobiliario y Renta de Utilidades, no puede haber vulneración del principio de igualdad porque el objeto del impuesto de rentas de capital inmobiliario recae sobre rentas pasivas, es decir, no se requiere de un negocio en marcha para obtener la ganancia porque ésta se obtiene por el solo hecho de poseer un bien inmueble en arriendo o subarriendo; por el contrario, el objeto del impuesto sobre las utilidades recae sobre rentas activas, es decir, generadas como producto de una actividad empresarial y/o profesional. Reitera que el legislador no reconoció los mismos gastos deducibles al impuesto de rentas al capital inmobiliario que al impuesto sobre las utilidades, lo cual no implica desigualdad ni desproporcionalidad como lo pretende ver el accionante. Manifiesta que el artículo 34 impugnado únicamente viene a reglar “la determinación de la base imponible del capital inmobiliario”, el cual se puede tributar bajo el régimen del impuesto sobre las utilidades o mantenerse en el régimen de impuesto de renta de capital inmobiliario. Añade que en cuanto a los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, éstos suponen que las normas y los actos de autoridad requieran -para su validez- no solo haber sido promulgados por órganos competentes y bajo los procedimientos legalmente establecidos, sino también pasar la revisión de fondo por su concordancia con las normas, principios y valores supremos de la Constitución (formal y material), que se configuran como patrones de razonabilidad; es decir, que una norma o acto público o privado solo es válido cuando, además de su conformidad formal con la Constitución, esté razonablemente fundado y justificado conforme a la ideología constitucional con lo cual se procura no solo que la ley no sea irracional, arbitraria o caprichosa, sino además que los medios seleccionados tengan una relación real y sustancial con su objeto. Aduce que, en aplicación de esto al caso concreto se denota que de ninguna manera se violentan los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad como lo alega el accionante por cuanto el artículo 34 del Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto Sobre la Renta, no ha modificado la base imponible propia del impuesto de renta de capital inmobiliario que estableció el legislador en el artículo 29 de la Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta. Manifiesta que según el accionante se vulnera el derecho de la propiedad privada porque en estas cargas impositivas no se toman en cuenta los gastos deducibles establecidos por Ley 7092 y el contribuyente se ve forzado a asumir un impuesto que pone en riesgo su propiedad privada pues no va poder mantenerse y tendrá la posibilidad de perder sus bienes; no obstante lo anterior, aclara que no se ha modificado la base imponible propia del impuesto sobre las rentas de capital inmobiliario ya que este nace como una cédula nueva de la Ley de CED5 la Renta, por lo que es distinta e independiente de otros impuestos, incluso del impuesto sobre las utilidades y, por ende, no se pueden aplicar en la determinación de la renta imponible del impuesto sobre las rentas de capital inmobiliario, las reglas de otros impuestos, ello por ser una cédula autónoma ya que en su creación se han cumplido los elementos constitutivos del impuesto como son: hecho generador, sujeto pasivo, tarifas, base de cálculo, exenciones, entre otros, ello por mando constitucional y legal (artículo 121 inciso 13) de la Constitución Política, en concordancia con el numeral 5 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios (Código Tributario).
Conclusiones:
Finaliza solicitando que se declare sin lugar esta acción de inconstitucionalidad.
7.- Mediante resolución de las 9 horas 49 minutos de 20 de mayo de 2022, se tuvo por contestadas las audiencias conferidas a la Procuraduría General de la República y al Ministerio de Hacienda y se pasó la acción para estudio del Magistrado Ponente.
8.- Se prescinde de la vista señalada en los artículos 10 y 85 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, con base en la potestad que otorga a la Sala el numeral 9 ibídem, al estimar suficientemente fundada esta resolución en principios y normas evidentes, así como en la jurisprudencia de este Tribunal.
9.- En los procedimientos se ha cumplido las prescripciones de ley.
Redacta el Magistrado Garita Navarro; y,
Considerando:
I.- De previo. Precisión sobre la identificación de la norma objeto de la acción. El accionante impugna el artículo 34 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 18445-H de 9 de setiembre de 1988, “Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta”, adicionado por el artículo 2 del Decreto Ejecutivo N°41818 de 17 de junio de 2019, disposición relativa a la base imponible del capital inmobiliario. Dicha norma se encontraba vigente al momento de interponer la acción el 14 de setiembre de 2021, porque si bien el Decreto Ejecutivo 18445-H- fue derogado por el artículo 106 del [Placa1] del 22 de julio de 2021, que es “Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta”, éste no entró en vigencia sino hasta el 17 de diciembre de 2021, fecha de su publicación en la Gaceta No. 243, Alcance No. 257 de 17 de diciembre de 2021. Ahora bien, del análisis de la normativa vigente, se observa que el artículo 40 contiene una disposición con idéntico contenido y redacción al artículo 34 del Decreto Ejecutivo 18445-H, adicionado por el artículo 2 del Decreto Ejecutivo N°41818 de 17 de junio de 2021, impugnado por el recurrente, situación que no fue contemplada por el Tribunal al momento de dar curso a la acción de inconstitucionalidad, por resolución de las dieciséis horas trece minutos del veinticuatro de marzo de dos mil veintidós. Por ello, a fin de identificar con claridad la norma objeto de la acción, se establece que el objeto de la acción es el artículo 40 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 43198-H de 22 de julio de 2021, publicado en la Gaceta No. 243, Alcance No. 257 de 17 de diciembre de 2021, “Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta”.
Sobre la Admisibilidad:
II.- Sobre los requisitos de admisibilidad en este proceso.- La acción de inconstitucionalidad fue instaurada con el propósito de garantizar la supremacía de la Constitución Política frente a normas u otras disposiciones de carácter general, por lo que, en función de esto y por voluntad expresa del legislador, se trata de un proceso de alto grado técnico, de modo que, para su admisibilidad, se deben cumplir de manera estricta determinados requisitos que dispone la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Entre los requerimientos exigidos están: la adecuada fundamentación de los motivos de inconstitucionalidad con cita concreta del Derecho de la Constitución que se considere infringido (artículo 78), la firma de quien interpone la acción debidamente autenticada por un profesional en Derecho con el debido pago de los tributos legales (artículo 78), la acreditación de las condiciones de legitimación (poderes y certificaciones), la certificación literal del libelo donde se hizo la reserva de inconstitucionalidad en el asunto previo (artículo 79). En este asunto en concreto, se observa que se ha cumplido con los requisitos estipulados en los numerales 78 y 79 de la Ley de rito.
III.- Las reglas de legitimación en las acciones de inconstitucionalidad y la legitimación en el caso concreto.- Por otra parte, debe recordarse que el artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional regula los presupuestos que determinan la admisibilidad de las acciones de inconstitucionalidad, exigiendo la existencia de un asunto pendiente de resolver en sede administrativa o judicial en el que se invoque la inconstitucionalidad. Este requisito no es necesario en los casos previstos en los párrafos segundo y tercero de ese artículo, es decir, cuando por la naturaleza de la norma no haya lesión individual o directa; cuando se fundamente en la defensa de intereses difusos o que atañen a la colectividad en su conjunto, o cuando sea presentada por el Procurador General de la República, el Contralor General de la República, el Fiscal General de la República o el Defensor de los Habitantes, en estos últimos casos, dentro de sus respectivas esferas competenciales. Ahora bien, en el caso concreto, estima la Sala que el accionante se encuentra legitimado para interponer la acción conforme a lo dispuesto en el párrafo primero del artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional en tanto, en el proceso de conocimiento que se tramita ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo bajo el expediente número 21-000342-1027-CA, se alegó la inconstitucionalidad de la norma impugnada como medio razonable para tutelar los derechos que considera lesionados en dicho proceso, y la misma tiene relación con los extremos que allí se discuten.
IV.- Objeto de la impugnación. Como se dispuso en el considerando I de este pronunciamiento, el objeto de la acción es el artículo 40 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 43198-H de 22 de julio de 2021, publicado en la Gaceta No. 243, Alcance No. 257 de 17 de diciembre de 2021, “Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta”, que dispone:
“Artículo 40.- Base imponible del capital inmobiliario. La base imponible del capital inmobiliario es el importe total de la contraprestación, al cual se le podrá deducir los gastos que se detallan de seguido, según corresponda:
El contribuyente podrá deducir estos gastos sin necesidad de contar con comprobantes ni prueba alguna. Estos gastos son los únicos importes que podrá deducir el contribuyente que obtenga rentas del capital inmobiliario para determinar la base de imposición, sin que sea posible deducir montos mayores a estos ni aplicar las demás normas sobre deducibilidad de gastos contenidas en la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta. “ Los reproches de inconstitucionalidad planteados por la parte accionante son: infracción al principio de reserva legal en materia tributaria, violación al principio de interdicción de la arbitrariedad, lesión al principio de capacidad económica y no confiscatoriedad, infracción al principio de seguridad jurídica, lesión a los principios de legalidad, igualdad, razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, por cuanto: a) la norma modifica la base de cálculo del impuesto a las rentas de capital inmobiliario porque no contempla gastos deducibles en su generalidad sino que los limita a 2 deducciones únicas de 15% y 20%; y b) contiene elementos que no están establecidos en el artículo 29 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 7092.
V.- Sobre la inadmisibilidad de la acción en razón del objeto.- Esta Sala, en su reiterada jurisprudencia, ha señalado que los reclamos relativos al supuesto exceso o contradicción de una norma reglamentaria con respecto a la ley, son extremos de legalidad, cuya discusión no corresponde a esta jurisdicción, sino que es al juez ordinario a quien compete determinar los alcances de la interpretación y aplicación de la Ley y, por consiguiente, es él el llamado a establecer si una norma reglamentaria vulnera o no la norma legal. Al respecto, en la sentencia No. 2013-013360 de las 14 horas 30 minutos de 09 de octubre de 2013, se indicó que:
“[L]a incompatibilidad que plantea el actor no es entre la disposición reglamentaria y el Derecho de la Constitución, sino entre el reglamento y la Ley No. 8444 (…), todo lo cual determina la improcedencia de esta acción. En efecto, a todas luces desborda el ámbito de competencias de la Sala dilucidar si lo previsto por el reglamento cuestionado se adecua plenamente o no a las disposiciones de la Ley No. 8444 (…) todo lo cual más bien debe ser discutido y ventilado ante la Jurisdicción Contenciosa Administrativa, la cual, al amparo de lo dispuesto en el artículo 49 de la Constitución Política, tiene por fin garantizar la legalidad de la función administrativa del Estado, de sus instituciones y de toda otra entidad de derecho público, lo que constituye justamente el objeto de este asunto, es decir, determinar la compatibilidad entre la Ley No. 8444 y su reglamento, todo lo cual es ajeno al ámbito de competencias de esta Jurisdicción Constitucional por la vía de la acción, de acuerdo con el artículo 10 de la Constitución Política y el artículo 73 inciso a) de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional. Por consiguiente, se debe rechazar de plano esta acción de inconstitucionalidad, a efecto que el actor acuda a la Jurisdicción ordinaria en defensa de los derechos e intereses que estima vulnerados.” En sentido similar se ha pronunciado este Tribunal en las sentencias No. 2012-004792 de las 14 horas 30 minutos del 18 de abril de 2012, No. 2011-008712 de las 15 horas 56 minutos de 29 de junio de 2011, No. 2020-011171 de las 16 horas 04 minutos de 17 de junio de 2020 y No. 2021-019041 de las 9 horas 20 minutos de 25 de agosto de 2021. Igualmente se ha señalado:
“Analizados los argumentos, el Tribunal concluye que lo expuesto es un conflicto de naturaleza legal, que no es susceptible de ser conocido a través de la acción de inconstitucionalidad, sino que debe ser conocido en la vía ordinaria. Las competencias cuestionadas y la aparente confrontación entre la norma legal y el Decreto, supone un conflicto de legalidad. En reiteradas ocasiones (a modo de ejemplo, en la sentencia No. 2000-01149 de las 15:39 horas del 2 de febrero del 2000) la Sala ha sostenido que determinar si una norma reglamentaria, como la impugnada, transgrede o excede lo dispuesto en una ley, es un tema de legalidad cuya discusión no corresponde a esta jurisdicción. El artículo 49 de la Carta Fundamental asigna el control de la legalidad de la función administrativa del Estado a la jurisdicción contencioso administrativa, no a la constitucional. Si esta Sala pretendiera fiscalizar por medio de la acción de inconstitucionalidad las distintas posibles hipótesis de infracción al principio de legalidad que pueden darse en los despachos administrativos, en la práctica suplantaría -a contrapelo del texto constitucional- a los tribunales de esa materia. En consecuencia, si el representante de la asociación accionante considera que la norma reglamentaria cuestionada es ilegal o ha sido aplicada en forma errónea, puede acudir, como en efecto lo ha hecho, ante la jurisdicción contencioso-administrativa en defensa de sus derechos” (ver sentencia No. 2021-011972 de las 9 horas 30 minutos de 26 de mayo de 2021).
Así, no corresponde a este Tribunal Constitucional determinar si un reglamento es contrario a una ley ni tampoco si se ha dado un exceso en la potestad reglamentaria, salvo que se constate la violación a algún derecho fundamental o principio constitucional.
En este sentido, es pertinente precisar que si es evidente, y salta a la vista que la norma reglamentaria excede, suprime- o contradice el texto de la Ley- no cabe duda que, de forma grosera, se vulnera el principio de fuerza, autoridad o eficacia de la Ley; principio que tiene cobertura constitucional y que debe ser tutelado por este Tribunal. El principio de fuerza, autoridad o eficacia de ley nos remite a la potencia (fuerza activa), a la resistencia (fuerza pasiva) y al régimen de impugnación de la Ley. Con base en el primer aspecto del concepto, la Ley, una vez que entra en vigencia, deroga o modifica toda norma de igual o inferior rango. Con fundamento en el segundo, la Ley no puede ser derogada ni modificada por una norma de inferior rango. Por último, con base en el tercero, la Ley sólo puede ser impugnada por razones de inconstitucionalidad y, por ende, sólo a través de una resolución de la Sala Constitucional se puede anular. El basamento constitucional de este principio está en el numeral 129 de la Carta Fundamental, que señala que la Ley sólo puede ser derogada, abrogada o modificada por otra norma posterior de igual rango. Por otra parte, el principio de fuerza, autoridad o eficacia de ley es un presupuesto esencial del Estado social y democrático de Derecho, toda vez que parte de una idea nuclear: el acto normativo parlamentario es superior en rango al acto normativo que emiten los otros Poderes del Estado, en especial del Poder Ejecutivo, lo que supone que todos los Poderes del Estado, cuando ejercen la potestad normativa (artículo 6 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública inciso d), deben de ajustarse a la voluntad del legislador. Si ello no ocurre, se desconoce el rango normativo de la Ley que, en la escala jerárquica normativa, ocupa el tercer lugar en importancia después de la Constitución Política y los Tratados Internacionales (artículos 10 y 7) y, por consiguiente, se vulnera un principio clave del Estado social y democrático de Derecho. Ergo, cuando de manera evidente y manifiesta una norma reglamentaria rebasa, suprime o contradice una Ley de la República, se vulnera el numeral 129 de la Carta Fundamental y el principio de fuerza, autoridad o eficacia de la Ley, y el Tribunal Constitucional sí tiene competencia en este asunto, sin demérito de la competencia que también le asiste a los integrantes de la jurisdicción ordinaria cuando no se presenta el supuesto comentado.
En el caso de análisis, es criterio de este Tribunal que lo planteado por la parte accionante como un problema de constitucionalidad, en realidad se trata de un tema que debe dirimirse en la vía de legalidad por tratarse de un eventual conflicto de normas legales, propiamente entre el artículo 29 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 7092 y el artículo impugnado, en el cual no se evidencia una contradicción evidente y manifiesta entre la Ley y el Reglamento que se impugna. Esencialmente, porque la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, dispone claramente los elementos esenciales de las rentas del capital inmobiliario a saber: hecho generador (artículo 27 bis), sujeto pasivo (artículo 28) y, de especial relevancia para la resolución de esta acción, la base imponible (artículo 29), así como tarifa aplicable. El artículo 29 de la ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta dispone:
“Artículo 29- Renta imponible del capital inmobiliario.
1. La renta imponible del capital inmobiliario será la diferencia entre la renta bruta y los gastos deducibles.
2. Se entenderá por renta bruta el importe total de la contraprestación.
3. Para la deducción de gastos, el contribuyente podrá aplicar una reducción del quince por ciento (15%) del ingreso bruto, sin necesidad de prueba alguna y sin posibilidad de ninguna otra deducción.
4. Los fondos de inversión no financieros, regulados en la Ley N.° 7732, Ley Reguladora del Mercado de Valores, de 17 de diciembre de 1997, podrán aplicar una reducción del veinte por ciento (20%) del ingreso bruto, como gasto deducible sin necesidad de prueba alguna y sin posibilidad de ninguna otra deducción.” Por lo que resulta evidente que el artículo 40 del Decreto Ejecutivo No. 43198-H de 22 de julio de 2021 se refiere a la deducibilidad única y automática de la misma manera que es tratada por la ley (inciso 3 del artículo 29), con lo cual, el reglamento no estaría extralimitándose como acusa el accionante y, por el contrario, se encuentra apegado a lo que la letra de la ley expresa sobre este régimen especial.
Por otra parte, analizados los argumentos del accionante sobre los supuestos excesos del artículo reglamentario impugnado con respecto a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la renta, se evidencia que se trata de un tema que debe dirimirse en la vía de legalidad por tratarse de un eventual conflicto de normas legales, propiamente entre el artículo 29 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 7092 y el artículo impugnado, pues indica: “la redacción y aplicación por parte de la Administración del artículo 34 del Reglamento, va en contra de lo establecido en el artículo 29 inciso 1 de la Ley 7092” y que la norma cuestionada “deviene inconstitucional dado que esa norma reglamentaria está modificando un elemento cuantitativo crucial del hecho generador del impuesto a las rentas de capital inmobiliario ya que elimina el concepto de gasto deducible y menciona nada más la palabra “gasto” y de ahí se basa para realizar modificaciones que solamente son por Ley emanada del Parlamento. El determinar vía reglamento solamente ciertos gastos, contradice la Ley 7092, en su artículo 29, el cual claramente expresa el concepto de “gastos deducibles” De esta manera se violenta de manera grosera los límites de la lógica y los principios constitucionales de proporcionalidad y razonabilidad. El Poder Ejecutivo se apropió indebidamente de la potestad de crear una base imponible nueva, la cual deja a un lado la posibilidad de aplicar los gastos deducibles expresados en los artículos 8 y artículo 29 de la Ley 7092.” En atención a lo anterior, la Sala arriba a la conclusión de que la acción de inconstitucionalidad es inadmisible en razón del objeto y así se declara.
VI.- Sobre la disconformidad con la aplicación de la norma impugnada.- Otro elemento importante de atender cuando se analiza la procedencia o no de efectuar el análisis de fondo de una acción de inconstitucionalidad -elemento que además está en estrecha relación con su objeto-, es la necesidad de asegurar que el reclamo de fondo no esté dirigido a cuestionar la aplicación que se hizo de la norma impugnada. En este caso bajo estudio, en el memorial de interposición de la acción se observa que el propio accionante afirma que, en el asunto base de esta acción, se discute la mala aplicación por parte de la Administración Tributaria del artículo 34 del Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta; reclamo que plantea en similares términos a lo largo del escrito de la acción pues, de la atenta lectura de ese memorial, se desprende que todos los reproches que se plantean, se circunscriben a cuestionar la aplicación de la norma a la sociedad que representa, lo que en su criterio, le perjudica. En tal sentido, indica que “el artículo 34 del Reglamento está generando actuaciones por parte de la Administración Tributaria en las cuales no están aplicando lo que dice la Ley de Renta de poder aplicar gastos deducibles”. Además, los reparos del accionante se dirigen a cuestionar la exigencia -normativa- de utilizar el formulario de Declaración D125, la falta de casillas en ese formulario, la imposibilidad de presentar todos los gastos deducibles sin la restricción que establece la norma impugnada, la disconformidad con el porcentaje de gastos deducibles, la conveniencia o no de trasladar a los contribuyentes del régimen de utilidades al de rentas de capital inmobiliario, la posibilidad de que el contribuyente sea sancionado por presentar declaraciones tardías, con cero impuesto, o con datos inexactos, por lo que solicita, como pretensión de fondo, que se disponga la anulación de varias actuaciones y resoluciones emitidas por la Administración Tributaria al amparo de la norma impugnada -y de las de la Ley 7092 que reglamenta- porque considera que su aplicación ha sido lesiva para su representada. Sobre el particular, esta Sala ha señalado que “la aplicación indebida de la ley o su errónea interpretación en el caso concreto no es materia propia de conocerse mediante la acción de inconstitucionalidad” (ver sentencias No. 5966-94 de las 15 horas 54 minutos de 11 de octubre de 1994 y No. 2018-010334 de las 14 horas 30 minutos de 27 de junio de 2018, entre otras); por ende, la disconformidad del accionante debe resolverse en la jurisdicción ordinaria que corresponda. No puede olvidarse que esta Sala ha precisado, en lo referente a la naturaleza y propósito del control de constitucionalidad, que:
“(…) la jurisdicción constitucional, ejercida en una de sus modalidades a través de los procedimientos de declaración de inconstitucionalidad, garantiza la primicia de la Constitución y enjuicia la conformidad o disconformidad con ella de las leyes, disposiciones o actos impugnados, como su concordancia con las normas y principios del derecho internacional, o comunitario vigentes en la República. Es la pureza misma del ordenamiento jurídico la que se ventila en esta sede jurisdiccional, con la comparación entre la norma fundamental y las leyes que la desarrollan. (Sentencia número 1319-97, de las catorce horas cincuenta y un minutos del cuatro de marzo de mil novecientos noventa y siete. En el mismo sentido, sentencia número 2008-14193, de las diez horas con tres minutos del veinticuatro de setiembre del dos mil ocho). Es decir que en estos procesos no se atiende la lesión individual que pueda exhibir la actora, de manera preferente, pues lo que se persigue es la supremacía constitucional; es decir la satisfacción de un interés general de que los actos sujetos al derecho público… y las normas se conformen con el ordenamiento constitucional” (ver sentencia No. 2012-010986 de las 15 horas 05 minutos del 14 de agosto de 2012).
En consecuencia, la acción también resulta inadmisible por cuanto pretende que, por esta vía, se discuta y se analice la aplicación que se hizo de la norma impugnada, lo cual es materia propia de legalidad.
VII.- Conclusión.- Con sustento en las consideraciones señaladas supra, esta acción es inadmisible para ser analizada por el fondo en razón de su objeto, porque la disconformidad de la parte accionante radica en la supuesta inconformidad de la norma impugnada con el artículo 29 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta y a atacar la aplicación de la norma impugnada, extremos que no son objeto de conocimiento de la jurisdicción constitucional En consecuencia, la acción debe ser declarada sin lugar como en efecto se ordena.
VIII.- Documentación aportada al expediente.- Se previene a las partes que de haber aportado algún documento en papel, así como objetos o pruebas contenidas en algún dispositivo adicional de carácter electrónico, informático, magnético, óptico, telemático o producido por nuevas tecnologías, estos deberán ser retirados del despacho en un plazo máximo de 30 días hábiles contados a partir de la notificación de esta sentencia. De lo contrario, será destruido todo aquel material que no sea retirado dentro de este plazo, según lo dispuesto en el "Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial", aprobado por la Corte Plena en sesión N° 27-11 del 22 de agosto del 2011, artículo XXVI y publicado en el Boletín Judicial número 19 del 26 de enero del 2012, así como en el acuerdo aprobado por el Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial, en la sesión N° 43-12 celebrada el 3 de mayo del 2012, artículo LXXXI.-
Por tanto:
Se declara sin lugar la acción.- [Nombre4] .
[Nombre5] .
Paul Rueda L.
Luis Fdo. Salazar A.
Jorge Araya G.
[Nombre6] .
Jose Roberto Garita N.
Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador --
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.