Constitutionality of the economic-linkage criterion in income taxConstitucionalidad del criterio de vinculación económica en el impuesto sobre la renta

**Review of the Document** **Exp: 23-030920-0007-CO** **Res. No. 2024003887** **CONSTITUTIONAL CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE.** San José, at nine hours twenty-five minutes on February fourteenth, two thousand twenty-four.

An acción de inconstitucionalidad filed by Anayansi Mora Palma, in her capacity as special judicial representative of Pan-American Life Insurance de Costa Rica S.A., legal identification number 3-101-601884, against the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, contained in judgments No. 617-F-S1-2010 of 9:10 a.m. on May 20, 2010, No. 55-F-S1-2011 of 8:50 a.m. on January 27, 2011, No. 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 a.m. on April 7, 2011, No. 976-F-S1-2016 of 1:05 p.m. on September 22, 2016, and No. 326-A-S1-2017 of 10:45 a.m. on March 23, 2017.

**Whereas:** 1.- By written submission received by this Chamber on December 13, 2023, the petitioner requests that the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, contained in judgments No. 617-F-S1-2010 of 9:10 a.m. on May 20, 2010, No. 55-F-S1-2011 of 8:50 a.m. on January 27, 2011, No. 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 a.m. on April 7, 2011, No. 976-F-S1-2016 of 1:05 p.m. on September 22, 2016, and No. 326-A-S1-2017 of 10:45 a.m. on March 23, 2017, be declared unconstitutional, on the grounds that it infringes the constitutional principles of legal reserve, legal certainty, and equality, as well as Articles 6 and 7 of the Political Constitution. The petitioner indicates that, in each of these judgments, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice analyzed Article 1 of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, LISR), from which it concluded that income generated or obtained outside Costa Rican territory is subject to the income tax on profits in Costa Rica because it maintains a close connection or relationship with the Costa Rican economic structure. She also points out that she is fully aware of judgments No. 23955-2022, No. 355-2023, and No. 359-2023, all issued by this Constitutional Court, which declared a series of acciones de inconstitucionalidad filed precisely against the same jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice to be without merit—by a majority vote. However, she believes that there has been a supervening change in circumstances that should prompt the Constitutional Chamber to change its criterion. She asserts that this supervening change in circumstances is the recent discussion and approval by the Legislative Branch of Law No. 10.381 of September 14, 2023, called "Modification to Law No. 7092, Income Tax Law, to achieve the exclusion of Costa Rica from the list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes of the European Union" ("Modificación a la ley N° 7092, Ley de impuesto sobre la renta, para lograr la exclusión de Costa Rica de la lista de países no cooperantes en materia fiscal de la Unión Europea"), which partially modified the text of Article 1 of the LISR and confirmed the territorial system of taxation that has governed in Costa Rica. She maintains that on February 13, 2023, the Government of the Republic reported that the country had been included on the list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes of the European Union, due to the breach of a commitment made the previous year to reform the taxation system to tax extraterritorial passive income before December 31, 2022. By virtue of the foregoing, on February 21, 2023, a bill aimed at excluding the country from said list was introduced in the Legislative Assembly. The bill also proposed an amendment to Article 1 of the LISR, with the objective of specifying the territorial taxation criterion that governs our country. She states that although, since the original version of the LISR, the country has been characterized by having a territorial income system, for years the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice extended said linking criterion to a connection with the taxpayers' economic structure to allow the taxation of extraterritorial income. A criterion that the Constitutional Chamber subsequently validated with the three aforementioned precedents. However, with the approval of the amendment to Article 1 of the LISR, through Law No. 10.381, the Legislative Assembly clarified and harmonized once and for all the linking criterion in force in Costa Rica. The amended version of the aforementioned Article 1 expressly states that income, revenue, or profits of Costa Rican source shall be understood as those obtained within the national territory according to the geographical limits established in Articles 5 and 6 of the Political Constitution, regardless of the origin of the goods or capital, the place of negotiation thereof, or their link to the economic structure in the national territory. This amendment not only reaffirms the territorial taxation system that has always governed our country, but also that income generated from capital located abroad, even if the transactions were agreed upon and executed totally or partially in Costa Rica, is not subject to the income tax on profits. This situation leaves aside any link that one might attempt to connect with the economic structure. She points out that the study of legislative file No. 23.581, which later became Law No. 10.381, makes it clear that the creation, modification, and abolition of taxes is the exclusive power of the Legislative Assembly, as well as defining the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax relationship. Furthermore, as it is a law subsequent to judgments No. 23955-2022, No. 355-2023, and No. 359-2023 of this Court, which in its text and legislative discussion clarified the scope of the original Article 1 of the LISR, it is plausible to assert that we are facing a supervening change in the circumstances of the legal system. She states that this Constitutional Court had indicated that "if the petitioner company is a company domiciled in Costa Rica, its income-producing source is Costa Rican and the capital invested abroad is Costa Rican, the returns obtained form part of the company's taxable income in Costa Rica, since there is an economic link between the income produced abroad and the income-producing source of the company domiciled in Costa Rica (...) Therefore, without a doubt, the criterion of economic linkage derives from the law itself by considering income linked to the income-producing source as taxable" (The highlighting is not from the original). She asserts that this criterion of economic linkage has been superseded as the scope, current and original, of the territoriality principle has been clarified, following the approval and entry into force of Law No. 10.381; therefore, there is evidently a change in circumstances that may prompt this Court to vary its criterion and thereby declare the unconstitutionality of the challenged judgments of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in order to safeguard the fundamental rights of taxpayers. She maintains that this fundamental change in the life relations of the governed is not only manifested after the approval of Law No. 10.381, but also through the statements made by the Executive Branch itself in its request for a partial veto, by which it acknowledges that, with the approval of the bill, it would be clear that the territoriality principle of Article 1 of the LISR has been limited exclusively to income obtained in Costa Rican territory under the geographical scope. She adds that in official communication PR-P-071-2023 of September 14, 2023, signed by the Minister of Finance and the President of the Republic, regarding the partial veto of the bill approved in the second debate and which is incorporated in the legislative file from folio 1674 to 1685, it is stated: "Regarding the implications of the amendment to the third paragraph of Article 1. This modification completely eliminates the application of the territoriality principle based on economic belonging and limits it exclusively to income obtained within the national territory under the geographical scope, an aspect that would prevent taxing those incomes that had a direct origin in the country and were located abroad to continue increasing the capital of persons, whether natural or legal (...) The application of a territoriality principle based exclusively on the geographical scope of a country, as established by the referenced Legislative Decree, implies a weakening of the Costa Rican tax system (...) One of the main aspects for the presentation of this partial veto is the possible economic impact this could mean (...) From the information indicated, the Administration would be losing income of more than thirty-six billion colones, considering the cases in process at the administrative and judicial levels. In this sense, it is important to clarify that this income would be lost because, as the cases are in process and upon the entry into force of Legislative Decree No. 10.381, the determinations made by the Administration could be rendered without effect.” The bill was finally re-sealed by the Legislative Assembly and became a Law of the Republic. The petitioner believes that, based on Articles 9 and 13 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), this regulatory change should prompt this Constitutional Court to change its criterion regarding the initial factual situation in order to safeguard legal certainty and the public interest. Otherwise, the violation of constitutional principles and norms may persist over time and thereby cause a dislocation in the legal system between what was previously resolved by this Constitutional Chamber and what was expressed by the legislator and the Executive Branch, even generating inequality among governed persons in identical circumstances. Regarding the merits, she accuses an infringement of the principle of legal reserve in tax matters, safeguarded in subparagraph 13 of Article 121 of the Political Constitution, due to an extensive interpretation of the territoriality principle and, consequently, of Article 6 of the Political Constitution and the principle of legal certainty. She indicates that Article 35 of the Tax Code of Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, CNPT) defines the taxable event or taxable fact as the "prerequisite established by law to classify the tax and whose realization gives rise to the obligation." She adds that said taxable event must be analyzed from a subjective and objective level, and the latter from a temporal, quantitative, and spatial aspect. Specifically regarding the spatial dimension of the taxable event, it is a linking criterion that refers to the geographical scope of validity of the rule in which the taxable event produces its effect, or, in other words, the spatial aspect specifies the place where the taxable event materializes. She asserts that, in our legal system, that spatial aspect is located in Article 1 of the LISR, from which it follows that Costa Rica pursues a territorial income system, that is, only income obtained within Costa Rican jurisdiction will be taxed. She alleges that, although said linking criterion was normatively enshrined in the original version of the LISR since 1999, for years the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice extended it to one related to the link with the taxpayer's economic structure. She indicates that reference must be made to the linking criteria that design the fiscal policy, that is, to the elements that determine whether an income or a subject is subject to or not subject to a particular tax. The linking criteria can be personal or subjective (they refer to situations in which there is a link related to the very nature of the individual or the taxpayer, which are defined, for example, by virtue of the status of national or tax resident) and real or objective (that which does not take the individual into consideration, but rather the origin of the income in a specific territory). The application of a personal linking criterion gives rise to the principle of worldwide income, while the application of a real or objective criterion results in the territoriality principle. The worldwide income system seeks to tax the income or profits of residents and/or nationals of a particular jurisdiction, regardless of the place where they are located or have obtained the income, which is the case of capital-exporting countries. This model is mainly used in developed jurisdictions and is based on the fact that whoever holds the status of resident must pay taxes in their country of residence for the total income obtained in the course of their activity, regardless of the place where it was obtained. Said system would allow taxing income obtained abroad, as the same model precisely seeks to grant the State in which the taxpayer is a resident the sovereign power to collect taxes regardless of the place of receipt. Logically, those who choose to implement this taxation model must guarantee their residents that the tax system has internal measures of fiscal relief to prevent the same income from being subjected to double taxation. This is achieved by establishing within the tax rules the possibility for the tax resident to deduct the tax applied in the source country or to allow a tax credit on the tax that was withheld abroad. In this way, to maintain what in commerce is called neutrality in exports and imports and to prevent asymmetries in tax treatment from generating problems of competitiveness for the country, it is logical that the taxpayer's country of residence taxes worldwide income but recognizes the tax that the taxpayer paid in the source country. She maintains that, based on this explanation, it is viable to reach the first conclusion: Costa Rica does not have a worldwide income system, and therefore, it also does not have internal rules that allow crediting the tax paid in the source country. Our country does not follow the personalistic linking criterion, nor does the legal system contemplate internal measures—typical in this type of jurisdiction—to relieve double taxation. On the other hand, the territoriality criterion or principle, predominantly applied in capital-receiving countries like Costa Rica, seeks to tax the income generated by taxpayers in a specific territory. In this way, it corresponds to a linking criterion from which the connection to a tax system is determined by the source of the income, that is, income will be taxed in the place where it is generated. Unlike what occurs with the worldwide income criterion, this other one addresses a relationship between the objective element of the taxable event and the active subject of the taxation (criterion of objective connection); a system that does not govern Costa Rica. Thus, it is necessary to specify that territoriality in our country responds to the fact that the spatial objective element of the taxable event is limited to those "coming from any Costa Rican source," "in national territory," or "lucrative activities or businesses in the country," expressly excluding rents generated outside Costa Rican territory under subparagraph ch) of Article 6, even incorporating the phrase "even if they had been agreed upon and executed totally or partially in the country." That is, even if the latter occurs, such income must be considered extraterritorial as it falls outside the spatial element of the tax. This is further reinforced by the amendment to Article 1 of the LISR, through Law No. 10.381, in which the territorial system that governs Costa Rica was clarified, strengthened, and consolidated with the purpose of providing legal certainty to taxpayers. With this, the interpretation advanced by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and which was endorsed by this Constitutional Court, is absolutely outdated and its existence implies a violation of the principle of legal reserve in tax matters and the principle of legal certainty. She points out that the principle of legal reserve implies that the regulation of certain matters is expressly subject to the existence of a formal law. In tax matters, it finds its constitutional basis in subparagraph 13) of Article 121 of the Constitution, which recognizes that it will be the Legislative Assembly, through the procedure provided by law, which is responsible for "establishing national taxes and contributions, and authorizing municipal ones." This constitutional provision must be read concomitantly with numeral 5 of the CNPT. For this reason, when speaking of the creation of taxes, it must be understood as that tax authority that the State holds to establish them. This Constitutional Court has defined the cited principle as one that guarantees that the creation, modification, or abolition of taxes, the definition of the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax relationship, as well as the granting of exemptions or benefits, can only be provided through formal law. The requirement of intervention by formal law for the creation of the tax and the regulation of its essential elements can and must be explained from the perspective of the taxpayer's right to certainty and legal certainty. It is plausible to assert that the constitutional principle of legal reserve in tax matters establishes that the taxable event of the tax must be determined by the Legislator, it being improper for another branch of the State, such as the Executive or the Judicial Branch (in the present matter), to modify, through an interpretation, any of its elements (as occurs with the spatial objective element). However, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in the jurisprudence subject to this action, expanded said taxable event to tax income generated abroad or capital located outside our jurisdiction, in clear contravention of the cited principle of legal reserve. The criterion of "link with the Costa Rican economic structure" followed by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice unconstitutionally expands the spatial element of the taxable event so that income obtained outside the national territory can be taxed as "Costa Rican source," even when by express mandate of the Legislator it is prohibited. It is before this interpretation that the constitutional principle of legal reserve, safeguarded in subparagraph 13) of Article 121 of the Constitution, is violated, because with it, the First Chamber assumes a competence that is exclusive to the Legislative Branch. The interpretation of the First Chamber introduces a subjective criterion of taxation, since based on it, taxpayers would be taxed simply for being domiciled in Costa Rica, even if their income is obtained abroad. This is typical of a worldwide income system, as previously stated, not a territorial one like the one prevailing in Costa Rica. However, the constitutional infraction does not stop merely there, but its reiterated reasoning has also violated Article 6 of the Political Constitution, which provides: "The State exercises complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace of its territory, over its territorial waters within a distance of twelve miles from the low-water mark along its coasts, over its continental shelf, and over its insular shelf, in accordance with the principles of International Law. It also exercises special jurisdiction over the seas adjacent to its territory within a distance of two hundred miles from the same line, in order to protect, preserve, and exploit exclusively all the natural resources and wealth existing in the waters, the soil, and the subsoil of those zones, in accordance with those principles." Note that the rule is clear: the State shall exercise its sovereignty over the country's airspace, territorial, and maritime space, limits clearly restricted to geographical aspects. Hence, attempting to tax income obtained outside our jurisdiction based on an apparent "economic link" undoubtedly disrespects the cited Article 6, because the Costa Rican State (specifically the Tax Administration) would be exercising its sovereignty over spaces outside Costa Rica. In fact, note that the amendment made to Article 1 of the LISR, through Law No. 10.381, is clear in indicating that Costa Rican source income, revenue, or profits shall be understood as those obtained in national territory according to the geographical limits of Articles 5 and 6 of the Constitution, regardless of the origin of the goods or capital, the place of negotiation thereof, or their link to the economic structure in the national territory. She insists that by amending Article 1 of the LISR, the Legislative Branch reaffirmed the territorial taxation system that has always governed Costa Rica. One only needs to review the minutes of legislative file No. 23.581 to corroborate that the deputies of the Republic, when discussing the aforementioned amendment in the Plenary Session, made it clear that the territorial system is the one that has always prevailed in our country and that the need to clarify it at the regulatory level is plainly to end the irregularities that the Tax Administration has committed for years, relying on the precedents of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. Following the approval and subsequent publication of Law No. 10.381 in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 180 of October 2, 2023, it is more than clear that the creation, modification, and abolition of taxes is the exclusive power of the Legislative Assembly, as well as defining the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax relationship. She indicates, again, that the approval of the discussed law is the basis upon which this Court may modify the criterion expressed in judgments No. 23955-2022, No. 355-2023, and No. 359-2023, since, based on the foregoing, it is demonstrated that the jurisprudence of the First Chamber undoubtedly violates the principle of legal reserve. She asserts that if the reasoning of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice remains in force, there would be a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty. She points out that the principle of legal certainty must be understood as the trust that citizens place in the legal system in order to observe and respect valid and current norms for various situations. Although in Costa Rica, legal certainty as a constitutional principle does not find exclusive support in any specific norm of the Constitution, it is inferred from the reading of a set of constitutional norms and from the pronouncements issued by this Court. The jurisprudence of this Constitutional Chamber has indicated that legal certainty is the guarantee that the legal system provides to persons so that they know what to expect. This Court has also mentioned that the principle of legal certainty is linked to the principle of legal reserve. For this reason, by infringing the principle of legal reserve, the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice consequently also violates the principle of legal certainty. This is further reinforced by the simple fact that maintaining the erroneous interpretation of the Court of Cassation, after the entry into force of Law No. 10.381, would create an environment of legal insecurity and uncertainty for thousands of taxpayers. It also claims an infringement of Article 7 of the Political Constitution, because the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice opposes international conventions, in particular, the conventions for the avoidance of double taxation on income and capital entered into by Costa Rica with the States of Germany, Spain, Mexico, and the United Arab Emirates. As has been indicated, there are two distinct linking criteria, one of worldwide income and another of territorial income, the latter being the one our country follows based on what is expressly provided by the legislator. In the same vein, earlier it was mentioned that the worldwide income system seeks to tax the income or profits of residents and/or nationals of a particular jurisdiction regardless of the place where they are located or have obtained the income, which is the case of capital-exporting countries. For this reason, those who choose to implement a worldwide income linking criterion must guarantee their residents internal measures of fiscal relief to prevent the same income from being subjected to double taxation. One tool to achieve this is the international conventions for the avoidance of double taxation that are entered into between States and that contain a series of normative provisions to avoid international juridical double taxation that may arise as a result of cross-border operations. Costa Rica has entered into conventions for the avoidance of double taxation with Germany, Spain, Mexico, and the United Arab Emirates, each of them containing, as well as the respective protocols (applicable only in the case of Germany and Spain), provisions that refer to the cited territoriality principle applicable to the case of Costa Rica. From the provisions of such instruments, it follows that Costa Rica pursues a territorial income linking criterion that, contrary to the thesis held by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, is strictly limited to the geographical space and bears no relation to the alleged "economic link." In accordance with Articles 1, 2, 5, and ch) 6 of the LISR, the cited conventions are lucid in indicating that income shall be of Costa Rican source when obtained within our geographical limits, which, in attention to Article 6 of the Political Constitution, comprise the territory, the airspace, the maritime areas (including the subsoil and seabed adjacent to the outer limit of the territorial sea). Therefore, it is insisted that any income, revenue, or profit obtained outside such limits shall be extraterritorial in nature, and therefore, shall not be subject to the income tax on profits in Costa Rica. Hence, the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is contrary to the normative provisions contained in the conventions for the avoidance of double taxation entered into with Germany, Spain, Mexico, and the United Arab Emirates. She alleges, additionally, that the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice currently would also be violating the principle of tax equality. Although in the Costa Rican legal system there is no constitutional norm that precisely or expressly sets forth a principle of tax equality, as does occur, for example, in Spain, this is derived from a joint reading of Articles 18 and 33 of the Constitution. Based on these constitutional provisions, it is plausible to assert that all citizens must be subject to the same public burdens without creating any discrimination. However, it is this Constitutional Court itself that has truly been responsible for extensively developing the principle of tax equality. She cites judgments No. 5749-93 and No. 8196-1999. She asserts that in this context, currently, after the approval of Law No. 10.381, which amended Article 1 of the LISR, it became evident that the reasoning advanced by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgments No. 617-F-S1-2010, No. 55-F-S1-2011, No. 475-F-S1-2011, No. 976-F-Sl-2016, and No. 326-A-S1-2017 is unconstitutional and, if kept in force, it would result in unequal treatment of taxpayers in the same situation. For example, in the case of her represented party, the Tax Administration initiated an audit process for the income tax (profits) for the 2017 fiscal period in which it reclassified income obtained outside Costa Rican jurisdiction as taxable based on the "economic link" criterion endorsed by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. It is probable that many other taxpayers have gone through the same situation, in the sense that before October 2023, the Tax Administration initiated audit processes against taxpayers in which it resorted to the jurisprudence of the Court of Cassation to justify adjustments for income obtained outside Costa Rica.

Nevertheless, from the legislative discussion it is clear that the principle of territoriality, as understood by the First Chamber, did not coincide with the legislator's intent, and if currently the Tax Administration were to initiate an audit process against a taxpayer, after the approval of Law No. 10,381, it may not resort to that case law to justify a tax adjustment for extraterritorial income because the Legislative Branch clarified the territorial income system that governs our tax system. That material impossibility of relying on that case law undoubtedly creates a scenario of tax inequality, since while hundreds of taxpayers face litigious processes in which they have to or will have to defend themselves against the criterion of economic connection adopted by the First Chamber that extends the principle of territoriality, as is the case of its represented party, other hundreds of taxpayers were benefited and against these the Tax Administration may not apply such criterion of economic connection, but rather only those incomes obtained in Costa Rican territory may be taxed in accordance with the geographical limits of Article 6 of the Magna Carta. That is to say, we are in the presence of different factual situations in which equals are treated unequally. Thus, it is plausible to assert that the alleged inequality lacks an objective and reasonable justification, that is: there are no substantive reasons for some to be audited following a criterion of economic connection and others not. For this reason, given the supervening change of circumstances (the entry into force of Law No. 10,381), the case law of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice generates a state of tax inequality in the Costa Rican legal system and must be recognized as such by this Court. It requests that this acción de inconstitucionalidad be granted.

2.- In order to support its standing, the petitioner indicates that Article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional requires, for the admissibility of an acción de inconstitucionalidad, the existence of a prior matter to be resolved either in judicial or administrative proceedings, in which the unconstitutionality must be invoked as a reasonable means to defend the rights or interests considered to have been injured. In the specific case, said prior matter is constituted by the jurisdictional process being processed before the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, under judicial file No. [Value 001]; which is currently pending judgment. It asserts that in such process, in the complaint, the unconstitutionality of the case law of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice was invoked, which has been applied in its specific case by the Tax Administration.

3.- By means of official communication dated January 11, 2024, the Tribunal Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José, was requested to forward to this Chamber the judicial file being processed under number [Value 001], which is a proceeding of Pan-American Life Insurance de Costa Rica S.A. against the State.

4.- On January 25, 2024, a copy of the file being processed under number [Value 002] was associated with this file.

5.- Article 9 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional empowers the Chamber to reject outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its presentation, any petition submitted to its cognizance that proves to be manifestly improper, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to reject it, or that it constitutes the mere reiteration or reproduction of a prior identical or similar rejected petition.

Drafted by Magistrate Castillo Víquez; and,

Considering:

I.- ON STANDING. The petitioner is deemed to have standing to file this action, based on Article 75, paragraph 1, of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, given the existence of a prior matter pending resolution being processed in file No. [Value 001], which is a proceeding of Pan-American Life Insurance de Costa Rica S.A. against the State, in which the unconstitutionality of the case law challenged here was invoked, having been applied in the petitioner's case by the Tax Administration.

II.- OBJECT OF THIS ACTION. The petitioner files this acción de inconstitucionalidad against the jurisprudential line of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, contained –specifically– in rulings No. 617-F-S1-2010, No. 55-F-S1-2011, No. 475-F-S1-2011, No. 976-F-S1-2016, and No. 326-F-S1-2017, concerning the interpretation of Article 1 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta. It is alleged, specifically, that the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice incurred in an extensive interpretation of the law, by means of which it broadened the taxable event (hecho generador) of the income tax (impuesto sobre las utilidades), to tax income generated or obtained outside Costa Rican territory, under the criterion that they maintain a close connection or link with the Costa Rican economic structure. It alleges an infringement of the constitutional principles of legal reserve (reserva de ley) and legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), in relation to Articles 6 and 7 of the Political Constitution. The petitioner indicates that it knows of the existence of precedents from this Chamber in which respective acciones de inconstitucionalidad filed against that same jurisprudential line were dismissed, but alleges that there is a new fact that justifies modifying the criterion of this Constitutional Court, which is the enactment of Law No. 10,381 of September 14, 2023, called "Modificación a la ley N° 7092, Ley de impuesto sobre la renta, para lograr la exclusión de Costa Rica de la lista de países no cooperantes en materia fiscal de la Unión Europea", which partially modified the text of Article 1 of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta and confirmed the territorial system of taxation that has governed in Costa Rica, which is limited exclusively to income obtained within Costa Rican territory under the geographical scope. It assures that, with such legal reform, both the interpretation advanced by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and by this Constitutional Court become absolutely outdated.

III.- ON THE MERITS. The petitioner itself acknowledges that this Court recently ruled on the constitutionality of the referred jurisprudential line. The foregoing, in acción de inconstitucionalidad No. 20-007518-0007-CO, in which the case law issued by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice was challenged, as set forth in the cited votes numbers 326-F-S1-2017, 976-F-S1-2016, 475-F-S1-2011, 55-F-S1-2011, and 617-F-S1-2010, regarding the interpretation of Articles 1, 5, and 6, subsection ch), of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta (Law No. 7092), in relation to the principle of territoriality in tax matters, considering that such jurisprudential guideline was contrary to the literal wording of the cited articles of Law No. 7902, thus violating the principles of legal reserve, economic capacity (capacidad económica), and double taxation. The mentioned acción de inconstitucionalidad was declared without merit, by majority vote, through ruling No. 2022-023955 at 4:42 p.m. on October 12, 2022. Subsequently, through vote No. 2022-023958 at 9:20 a.m. on October 14, 2022, it was ordered to correct the material error in the operative part of the cited ruling No. 2022-023955, so that it reads as follows:

“Unanimously, the coadjuvancy petition filed by Antonio Vargas Villalobos, in his capacity as absolute general proxy without sum limit of Coca-Cola Industrias Ltda., is rejected. By majority, the accumulated acciones de inconstitucionalidad are declared without merit regarding the grievance of violation of the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. Magistrate Garita Navarro partially dissents and grants the accumulated acciones de inconstitucionalidad and, consequently, orders the annulment as unconstitutional of the case law of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice contained in rulings 617-F-S1-2010 at 09:10 a.m. on May 20, 2010, 55-FS1-2011 at 08:50 a.m. on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 at 11:20 a.m. on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 at 1:05 p.m. on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 at 10:55 a.m. on March 23, 2017, for violating the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. Likewise, by connection, orders the annulment of all directives or general instructions of the tax administration, directed at taxpayers, that have coverage under the norms now declared unconstitutional. Unanimously, the accumulated actions are declared without merit regarding the claims of violation of the principles of economic capacity and double taxation. This pronouncement shall be notified to the parties and to the judicial authority hearing the prior matter.” Criterion reiterated, subsequently, in votes 2023-000355, 2023-000357, and 2023-000359, when hearing various acciones de inconstitucionalidad filed against the same jurisprudential line, in which –as in the sub lite case– a violation of the constitutional principles of legal reserve and legal certainty, as well as of Articles 6 and 7 of the Political Constitution, was alleged. Therefore, we now proceed to resolve the present action, based on the considerations set forth in the aforementioned rulings.

IV.- ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL RESERVE AND ARTICLES 6 AND 121, SUBSECTION 13, OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION. The petitioner claims that the jurisprudential criterion of the First Chamber –challenged here– violates the principle of legal reserve, because, via jurisdictional interpretation, an expanded scope of the principle of territoriality is established, which does not correspond to what was provided by the legislator in the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta and which entails the adoption of a worldwide income concept, contravening the territorial income concept that the Costa Rican income tax system follows, in order to tax, without legal support, extraterritorial passive income with the income tax. Regarding this aspect, in the cited ruling No. 2022-023955, the majority of the members of the Constitutional Court decided to declare the action without merit and considered that the accused case law of the First Chamber was limited to the correct application and interpretation of the material norms in force "at the date the modifications were made to the petitioner company and when issuing the rulings the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice", regarding the determination of the taxable base (base imponible) and, therefore, the principles of legal reserve and tax legality were not violated. In this sense, the following was stated:

“(…) V.- The object of the action. The petitioners challenge the legal criterion expressed by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, contained in votes numbers 617-F-S1-2010 at 09:10 a.m. on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 at 08:50 a.m. on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 at 11:20 a.m. on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 at 1:05 p.m. on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 at 10:55 a.m. on March 23, 2017. They allege that the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in its case law adopts an extensive interpretation of the concept of territoriality, to establish a tax via interpretation. To determine the taxability of income generated abroad, and thus be taxed by the income tax, it considers that it is Costa Rican-source income because it had its origin in Costa Rican capital, because the taxpayer uses a company located and domiciled in the country and Costa Rican capital to generate the extraterritorial income. They consider that the subjective elements adopted in the challenged case law are typical of a tax system governed by the worldwide income criterion, despite the fact that in Costa Rica the governing system is an objective criterion based on the principle of territoriality. Therefore, they indicate that the criterion issued is contrary to the literal wording of Articles 1, 5, and 6 subsection ch) of the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta No. 7092, thus violating the principle of legal reserve; that of economic capacity and double taxation.

VI.- On the methodology of analysis of the action. To facilitate the study of the acción de inconstitucionalidad filed, in the following considering clauses, the invoked constitutional norms and principles will be analyzed in a general manner, to then analyze the grievances of unconstitutionality set forth by the petitioners against the challenged case law.

VII.- On the tax power of the State. This Constitutional Court, in ruling No. 1341-93 at 10:30 a.m. on March 29, 1993, stated the following regarding the tax power:

"II).- THE TAX POWER- The so-called 'Tax Power' – the sovereign power of the State to demand contributions from persons or property within its jurisdiction or grant exemptions – recognizes no limitations other than those originating in the Political Constitution itself. That power to tax is the power to enact legal norms from which the obligation to pay a tax or to respect a tax limit may derive, and among the constitutional principles of Taxation are the Principle of Legality or Legal Reserve, that of Equality or Isonomy, of Generality, and of Non-Confiscation. Taxes must emanate from a Law of the Republic, not create discrimination against taxpayers, must comprehensively cover all persons or property provided for in the law and not just a part of them, and care must be taken that they are not of such magnitude that they violate private property (Articles 33, 40, 45, 121 subsection 13 of the Political Constitution)." Likewise, in ruling No. 2020020838 at 9:20 a.m. on October 28, 2020, the Chamber reiterated such considerations, and as relevant, stated:

"Article 18 of the Political Constitution provides:

'Article 18.- Costa Ricans must observe the Constitution and the laws, serve the Homeland, defend it, and contribute to public expenses.' Thus, the constitutional obligation to contribute to public expenses is verified, without unjustified or arbitrary exceptions or privileges (Article 33 of the Political Constitution). Likewise, the Political Constitution confers upon the legislator the tax power, according to which it is responsible for establishing national taxes and contributions and authorizing municipal ones (Article 121, subsection 13). Regarding the content and exercise of the tax power, this Chamber has stated:

'(…) The legislator may discretionarily create the taxes it deems necessary according to the parameters it considers convenient, in order to satisfy public needs, with the only limits established by the Political Constitution. In that sense, it has been repeatedly stated:

'V.- Legislative competence in tax matters. The Political Constitution, in its Article 121 subsection 13), gives the Legislative Assembly the power to create national taxes and contributions, and to authorize municipal ones. This broad –though not unlimited– power allows the Assembly not only to create taxes, determining their essential elements (taxpayer, taxable event, taxable base, and amount or percentage of the tax), but also to exempt certain individuals, property, or activities from their application (exemption), it can eliminate existing taxes, and can even modify them, varying any of the already mentioned elements of the tax obligation. Said power to modify existing taxes gives the State the possibility of diminishing, modifying, or increasing the imposed burden, whether as an instrument of fiscal policy or to fulfill any other lawful purposes.' (Vote No. 2014-000852 at 2:30 p.m. on January 22, 2014) This Chamber has also recognized that such tax power, which is enshrined in the Constitution itself, responds to the inexorable need of the State to capture resources for the fulfillment of its purposes. Indeed, this Court has stated that the tax power (Article 121, subsection 13, of the Political Constitution) and the principle of equality in the support of public burdens (Articles 18 and 33 of the Constitution) are absolutely consubstantial to the Social and Democratic Rule of Law, because:

'(…) Without the tax power and the correlative duty of every person to contribute to public expenses, the various public entities that provide positive benefits to the inhabitants to eradicate real and effective inequalities –typical of a Social Rule of Law– could not exercise their functions, fulfill their competencies, and satisfy the public interest, since it would be impossible for them to have public resources for that purpose.' (Vote No. 2008-011210 at 3:00 p.m. on July 16, 2008).

Thus, the reason for the tax power not only finds due justification in the State's need to obtain income to finance the functions and services it provides to the community, but also in the fact that the person benefits from those services and from the social function of the State. As this Chamber has clarified:

'(…) Although from the traditional point of view the purpose of the tax is revenue collection, today it is conceptualized as a fundamental instrument of the State for satisfying public needs. On this aspect, the Spanish Constitutional Court has stated that the constitutional duty of cooperation places the citizen in a situation of subjection and collaboration with the Tax Administration for the support of public expenses –vested with unquestionable public interest– which justifies the imposition of certain legal limitations on the exercise of individual rights.' (Vote No. 2005-4704 at 3:00 p.m. on April 27, 2005)" From the foregoing, it is determined that the tax power configures the power to create and impose taxes and demand contributions from persons or property within the territory of the State, with the exceptions and limitations established in the Political Constitution and the laws, which are applied both to Costa Rican citizens and to foreigners living in the country, as well as to any person who develops activities that are part of the tax structures that the State has defined by formal law, irrespective of their residence (territorial or fiscal). This power also entails that of tax management, which includes the determination, oversight, control of due compliance with formal and material tax obligations, as well as the adoption of corrective and sanctioning measures arising from the breach of said duties and tax burdens, while also enabling it to exercise interpretation of the norms that make up the fiscal legal system, through the adoption of interpretative criteria, tax consultations, among others. Article 121 subsection 13) of the Magna Carta endows the Legislative Assembly with the power to establish national taxes, fees, and contributions, that is, it limits their exercise, creation, and approval through the legislator, to safeguard legal certainty and the collective interest of the population, respecting the constitutional tax principles.

VIII.- On the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. The principle of legal reserve, of constitutional roots, is connected with other constitutional principles, such as the principle of normative hierarchy and that of legal certainty, the attainment of which in turn presupposes respect for the principle of legal reserve. In tax matters, said principle is called upon to perform essential functions, such as serving as a vehicle for various substantive requirements, ensuring uniform treatment for diverse groups of citizens (guarantee of equality of citizens before tax law). On the other hand, the constitutional principle of legal reserve constitutes the axis of relations between the executive branch and the legislative branch regarding the production of norms; it presupposes the separation of powers and excludes the regulation of certain matters through channels other than the law. Furthermore, it constitutes a limit, not only for the executive branch, but also for the legislative branch itself, which cannot renounce a function that has been attributed to it for mandatory exercise. The most precise delimitation of the principle of legal reserve occurs in the field of tax obligations, as a consequence of the clear individualization and singularity of taxes in the field of patrimonial benefits of a public nature. The content of the principle of legal reserve in tax matters implies the need for the legislative branch to determine the essential elements of the tax, the core of matters that must be specified by law.

Repeatedly, this Constitutional Chamber has stated that the principle of legal reserve derives from the provisions of Article 121 subsection 13 of the Political Constitution. By virtue of such provision, it corresponds exclusively to the Legislative Assembly to establish national taxes and contributions, a power that, moreover, is non-delegable to the Executive Branch and which stands as a guarantee for the governed that their imposition must follow the formal legislative process. In this regard, this Court noted in ruling No. 4785-93, at 8:39 a.m. on September 30, 1993:

"VI.- The alleged principle of legal reserve in tax matters was developed by the Supreme Court of Justice, then in its constitutional jurisdiction functions, in a Resolution at eight o'clock on November twenty-ninth, nineteen hundred seventy-three, expressing what is relevant:

'II.- The principle of "legal reserve" in tax matters results from the provisions of Article 121 subsection 13 of the Political Constitution, according to which it corresponds exclusively to the Legislative Assembly to "establish national taxes and contributions"; an attribution that, in accordance with Article 9 ibidem, the Assembly could not delegate to the Executive Branch, which would also not be lawful to invade the legislator's sphere in the exercise of the regulatory powers granted by Article 140 subsection 3 of the same Constitution. The problem consists, then, in defining what should be understood by "establish taxes", to thereby determine whether the Tax Reform Law delegated or not to the Executive Branch, in the manner alleged in the appeal, the exclusive power conferred by Article 121 subsection 13 of the Political Constitution.

III.- Establish means "to institute", and also "to order, command, decree", according to the Dictionary of the Language. To establish a tax is, therefore, to order or decree a certain tax burden; that is, stated more broadly, to create the tax and determine "the taxable objects, the bases, and the rates..."' Likewise, in ruling 2006-009170 at 4:36 p.m. on June 28, 2006, the Chamber referred to the principle of legal reserve and its scope, in the following terms:

'V.- A) The constitutional jurisprudence regarding the principle of legal reserve as one of the constitutional principles governing tax imposition.- Previously and constantly, constitutional jurisprudence has referred to the principles governing the State's tax activity. For example, it has been said that the State has the sovereign power within its jurisdiction to demand contributions from persons or to tax their property. That power to tax is the power to enact legal norms from which the obligation to pay a tax derives. Our legal system recognizes the tax power of the State at the constitutional level, so it corresponds to the Legislative Assembly the power to "Establish national taxes and contributions, ..." (Article 121 subsection 13 of the Political Constitution), thus constituting an obligation for Costa Ricans to pay the public charges established by the State to contribute to public expenses, an obligation that has constitutional rank under the terms of Article 18 of the Constitution, corresponding on its part to the Executive Branch to arrange the collection of national revenues, Article 140 subsection 7 of our Magna Carta. However, the exercise of that tax power must respect the constitutional principles of Taxation, referring to the Principle of Legal Reserve, the Principle of Equality or Isonomy, the Principle of Generality, and the Principle of Non-Confiscation. In other words, taxes must emanate from a Law of the Republic (legal reserve), must not create discrimination against taxpayers (equality), must comprehensively cover all persons or property provided for in the law and not just a part of them (generality), and care must be taken that they are not of such magnitude that they violate private property (non-confiscation), according to Articles 33, 40, 45, and 121 subsection 13 of the Political Constitution (see in this regard ruling number 6455-94). Based on the foregoing, and regarding the principle of legal reserve, only by law approved by the Legislative Assembly can taxes be legitimately imposed, by virtue of the provisions of Article 121 subsection 13) of the Constitution, an attribution conferred upon the Legislative Branch and which cannot be delegated to the Executive Branch. The most important doctrine on the matter, generally, has stated that the "tax power" – tax authority, impositive power, power of imposition among others – is inherent to the State and cannot be suppressed, delegated, or ceded (ruling number 1687-96, and in similar sense, rulings numbers 4072-95, 5544-95, 0730-95, 4949-94, 2947-94, and 4785-93). Thus, the principle of legal reserve in tax matters constitutes one of the fundamental pillars of our Rule of Law, in such a way that the definition of the constituent elements of the tax obligation are reserved exclusively to the law (active and passive subjects, object of the obligation, cause, tax rate), although through constitutional jurisprudence relative delegation in this matter has been admitted only regarding the determination of the amount to be paid, and provided that the law creating the tax clearly establishes the elements or parameters on which it must be defined (see ruling number 0730-95, at 3:00 p.m. on February 3, 1995, and among others, rulings numbers 1426-95, 1427-95, and 0687-96). Likewise, this Court has stated the possibility that the Executive Branch has to establish the collection mechanism for a tax, without this implying a violation of the principles of legal reserve in tax matters and regulatory power contained in Articles 11, 121 subsection 13), and 140 subsection 3) of the Political Constitution, nor of any fundamental right, insofar as a new tax is not established or the one established by law is modified (rulings numbers 3016-95, at 11:36 a.m. on June 9, 1995, and 3449-96, at 3:27 p.m. on July 9, 1996). In summary, the constitutional principle of legal reserve in tax matters refers to the fact that the power to create taxes is exclusive to the legislator. (…)' It can be concluded then that it is solely the Legislative Assembly, which, through the procedure for the creation of formal law, can establish the essential elements of taxes, these being: the taxable base, the taxable event, the rate, the taxpayer and the taxing entity, as well as the fiscal period. Hence, there can be no tax without a prior law establishing it –nullum tributum sine lege–.

IX.- By majority, the accumulated acciones de inconstitucionalidad are declared without merit regarding the grievance of violation of the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. Drafted by Magistrate Castillo Víquez. It must be clear that the Court of Cassation is responsible for the interpretation and application of legal norms in the specific case –just as the rest of the judges–; it is the ultimate, not the only, interpreter of ordinary legislation. It is called upon to establish the correct meaning of the law. Following the doctrine of living law – the interpretation and application of the norm to the specific case and not the abstract vision of when the legislator enacts the law–, the Court of Cassation, as well as the ordinary courts, adopting as a frame of reference the intention of the legislator –the ratio legis–, are called to resolve the legal dispute, so that the parties find a solution to the conflict.

In tax matters this is not the exception; however, due to the principle of tax legality, the judge—the a-quo, the ad-quem, and the magistrate—have a series of insurmountable barriers or constitutional and legal impediments. Indeed, through the interpretation and application of tax regulations, taxes—imposts, fees, and special contributions—exemptions, non-subjections, etc., cannot be created, modified, or extinguished. Much less can the essential or structural elements of the tax be established or expanded, nor can analogy be used to create or modify taxes. Now, what the ordinary judge can do is resort to the traditional methods of legal interpretation provided for in ordinary legislation—literal, historical, teleological, systematic, etc. Taking the above as a parameter, as explained below, the crux of the matter in this legal dispute lies in the fact of whether the case law of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice—identical rulings from which a rule of law is extracted—broadens the tax base of the income tax (impuesto a las utilidades) by including as company income the profits they obtain from operations carried out abroad. That is, whether or not it affects the equity of companies by extending the criterion of territoriality to financial operations carried out abroad from which a certain profit is obtained. For a better understanding of the issue, it is necessary to bring to light that, in the base case of this action, the Tax Administration, as a result of its audit activity, made an adjustment to the income declared by the plaintiff bank for "income from demand deposits and investments in foreign entities," considering that the returns obtained by the bank were generated with capital of Costa Rican source. The adjustments made by the Tax Audit were confirmed by the Tax Administration through resolutions DT 10R-107-19 and AU10R-19. The Tax Administration makes clear in resolution AU10R-19 that it is based on the jurisprudential criterion of the First Chamber, expressed, among others, in resolutions 000326-F-SI-2017 and 000976-F-S1-2016, which are the most recent rulings of said Chamber and which endorse the position of the Tax Administration that the principle of territoriality derived from the Income Tax Law (Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta) does not refer only to a geographical aspect. The case law of the First Chamber has been manifesting itself in resolutions from 2010 and 2011.

The plaintiff considers that the case law of the First Chamber violates the principle of constitutional legal reserve in tax matters enshrined in Article 121, subsection 13) of the Political Constitution, in that the returns obtained by companies that invest abroad form part of the taxable base (base imponible) of the income tax provided for in Article 1 of the Income Tax Law No. 7092, as argued in the appeal being processed before the Administrative Tax Tribunal, thereby mutating the concept of territoriality established by Law No. 7092 into the concept of worldwide income (renta mundial) via interpretation, invading powers that belong to the ordinary legislator.

Article 121, subsection 13 of the Political Constitution establishes the principle of legal reserve in tax matters, and Article 5, subsection a) of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures develops it. According to this principle, only through formal law can taxes be created, as well as their essential elements, specifically: the passive subject, the taxable base, the taxable event (hecho generador), and the tax rate. Therefore, the way the taxable base of a tax is determined cannot be varied through legal interpretation. In order to specify the stance of the Tax Administration and the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, it must be kept in mind that Article 1 of the Income Tax Law—in force at the date the adjustments were made to the plaintiff company and when the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued its rulings—expressly defines the essential elements of the tax levied on corporate profits. Thus, the legislator establishes that the taxable event of the income tax is constituted by the receipt of income in cash or in kind, continuous or occasional, from any Costa Rican source, as well as continuous or eventual income from a Costa Rican source received or accrued by natural or legal persons domiciled in Costa Rica, as well as any other income or benefit from a Costa Rican source not exempted by law. On the other hand, Chapter IV of the cited law refers to the determination of the taxable base, while Articles 5, 6, 7, and 8 establish the procedure for its determination, so it is not the Tax Administration nor the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice that, through their case law, have included within the taxable base for the calculation of the income tax the income obtained by the appellant company from its investments abroad, as correctly argued by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República). It is evident, then, that if the plaintiff company is a company domiciled in Costa Rica, its income-producing source is Costa Rican and the capital invested abroad is Costa Rican, the returns obtained form part of the taxable income of the company in Costa Rica, since there is an economic link between the income produced abroad and the producing source of the company domiciled in Costa Rica, which does not in itself entail a change from the concept of territorial income—in force at the time of the audit proceedings—to the criterion of worldwide income, because the legislator expressly provided what the taxable income was. Therefore, without a doubt, the criterion of economic linkage derives from the law itself by considering income linked to the income-producing source as taxable. It must be pointed out that in Article 1 of the cited law, the legislator expressly provides that any income or benefit from a Costa Rican source not exempted by law is taxable, and the fact is that the legislator does not establish any exception in this regard. The exception that the plaintiff alleges for not declaring the income derived from foreign investments as taxable and for claiming that the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is taxing them through case law is based on an interpretation that this Tribunal does not share, since subsection ch) of Article 6 of Law No. 7092, which establishes exclusions from gross income, refers to income generated by virtue of contracts, agreements, or negotiations on assets or capital located abroad. In this direction, the Advisory Body tells us that, insofar as the returns obtained by the plaintiff company abroad are not from assets or capital located abroad, but rather derive from capital domiciled in Costa Rica, where the income-producing source of the plaintiff is located, they are therefore taxable with the income tax. The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic adds, furthermore, that the action of the Tax Administration cannot be considered arbitrary and contrary to law, and even less so the case law of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, and therefore, the constitutional principle of tax legality is not violated, since the determination of the taxable base of a tax such as the one levied on profits, in accordance with the principle of legality that prevails in tax matters, is nothing other than the application of the substantive legal rules that circumscribe it to specific facts, such that the activity to be developed by the Tax Administration is, on the one hand, a simple verification of those facts necessary to determine the obligation and, on the other, the application of the substantive rules. That is why the cases that gave rise to the case law of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which is accused of violating the principle of constitutional legality, are limited to the correct application and interpretation of the substantive rules regarding the determination of the taxable base. This being the case, regarding taxes, what the principle of legal reserve imposes is that the substantive-legal rules of the base be contained in a legal provision, as is the case with Articles 1, 5, and 6 subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law, which prevents them from being created for the specific case by mere administrative or judicial will. Therefore, following the arguments provided by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, it is concluded that the principle of tax legality is not violated, and the corresponding course of action is to declare this action without merit (...)” V.- ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY (SEGURIDAD JURÍDICA). In full consonance with the above, in vote no. 2023-000357 at 9:20 a.m. on January 11, 2023, this Chamber resolved—in relation to that same line of case law—that:

“VII.- ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY. The plaintiffs also accuse an infringement of the principle of legal certainty, since they allege—again—that the case law of the First Chamber is due to an erroneous and broad interpretation of the law. It is accused, in particular, of a "broadening via interpretation of the taxable event of a tax established in the law" and that "the administered parties (taxpayers) should not have to find themselves in a situation of legal uncertainty regarding the determination of the elements of the taxable bases of taxes; thus, the actions of the First Chamber in its repeated rulings on the criterion of 'linkage with the country's economic structure' dismantle legal certainty regarding the interpretation of the rule." However, regarding this point, reference must be made to what was already resolved in vote no. 2022-023955, in the sense that the questioned line of case law is limited to the correct application and interpretation of the substantive rules regarding the determination of the taxable base. Therefore, the action regarding this reproach must also be rejected.” VI.- ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION AND DOUBLE TAXATION. The plaintiff also questions that the challenged case law could generate a scenario of double taxation and mentions the existence of various international agreements signed by Costa Rica precisely to avoid such a situation. It argues that from those same agreements, it can be derived that Costa Rica follows a criterion of territorial income subjection that, contrary to the thesis sustained by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, is strictly limited to the geographical space and has no relation to the alleged "economic linkage." Regarding this point, in the cited vote no. 2023-000355 at 9:20 a.m. on January 11, 2023, this Tribunal resolved that:

VI.- ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF ECONOMIC CAPACITY. On the other hand, the representative of the plaintiff company alleges that the challenged case law infringes the principle of economic capacity, enshrined in Article 18 of the Political Constitution. It states that the taxing power must be directed towards the real capacity of each passive subject. The reclassification in the income tax entails an impact on the patrimonial sphere of its representative, which affects its contributory capacity. On this aspect, in judgment no. 2022-023955 at 4:42 p.m. on October 12, 2022, unanimously, the Constitutional Tribunal ordered the actions dismissed regarding the allegations of infringement of the principles of economic capacity and double taxation, since the plaintiff party omitted to indicate parameters that would allow determining a true economic impact that would make it impossible for them to fulfill the tax obligation, nor did it provide appropriate elements so that this Chamber could assess whether the alleged double taxation, if existing, would seriously decrease their gross income. In this sense, the following was provided:

“XIII.- Doctrinally, the principle of contributory capacity is understood as that aptitude of the taxpayer to be a passive subject of tax obligations, an aptitude that is established by the presence of facts revealing wealth that, after being subjected to a valuation by the legislator and reconciled with the aims of a political, social, and economic nature, are elevated to the rank of taxable category; as this Tribunal has indicated. In judgment number 4788-93, at eight hours and forty-eight minutes on September thirty, nineteen ninety-three, this Chamber considered:

“Article 18 of the Political Constitution provides that it is the obligation of Costa Ricans to contribute to public expenses, which means that such a duty is fulfilled through the taxes that the State establishes or authorizes, as the case may be, and that in any case, they must be based on the general principles of Tax Law, which are implicit in that norm. That is why it is said that the tax must be fair, based on the contribution of all according to their economic capacity, and must respond to the principles of equality… and progressivity. This latter principle responds to an aspiration of justice, which is reflected in the maxim that those with a higher level of income pay proportionally more taxes, which implicitly entails, of course, the principle of the prohibition of confiscatory taxation. In accordance with the foregoing, the call to contribute to the support of public expenses must be made effective according to 'contributory or economic capacity,' through a fair tax system, which must be informed by the principle of equality.

In this regard, in judgment number 5749-93, at fourteen hours and thirty-three minutes on November nine, nineteen ninety-three, THIS Tribunal specified that:

'Economic capacity is the magnitude on which the amount of public payments is determined, a magnitude that takes into account the minimum levels of income that subjects must have for their subsistence and the amount of income subject to taxation... According to this principle—that of economic capacity—the tax must be appropriate to the capacity of the subject obliged to pay, and this determines the fairness of the tax, hence those with a greater economic capacity contribute in greater amount than those situated at a lower level.' In the same sense, judgments number 2001-02657, at fifteen hours and fifteen minutes on April four, two thousand one, and number 2012002510 at sixteen hours and three minutes on February twenty-two, two thousand twelve.” In view of what is stated in the cited precedents, this Tribunal considers that this aspect of the action must be rejected, since the arguments raised by the plaintiff are incomplete value judgments, as they omit to indicate parameters that would allow determining a true economic impact that would make it impossible for them to fulfill the tax obligation. Nor do they indicate that, based on the income taxed abroad, a disproportionate impact has been caused in their patrimonial spheres, demonstrating that their right to property is being illegitimately limited by facing the questioned tax burden. It should be noted that in each case where the infringement of this principle is alleged, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove that impact on the equity contrary to what is derived from constitutional Article 40 (judgment No. 2020020838 at 9:20 a.m. on October 28, 2020). Thus, lacking such evidentiary elements, this Tribunal cannot deem it proven that the economic capacity of the plaintiffs has been affected, or the impossibility of complying with it, due to their tax burden, as a consequence of the application of the challenged jurisprudential criterion, and which they indicate as contrary to the principle of economic capacity.

VII.- ON THE INFRINGEMENT OF ARTICLE 7, FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE THE CASE LAW OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE OPPOSES INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS. The representative of the plaintiff alleges, in addition, that the challenged constitutional interpretation promotes double taxation, because in those cases where a double taxation treaty has not been signed, the national taxpayer who invests abroad and generates credits it assumed were not subject to tax would have to pay taxes on them in the territory of the nation where the income was generated, without being able to apply any deduction in Costa Rica because the Income Tax Law, in its Article 9, subsection d), prevents it. In this regard, the Chamber considers that the grievance is not sufficiently substantiated, since the plaintiff limits itself to stating that the questioned case law promotes a double taxation scenario, without identifying the levies that fall on the same taxable object, nor providing elements to prove them, so that the Tribunal can assess whether the alleged double taxation, if existing, seriously decreases the gross income of the plaintiffs, by forcing them to contribute in an exorbitant or ruinous manner, that is, in a proportion that goes beyond their true economic capacity. In the indicated scenario, the appropriate course is to dismiss the action also regarding double taxation with respect to the questioned case law.

Considerations that are applicable to the sub lite, since the plaintiff also does not provide evidentiary elements that allow proving that, if an effective double taxation scenario exists, this "seriously decreases the gross income of the plaintiffs, by forcing them to contribute in an exorbitant or ruinous manner, that is, in a proportion that goes beyond their true economic capacity." Likewise, it must be reiterated what has already been indicated, in the sense that the challenged line of case law was limited "to the correct application and interpretation of the substantive rules regarding the determination of the taxable base," as "is the case with Articles 1, 5, 6 subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law," in force "at the date the adjustments were made to the plaintiff company and when the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued its rulings." This is without prejudice, of course, to the fact that if, in the specific case of the plaintiff, any of the mentioned international agreements is effectively applicable, even preferentially over the Income Tax Law, this can be alleged in the base matter itself.

VII- ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CHALLENGED CASE LAW AND THE PROPER DELIMITATION OF ITS OBJECT. Thus, it can be corroborated that this Tribunal has already concluded that the challenged line of case law, far from implying an erroneous or broad interpretation of the regulations in force at the time the rulings in question were issued by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, was limited to the correct application and interpretation of such regulations regarding the determination of the taxable base, which allowed ruling out an infringement of the principles of legal reserve, tax legality, and legal certainty, in relation to Articles 6 and 7 of the Political Constitution.

It must be added, furthermore, that in the cited action no. 20-007518-0007-CO, this Chamber heard a motion for addition and clarification, in which it was intended for this Tribunal to add to and clarify the operative part of judgment no. 2022-023955. It was expressly requested that this Chamber specify that the jurisprudential criterion rendered by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgments 617-F-S1-2010, 55-FS1-2011, 475-F-S1-2011, 976-F-S1-2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 made exclusive reference to Articles 1, 5, and 6 subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, Law No. 7092), in its version prior to the reform enacted through the Law for Strengthening Public Finances (Ley de Fortalecimiento de las Finanzas Públicas, Law No. 9635), which occurred on July 1, 2019. It was indicated that such clarification and addition was imperative, in order to have the necessary legal certainty regarding the fiscal periods that could be affected by the jurisprudential criterion rendered by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgments 617-F-S1-2010, 55-FS1-2011, 475-F-S1-2011, 976-F-S1-2016, and 326-F-S1-2017.

In response, this Chamber issued vote no. 2023-013388 at 9:50 a.m. on June 7, 2023, in which it resolved that:

“I.- In accordance with Article 12 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction, the judgments issued by this Chamber may be clarified or added to, at the request of a party, if requested within three days, and ex officio at any time, even in the execution proceedings, to the extent necessary to fully comply with the content of the ruling.

In the sub examine, this motion was filed within the legally established period, since the judgment was notified in its entirety to the plaintiff last November 21, and the filing of this new brief occurred on November 24, 2022.

II.- However, this Tribunal does not consider that judgment number 2022-23955, at 4:42 p.m. on October 12, 2022, is obscure or omissive regarding the points raised by the parties, since they were duly resolved and addressed. The petitioner's claim is entirely improper, not only because it involves a judgment whose points were dismissed by the Majority, but also because the reasoning and resolution given fall within what was the object of study in this process.

As was explained in that judgment, and as the plaintiff argues, what is challenged here is the legal criterion expressed by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in judgments numbers 617-F-S1-2010 at 09:10 a.m. on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 at 08:50 a.m. on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 at 11:20 a.m. on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 at 1:05 p.m. on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 at 10:55 a.m. on March 23, 2017. Consequently, the pronouncement made by this Tribunal in this action is limited solely to the analysis of the jurisprudential criterion issued therein by the jurisdictional authority, which was evidently resolved by that authority, in accordance with the legal framework in force at that time. And what was resolved was delimited in the consideranda, by stating, for example, in considerando IX the following: '...In order to specify the stance of the Tax Administration and the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, it must be kept in mind that Article 1 of the Income Tax Law—in force at the date the adjustments were made to the plaintiff company and when the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued its rulings—expressly defines the essential elements of the tax levied on corporate profits… It is evident, then, that if the plaintiff company is a company domiciled in Costa Rica, its income-producing source is Costa Rican and the capital invested abroad is Costa Rican, the returns obtained form part of the taxable income of the company in Costa Rica, since there is an economic link between the income produced abroad and the producing source of the company domiciled in Costa Rica, which does not in itself entail a change from the concept of territorial income—in force at the time of the audit proceedings—to the criterion of worldwide income, because the legislator expressly provided what the taxable income was…'. Thus, what the plaintiff sought in the sense that it be expressly indicated in the operative part of a dismissive judgment that the jurisprudential criterion that was the object of this action of unconstitutionality refers solely and exclusively to the interpretation of Articles 1, 5, and 6 subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law No. 7092, in its version prior to the reform enacted through the entry into force of the Law for Strengthening Public Finances No. 9635, which occurred on July 1, 2019, is improper, since this Tribunal was clear in the context of its pronouncement and did not incur any omission that must be rectified. Therefore, the motion filed is without merit.

III.- Dissenting vote of Magistrate Rueda Leal. In the sub examine, I clarify that I did not vote on the main resolution of this process no. 2022-23955 at 4:42 p.m. on October 12, 2022; however, after analyzing its content, I concur with the minority position of Magistrate Garita Navarro. In that sense, not sharing the majority position of the main judgment of this file, I do not subscribe to its eventual scopes, omissions, or ambiguities. Consequently, I issue a dissenting vote, since, according to my criterion, the action should have been declared partially with merit, in the terms of the dissenting vote of Magistrate Garita Navarro: 'Magistrate Garita Navarro dissents and declares the accumulated actions of unconstitutionality partially with merit and, consequently, orders the annulment on constitutional grounds of the case law of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice contained in judgments 617-F-S1-2010 at 09:10 a.m. on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 at 08:50 a.m. on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 at 11:20 a.m. on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 at 1:05 p.m. on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 at 10:55 a.m. on March 23, 2017, for violating the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. Likewise, by connection, orders the annulment of all directives or general instructions of the tax administration, addressed to taxpayers, that have coverage in the rules now declared unconstitutional.'” Therefore, it was finally resolved that:

“The motion filed is without merit. Magistrate Rueda Leal issues a dissenting vote.” Thus, from the outset it was clear that: a) the analysis and pronouncement of this Chamber was limited "solely to the analysis of the jurisprudential criterion issued therein by the jurisdictional authority, which was evidently resolved by that authority, in accordance with the legal framework in force at that time" and b) that the challenged case law was restricted "to the correct application and interpretation of the substantive rules regarding the determination of the taxable base," in accordance with the regulations "in force at the date the adjustments were made to the plaintiff company and when the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued its rulings." In which case, this Chamber finds no reason whatsoever to vary the criterion already rendered on that occasion.

VIII.- OF THE REFORM THROUGH LAW NO. 10,381. Now, in the present action, it is attempted to argue that the referred case law becomes unconstitutional by reason of a subsequent legal reform, which has come to modify Article 1 of the Income Tax Law, thus it is requested that the criterion already rendered by this Constitutional Tribunal be varied. However, such allegation and claim are improper. It must be reiterated what has already been indicated, in the sense that—from the outset—this Chamber clarified that the challenged case law was restricted "to the correct application and interpretation of the substantive rules regarding the determination of the taxable base," in accordance with the regulations "in force at the date the adjustments were made to the plaintiff company and when the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued its rulings." In which case, if a subsequent legal reform has existed that would justify varying the interpretation and application of such legal norm—by reason of modifications introduced to its normative text—this, prima facie, must be discussed and resolved in the ordinary venue. Additionally, the plaintiff refers to a presumed infringement of the principle of equality, while arguing that if the challenged case law is not modified, some taxpayers will not be able to benefit from the referred legal reform. The plaintiff makes express reference to its case and the result of the audit process it underwent regarding the income tax (profits) for the fiscal period 2017. However, determining the effects of said legal reform in relation to prior periods also constitutes an issue to be resolved in the ordinary venue. Regarding specifically the proper application of the law over time, in vote no.

2020-014224 of 9:15 a.m. on July 29, 2020, this Chamber —as relevant— resolved that:

"IV.— On the other hand, the plaintiff argues that his case should have been heard under the Civil Procedure Code that was in force in July 2016, the time at which he filed his proceeding and for which the exclusion provided in the current code did not exist. In this regard, as noted from the underlying matter, the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José based its decision on the provisions of Transitory Provision I of the current code, which states: "TRANSITORY PROVISION I.— Proceedings that were pending upon the entry into force of this Code shall be processed, insofar as possible, by adjusting them to the new legislation, seeking to apply the new provisions and harmonizing them, as applicable, with the actions already taken." Now, if the plaintiff considers that there is an erroneous application of the law over time, as he argues that the Civil Procedure Code of 1989 should apply, and not the procedural code that entered into force as of October 2018, and under which he considers his interdict was declared inadmissible, this is a discussion that, in the terms raised, is also exempt from being heard in this jurisdiction, as it is not a matter of constitutionality, but of legality. Let us examine the following precedents in this regard:

1- “…In addition to the foregoing, if the appellant considers that the regulations applied to him in the particular case were not those that corresponded, since, in his opinion, his situation was covered by a prior regulation that allowed the granting of a higher percentage for work in the position, what is thus raised is not a problem of retroactive application of the law but of the application of the law over time, a task that corresponds to the judge of legality, in a broad sense. Nor is it the competence of this Court to declare any acquired right in favor of the protected party, as this also corresponds to the legality channel.” (ruling 2020-2579 of 9:30 a.m. on February 7, 2020" 2- "I.— On the inadmissibility of the action filed against the Jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. In the first place, the Chamber notes that the plaintiff cites five rulings of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice to demonstrate the existence of the challenged jurisprudential line, among which is number 00047-A-51-2009 of 11:05 a.m. on January 22, 2009, issued in the proceeding in which he appears as the defendant party. The action is inadmissible in this regard, firstly because Article 10 of the Political Constitution establishes that jurisdictional acts of the Judicial Branch are not challengeable in the constitutional jurisdiction; likewise, Article 74 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction determines that the action of unconstitutionality shall not be admissible against jurisdictional acts of the Judicial Branch. One of the resolutions cited by the plaintiff is that issued in the proceeding in which he appeared as a party, such that he would be challenging in this action of unconstitutionality a jurisdictional pronouncement issued in a specific case, which is improper. On the other hand, the Chamber considers that the arguments raised to attack the constitutionality of the jurisprudence are not of constitutional relevance, as the plaintiff alleges that the jurisprudence has denied the cassation appeal in collection proceedings in which the statute of limitations was declared, in which the complaint was admitted before the entry into force of that law, which in his view goes against the letter of Transitory Provision I of the Judicial Collection Law. What is raised constitutes a legality dispute, since discrepancies regarding the application of the law over time are matters that must be alleged in the ordinary jurisdictional channel and not in an action of unconstitutionality." (Ruling No. 2012-7166 of 10:31 a.m. on May 30, 2012) 3- “…Note that the plaintiff seeks for this Court to indicate 'which labor legal regime is applicable to labor proceedings where consolidated legal situations prior to the entry into force of the Labor Procedural Reform on July 25, 2017, are being judged'; in which case, the Constitutional Chamber must not issue any judgment regarding such matter, as it is a conflict of clear legality outside its scope of competence, which must be resolved in the ordinary jurisdiction. This Court already indicated so in the cited ruling No. 2018-008531, as it resolved —as relevant— the following:

“(…) In the sub judice, the plaintiff states that he challenges Transitory Provision I of Law No. 9343 of January 25, 2016. Additionally, he points out as challenged articles 399, 404 to 408, 413, and 499 of the Labor Code, reformed by the same law. In relation to Transitory Provision I, the regulation governs the application of the cited procedural reform with respect to proceedings 'initiated before the entry into force' of Law No. 9343, i.e., before July 26, 2017. However, in this case, the proceeding cited as prior was filed on August 10, 2017, that is, after the law had entered into force. It is clear, then, that regarding this regulation, the action is not a reasonable means to protect the right deemed injured, since the pending proceeding does not fall within the scenario regulated by the provision of '(…) proceedings initiated before the entry into force of this law (…)'. That is, the Transitory Provision has no bearing on the principal proceeding as it was filed after the entry into force of the law. To which it must be added, moreover, that this Chamber recently indicated that resolving the following constitutes a conflict outside its scope of competence:

“(…) a controversy regarding the validity of the law over time, or whether the retroactive application of the provisions of the Labor Procedural Reform is applicable or not, in accordance with the transitory regime provided in that regulation” (Ruling No. 2017-016270 of 09:15 hrs. on October 11, 2017).” (See in the same sense ruling No. 2018-13139 of 9:30 a.m. on August 14, 2018, and 2018-11652, among others).

Thus, the action is inadmissible...".

Considerations applicable to the case under study, as there is no reason that justifies changing the criterion.

IX.— IN CONCLUSION. As a corollary of the foregoing, it is appropriate to reject the filed action on the merits, as is hereby ordered. Judge Rueda Leal dissents and partially grants the action of unconstitutionality for violation of the principle of legal reservation in tax matters.

X.— DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE RUEDA LEAL FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL RESERVATION.

First, I note that I partially dissented in rulings Nos. 2023-000355, 2023-000357, and 2023-000359, all of 9:20 a.m. on January 11, 2023, cited by the Majority. In particular, in ruling No. 2023-000355, together with Judge Garita Navarro, I dissented and partially granted the action for violation of the principle of legal reservation in tax matters based on these considerations:

“VIII.— Dissenting vote of Judges Rueda Leal and Garita Navarro regarding the grievance related to the Principle of Legal Reservation, drafted by the latter. With the usual respect and consideration, we disagree with what was resolved by the majority of the Chamber regarding the alleged violation of the principle of legal reservation in tax matters, as we consider that the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice challenged herein does violate that constitutional principle, based on the considerations set forth below:

• 1)On the principle of legal reservation in tax matters. Based on the constitutional rules and principles developed in considerandos VII and VIII of ruling No. 2022-023955, the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, Law 4755 of May 3, 1971, adopts the constitutional provision in its numeral 5, by expressly indicating that the creation, modification, and elimination of taxes (tributos) is a matter reserved to the law enacted by the Legislative Branch, as follows:

“Article 5.— Matters exclusive to the law. In tax matters, only the law may: a) Create, modify, or suppress taxes (tributos); define the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax relationship; establish the tax rates and their calculation bases; and indicate the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo); b) Grant exemptions, reductions, or benefits; c) Classify infractions and establish the respective sanctions; d) Establish privileges, preferences, and guarantees for tax credits; and e) Regulate the modes of extinguishment of tax credits by means other than payment (…)”.

That is, it is determined that prior to demanding the tax obligation, the essential and structural elements of the tax (tributo) must be established —taxable event (hecho generador), rate, taxable base (base imponible), active subject (sujeto activo) and taxpayer (sujeto pasivo), fiscal period—, which must be expressly defined in the law and must conform to the constitutional principles of legal reservation, economic capacity (capacidad económica), equality, non-confiscation, progressivity, among others. The foregoing relates to the constitutional principle, also of constitutional rank, of legal certainty, according to which, prior to the tax obligation to comply with the respective payment arising, taxpayers must have knowledge of them.

For its part, Article 11 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures provides, in relation to the foregoing:

“Article 11.— Concept. The tax obligation arises between the State or other public entities and the taxpayers (sujetos pasivos) when the taxable event (hecho generador) provided for in the law occurs; and constitutes a personal bond, although its fulfillment is secured through a real guarantee or with special privileges.” In this regard, this Constitutional Court in ruling 2003-06316 of 2:08 p.m. on July 3, 2003, cited ruling 10134-99 of 11:00 on December 23, 1999, which defined the concept of tax (tributo) and its different types as follows:

“«Costa Rican legal doctrine has traditionally followed the most generalized positions regarding the definition of the concept of tax (tributo) and its tripartite classification (taxes [impuestos], fees [tasas], and special contributions [contribuciones especiales]). In a generic sense, it has been considered, from the perspective of Financial Law doctrine, that the tax (tributo) is a mandatory payment, commonly in money, demanded by the State by virtue of its power of imperium and which gives rise to public law legal relationships. National legislation followed the model Tax Code for Latin America and in Article 4 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Tax Code), was based on the classic concept to express that 'taxes (tributos) are payments in money (taxes [impuestos], fees [tasas], and special contributions [contribuciones especiales]), which the State, in the exercise of its power of imperium, demands with the purpose of obtaining resources for the fulfillment of its purposes.' Then, it defined the three possible modalities of the tax (tributo), as follows:

'Tax (Impuesto) is the tax (tributo) whose obligation has as its taxable event (hecho generador) a situation independent of all state activity related to the taxpayer.

Fee (Tasa) is the tax (tributo) whose obligation has as its taxable event (hecho generador) the effective or potential provision of a public service individualized to the taxpayer; and whose proceeds must not have a destination unrelated to the service that constitutes the reason for the obligation. The consideration received from the user in payment for services not inherent to the State is not a fee (tasa).

Special Contribution (Contribución Especial) is the tax (tributo) whose obligation has as its taxable event (hecho generador) benefits derived from the realization of public works or state activities, carried out in a decentralized manner or not; and whose proceeds must not have a destination unrelated to the financing of the works or activities that constitute the reason for the obligation (…).' From that perspective, it is understood that once the Legislative Branch creates taxes (tributos) and establishes their normative framework, defining their essential elements, the taxable event (hecho generador), the tax rate and its calculation bases, as well as the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) of the tax and its fiscal period, those in charge of applying the tax regime act, being the Ministry of Finance, who through the General Directorate of Taxation, assumes tax administration through inspection and verification actions, with the purpose of collecting the taxes (tributos) established in the current tax regulations, and the Administrative Tax Court (Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo), which resolves administrative tax disputes between the taxpayer and the General Directorate of Taxation, an organ of full jurisdiction and independent in its organization, functioning, and competence from the Executive Branch, whose rulings exhaust the administrative channel. Likewise, this power is assigned to the Decentralized Tax Administrations, by virtue of what is established in canon 99 of the cited Tax Code, regarding the fiscal charges over which the power of tax management has been assigned to them.

In this dynamic, it is reiterated, the principle of legal reservation is a core component of the security and legal certainty of the tax system, principles that constitute guarantee schemes for the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) and a validity parameter for the various actions of the Tax Administrations. As has been indicated, the tax obligation comes into legal existence when the taxable event (hecho generador) provided for by law and that typifies the respective tax (tributo) is configured. It is from the realization of the conduct that the legislator has defined as the objective element of the taxable event (hecho imponible), that the Legal System imposes on the respective subject duties of a material (assessment and payment) and formal (registration, deregistration, information, declaration, etc.) nature, and therefore, at that moment, the Administration is attributed the set of competencies that are characteristic of the aforementioned fiscal power, which empowers it to require compliance with those conducts that the normative plexus imposes on the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo). More simply, the configuration of the conduct defined by law as the taxable event (hecho generador) is the point of origin of the tax obligation, and it is only from that moment that the legal tax relationship arises and the person acquires the status of tax obligor, taxpayer (contribuyente), or taxpayer (sujeto pasivo). Such synergy imposes, without a doubt, an environment of certainty and security, so that persons are clear regarding the implications that their economic activities entail in the tax sphere. Hence, the clear and precise definition of the core and structural components of taxes (tributos), through formal law, is a pillar of the fiscal system, of its transparency and guarantee of tax justice, to the extent that it allows for objective and identifiable parameters regarding the diverse elements of the tax categories and their elements. This is decisive in a fiscal system that presents tax structures that impose duties of self-determination (auto determinación), self-declaration (auto declaración), and self-assessment (auto liquidación) on the obligated subject, which impose on them the burden of establishing which of their activities are subject to a specific tax (tributo), defining the taxable base (base imponible) in their specific case, declaring their specific situation, and subsequently, paying the tax debt that, in accordance with their analyses, they have established. Subsequently, the Tax Administration, in the exercise of its determinative and inspection power, verifies the correct fulfillment of those obligations, requiring, as the case may be, the respective adjustments, or establishing the contributive duty for those who have not considered that those obligations are applicable to them. The foregoing is without prejudice to the fiscal relationships that are satisfied through withholding at source figures, in which collection schemes such as the withholding agent (agente retenedor) or shifting agent (agente de traslación) are used. Hence, legal reservation in the terms discussed is fundamental for an environment of security and neutrality in the management of fiscal relationships, avoiding that through criteria foreign to the law, tax burdens are imposed or modified, generating risks of harm to the recipients of the taxing power, and at the same time, it is reiterated, it constitutes a parameter for controlling the validity of administrative actions, and an undeniable reference point for the legitimacy of the obligations to be imposed on administered persons. For what is relevant in this case, as will be addressed below, the legal definition of the taxable event (hecho generador) constitutes the cornerstone of said legal certainty, as it is the element from which the various legal obligations that a specific fiscal relationship entails become enforceable. It is not an element that can be left to interpretive liberality or the value judgment of the Administration, and must be clearly determined and fixed by law, as a consequence of the doctrine imposed by numeral 121, subsection 13, of the Political Constitution.

• 2)On the Income Tax Law. The Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, LISR) No. 7092 of April 21, 1988, is one of the most relevant laws in the Costa Rican tax system. This tax (tributo) is characterized by having a schedular (cedular) structure, insofar as it establishes various tax manifestations according to the nature of the income on which the tax falls, whether it involves income from profits derived from the economic activities of individuals or legal entities, and on the other hand, a withholding at source scheme. Prior to the reform carried out by Law No. 9635, this regulation established the following tax schedules (cédulas impositivas): taxes on the profits of individuals or legal entities, and in the case of withholding at source: income from dependent personal work (salary tax), tax on available income, tax on securities and other financial instruments, tax on remittances abroad, tax on withdrawals from supplementary (voluntary) pension funds, and withholdings as advance payments of income tax (of 2% or 3%). With the reform introduced by Law No. 9635, said structural scheme is composed of the tax on the profits of individuals and legal entities, and in the case of withholding at source, the manifestations of the salary tax, income from movable capital, income from immovable capital, income from securities, and remittances abroad. Within chapter XI on capital income, regulations are readjusted regarding the various taxable scenarios, each with its respective tax treatment.

Now, it is pertinent to analyze the profit tax, which taxes the income of individuals, legal entities, and collective entities without legal personality that carry out for-profit activities in the country from Costa Rican sources, as established by numeral 1 of the LISR, with the clarification that the following references are made in the context of the version of that regulation in force at the time the precedents supporting the jurisprudential line of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice that constitutes the object of this action were issued:

“Article 1.— Tax covered by the law, taxable event (hecho generador), and taxable matter. A tax (impuesto) is established on the profits of companies and individuals who carry out for-profit activities. (The preceding paragraph was thus added by Article 102 of the Extraordinary Budget Law, No. 7097 of August 18, 1988) The taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax on the profits referred to in the preceding paragraph is the receipt of income in cash or in kind, continuous or occasional, from any Costa Rican source. (The numbering of the preceding paragraph was thus reformed and run by Article 102 of the Extraordinary Budget Law, No. 7097 of August 18, 1988, which transferred it from the first paragraph to the second) This tax (impuesto) also levies continuous or eventual income from Costa Rican sources, received or accrued by individuals or legal entities domiciled in the country; as well as any other income or benefit from a Costa Rican source not exempted by law, including the income received by beneficiaries of export contracts for tax credit certificates. The condition of being domiciled in the country shall be determined according to the regulation. The provisions of this law shall not apply to the environmental promotion and compensation mechanisms established in the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), No. 7575, of February 13, 1996. (The numbering of the preceding paragraph was run by Article 102 of the Extraordinary Budget Law, No. 7097 of August 18, 1988, which transferred it from the second paragraph to the third) (The preceding third paragraph was thus reformed by Article 1 of Law No. 7838 of October 5, 1998) For the purposes of the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, sales, income, or benefits from a Costa Rican source shall be understood as those derived from services rendered, goods located, or capital used in the national territory, obtained during the fiscal period in accordance with the provisions of this law.” Based on the foregoing, to establish the existence and enforceability of the tax relationship between the taxpayer (contribuyente) and the taxable event (hecho imponible), the criteria of subjection, linkage, or connection are available, which are the determining elements for income to be affected by the Costa Rican tax system, that is, they are objective parameters for applying tax regulations. Thus, it is understood that the national tax regime, with regard to profit income, establishes the following subjection criteria:

• a)income-as-product (renta producto) is understood as those incomes or benefits, continuous or occasional, from Costa Rican sources, i.e., derived from goods located, services rendered, or capital used in the national territory. This concept seeks to impose the tax charge on the profit and not on the source producing the wealth, an economic component that is intended to be kept intact. That is, the (net) economic benefit derived from the use of those factors of production (land, labor, and capital) is taxed, but not the value of those factors themselves. Hence, according to this principle, Law No. 7092 itself establishes the figure of deductible expenses (Articles 8 and 9), which are applied to the gross base of income to generate a diminishing or reducing effect on that reference point, in order to obtain net income, a concept that in turn constitutes the taxable income (see Articles 5 and 14 ejusdem). The logic of this system is the fiscal recognition of expenses that are necessary to produce taxable income, provided they meet the formal and substantive requirements imposed by canon 8 of the Income Tax Law. This means that the source producing the wealth is preserved and the profit is taxed, not the increase in assets itself.
• b)schedularity (cedularidad) refers to the schedular (cedular) nature of the tax (tributo), which establishes different taxes, according to the types of income that will be taxed, based on the criteria chosen and established in the Law. As indicated, it supposes the necessary distinction and differentiation of tax treatment according to the source of income production that is realized in the definition (classification) of the respective taxable event (hecho generador).
• c)territoriality, which only allows taxing income generated from Costa Rican sources. This involves an objective link to the national territory, i.e., income generated abroad cannot be taxed. This objective criterion is expressly found in the Income Tax Law (LISR) No. 7092, in its first article, a rule that specifies and details the objective parameters that allow establishing the relationship called “from a Costa Rican source.” That precept states: “Article 1- (…) For the purposes of the provisions of the preceding paragraph, income, revenues, or benefits from a Costa Rican source shall be understood as those generated in the national territory from services rendered, goods located, or capital used, obtained during the fiscal period, in accordance with the provisions of this law (…)” (The bold highlighting does not belong to the original). In this way, the principle of territoriality arises, which constitutes a limitation directed at the Tax Administration, so that it has a previously established framework to be able to establish and demand contributions from persons or goods located in its territory.

On the other hand, the profit tax is governed by the system of self-determination (auto determinación), self-declaration (auto declaración), and self-assessment (auto liquidación) of the tax obligation, by virtue of which, it is the taxpayer (contribuyente) himself who is assigned the duty of initiative regarding the definition of the aspects that are inserted in his respective declaration and that have an impact on the assessment of the tax amount, under the requirements and on the dates established by the Tax Administration. However, said procedure, in the exercise of the Administration's power of imperium, is subject to review to determine the correct fulfillment of the tax burden, since if a difference is found, through the various determination mechanisms (on a certain basis, presumptive basis, or objective basis), it may impose a payment higher than that declared by the taxpayer (contribuyente), as well as establish any administrative sanctions that may correspond for potential violations of tax regulations.

• 3)On the violation of the principle of legal reservation in tax matters regarding the challenged jurisprudence. The plaintiff considers that the jurisprudence adopted by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is unconstitutional, as it violates the principle of legal reservation, since, through an extensive interpretation of the concept of territoriality and the inclusion of the term called 'economic linkage' (vinculación económica), it accepts that income generated abroad can be taxed, by considering them to be from a Costa Rican source as they were generated by a company located and domiciled in the country, or for the use of Costa Rican capital.

Now, for the purposes of what is analyzed herein, it is pertinent to cite Article 10 of the Civil Code, which provides that “Rules shall be interpreted according to the proper meaning of their words, in relation to the context, the historical and legislative background, and the social reality of the time in which they are to be applied, attending fundamentally to their spirit and purpose.” In a similar sense, canon 10 of the General Law of Public Administration establishes teleological interpretation as a measure of protection of the public interest in the following sense:

“1. The administrative rule must be interpreted in the manner that best guarantees the realization of the public purpose it is directed towards, within the respect due to the rights and interests of the individual.

2. It must be interpreted and integrated taking into account other related rules and the nature and value of the conduct and facts to which it refers.” In the field of tax law, Article 6 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures imposes the subjection of the interpretation of those rules to the rules and methods admitted by common law. Thus, it regulates:

“Article 6.— Interpretation of tax rules. Tax rules must be interpreted in accordance with all methods admitted by Common Law.

Analogy is an admissible procedure to 'fill legal gaps,' but by virtue of it, taxes (tributos) or exemptions cannot be created.” (highlighting does not belong to the original).

Likewise, Article 8 of the same regulatory body establishes the following:

“Article 8.— Interpretation of the rule that regulates the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax obligation.

When the rule relating to the taxable event (hecho generador) refers to situations defined by other legal branches, without expressly referring to or deviating from them, the interpreter may assign it the meaning that best adapts to the reality considered by the law when creating the tax (tributo).

The legal forms adopted by taxpayers (contribuyentes) do not bind the interpreter, who may attribute to the situations and acts that have occurred a meaning consistent with the facts, when it emerges from the tax law that the taxable event (hecho generador) of the respective obligation was defined based on reality and not on legal form.

When the legal forms are manifestly inappropriate to the reality of the taxed facts and this results in a reduction in the amount of the obligations, the tax law must be applied disregarding such forms.” Based on the foregoing, it is clearly stated that the interpretation of tax regulations must be carried out respecting constitutional principles, in accordance with the purpose and spirit of the tax (tributo), that is, the interpretation must be declarative of the legislator's will at the time said tax (tributo) was created.

Furthermore, the rule expressly prohibits analogy (a form of integration) as a means to create taxes or exemptions, since it is only permitted to fill possible legal gaps in tax regulations.

Thus, the interpretation of the norms that regulate and govern fiscal activity must adhere to the logical procedure appropriate to each regulatory case. Moreover, in this exercise, it is necessary to consider that through interpretation it is not feasible to substitute the will of the legislator regarding the configuration and precision of the fundamental elements of the tax, given that, it is reiterated, such basic structural components are matters reserved to formal law. Otherwise, legitimizing the creation, modification, or suppression of the elements of the tax that must be defined by law through interpretation injures the very foundation of the democratic system and allows the Executive Branch to substitute the legislator, breaking the very logic of the principle of distribution of functions established by precept 9 of the Constitution. Interpretation is a mechanism aimed at procuring the straight and correct application of the law, but by its virtue, the law cannot be surpassed, ignored, or reformed.

Thus, the core point in this action revolves around defining whether the questioned jurisprudential guideline constitutes an excess in the definition of the elements of the income tax on profits (impuesto de renta a las utilidades), by extending the scope of the material element of the taxable event (hecho imponible) to activities and income that, according to the plaintiff, do not form part of the taxable event (hecho generador). As has been indicated, this element must be expressly regulated by law, making it unfeasible for that objective parameter to be broadened through interpretation, a parameter that is central to a tax system that must guarantee legal certainty, legitimate expectations, and transparency as supporting rules for the rights and guarantees of the taxpayer. Thus, it is necessary to examine whether the activity of investing funds abroad, carried out with capital generated within Costa Rican tax territory, forms part of the taxable event (hecho imponible) of the income tax schedule, given the application of the criterion of economic connection with the source, or whether, on the contrary, that application transcends the territorial income scheme, as the promoters allege.

On this particular matter, it is worth emphasizing the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax on profits. Articles 1 and 2 of Law No. 7092, with the wording in force at the time of the determination procedures by virtue of which the challenged jurisprudence was issued, define this element, stating that this tax falls on the profits of individuals, legal entities, and collective entities without legal personality, domiciled in the country, that carry out lucrative activities of Costa Rican source. Although the tax is defined on profits, it is conditioned on that economic product deriving from activities in which the factors of production (land, labor, and capital) of Costa Rican source are used. The levy is established on all income received or accrued within the fiscal period, regardless of whether it is continuous or occasional, but also falls on any equity benefit that is not duly justified or supported. It should be noted that the aforementioned tax system likewise falls on any equity benefit that has not been expressly excluded from the tax, provided that said income or benefit derives from a Costa Rican source. Up to this point in the regulatory scheme, the relevance of the definition of the concept "of Costa Rican source" is observed, because it is this reference point that allows the linking of income to its respective tax liability. Hence, the regulation subsequently clarifies what should be understood as income of Costa Rican source, specifying:

"For the purposes of the provisions in the preceding paragraphs, sales, income, or benefits of Costa Rican source shall be understood as those coming from services rendered, goods located, or capital utilized in the national territory, which are obtained during the fiscal period in accordance with the provisions of this law." The regulation in question allows establishing that, by express legal mandate, the concept of Costa Rican source refers to income or equity benefits that have been accrued or received IN THE NATIONAL TERRITORY, from the rendering of services, the location of goods, or the utilization of capital. Of course, in the context of the territorial element imposed by said regulatory scheme, the taxable income must be derived from the use of land or capital, as well as from the rendering of services within Costa Rican tax territory. By logical derivation, obtaining income from the mere use of goods located in national territory imposes the duty to contribute, even for a party not domiciled in the country, since the material criterion allows considering that income as of Costa Rican source. The same occurs with income associated with services rendered in Costa Rica, because, if the wealth is produced from that supply of services in national territory, the territorial criterion is imposed, and whoever has rendered the activity becomes a taxable person, even if they are not a national tax resident. Of course, if the recipient of the income does not reside in the country, the remittance of the profits imposes the duty of withholding on the remitter, under penalty of joint and several liability regarding that particular matter. Likewise, the use of capital in the country imposes a similar fiscal treatment, regardless of the origin of the funds or the capital utilized. What is relevant is that the material activity of using capital from which income, an economic benefit, or a credit right is obtained or produced, is carried out within the Costa Rican territorial jurisdiction, and to that extent, said income will be subject to the tax in question.

By contrast, when a Costa Rican tax resident obtains income derived from services rendered abroad, goods located abroad, or capital utilized outside Costa Rican geographical limits, these cannot be considered as of Costa Rican source and, to that extent, they are income excluded from national fiscal authority. Note that this is not a tax exemption (exención fiscal), since, as clearly established by Article 61 in relation to Article 62 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), an exoneration (exoneración) supposes a legal dispensation from the material duty to contribute. That is, in exemptions (exenciones), the taxable event (hecho generador) is configured and, therefore, a tax obligation exists; however, the legislator expressly imposes a release from the duty to pay (total or partial), either objectively or through the insertion of verifiable subjective conditions before the Tax Authority, as a requirement to enjoy the tax benefit. Precisely because of the existence of a tax obligation, the non-exonerated duties persist, as is the case with formal obligations. The aforementioned case configures, conversely, a non-subjection (no sujeción), a situation in which no tax duty exists whatsoever, because the activity is not inserted within the scope of the taxable event (hecho generador) (which must be established by law). Thus, in non-subjections (no sujeciones), it is not necessary for the law to define which incomes are excluded from the tax's coverage parameter. Hence, non-subjections (no sujeciones) are defined through a negative application or by discarding from the analysis of the taxable event (hecho generador); more simply, if the act or conduct of the subject is not included among those that have been typified as a taxable event (hecho imponible), it is not taxed, without the need for an express rule indicating so. Although Law No. 7092 itself establishes in its Article 6 situations of exclusion from gross income, this does not mean that any income not found within that list is subject to the tax. In essence, the subjection of wealth to the income tax on profits is conditioned on it deriving from a Costa Rican source, with the exceptions of unsupported income already mentioned, so that equity benefits that the Costa Rican tax resident has not obtained from the use of the factors of production and situations that define income of Costa Rican sources could not be considered as taxable income. Otherwise, extending the tax authority to those incomes that are not related to income of Costa Rican source would imply migrating towards a worldwide income system (and not a territorial one), which imposes the duty of declaration and material contribution on the basis of the totality of income generated by the taxpayer, regardless of the place where it was accrued or received. It would be a subjective criterion of subjection, and not an objective territorial one, like the one operating in the income scheme defined by Law No. 7092. It is a fiscal vision that must be embodied in formal law; however, it is insisted, this worldwide income system is not the one defining the national tax system for income on profits, which subjects them, it is reiterated, to the concept of Costa Rican source.

Thus, the fiscal treatment of those incomes that are not of Costa Rican source, in the case of territorial income tax systems, is subject to the tax regime of the country in which the income was produced. Once said income is repatriated, and the capital it represents is utilized in the country, the profits that such utilization may generate in Costa Rican territory are considered as of national source and, to that extent, the profits would be taxed, not the primary capital that was produced extraterritorially, from the fiscal standpoint.

In that sense, it is the criterion of the undersigned that the position established in the jurisprudence under debate considers that income generated by the use of national capital in foreign markets for the placement or temporary investment of monetary assets, that is, placed in financial investment activities, is taxed in Costa Rica. The above, by considering that the concept of "belonging" or "linkage to the economic structure" applies to these stock market transactions. At its core, the logic of this position rests on the fact or circumstance that the primary capital used in the transaction with a foreign entity is of Costa Rican source, since that investment wealth was generated in the country and is held in Costa Rican accounts. Therefore, the mere placement in international securities does not imply a disconnection from the exercise of activities taxed by the income tax schedule.

As has been indicated, the use of capital taxed in these cases is that which was utilized in Costa Rican territory. For this, the analysis does not fall on the origin of the capital, but on the place where that capital is used and the benefit is produced. From this angle of examination, although the base capital may have been generated in Costa Rica, the case is that these amounts are placed in temporary investments with financial entities domiciled in other countries, and it is at the location of those entities that the legal transaction by virtue of which the financial return is produced takes place. It is clear that, given the investment model, those resources are later repatriated to the original bank accounts from which the investments were made; however, this does not mean that those profits obtained from the use of national capital in foreign territory can be considered income of Costa Rican source. The mere circumstance that the investing entities use this business scheme as a means of enhancing profits through the use of available capital in order to maximize liquidity or obtain better returns, or that the aforementioned investments are temporary and short-term, as is the case of so-called "overnight" investments, does not introduce a concrete element into the case file from which it can be affirmed that the income in question is of Costa Rican source and, therefore, subject to the income tax on profits. On the other hand, the regularity or not of the use of this economic option does not introduce an element of subjection either, as within the taxable event (hecho imponible) defined by the legislator, a tax based on the habitualness of that income model is not foreseen. A different matter is the economic benefit that these financial entities may obtain in terms of commissions for investment placement charged to clients, since that activity derives from services rendered in national territory, but a different matter is the profit itself, which is obtained, it is insisted, from the use of capital abroad. At this point, it is worth mentioning the provision of Article 6, subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law (Ley de Renta), which states:

"ch) Income generated by virtue of contracts, agreements, or negotiations on goods or capital located abroad, even if they were concluded and executed wholly or partially in the country." Note that this mandate excludes from income those proceeds generated from goods or capital located abroad, or services rendered abroad, even if contracted in the country. This regulation is entirely consistent with the principle of Costa Rican source income to which reference has been made, to the extent that it does not consider as subject to the levy gains derived from services rendered, capital located, or goods situated abroad, because those factors of production were not utilized in the national territory. Unlike the position held by the public bodies that have participated in this process and what has been expressed in the jurisprudential line of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia), it is our criterion that said rule does not constitute the legal basis for the levy that has been established regarding the aforementioned income obtained from the temporary placement of Costa Rican capital in investments abroad. On one hand, regardless of the place where the legal transaction is considered completed, the fact is that it involves capital that is, ultimately, utilized abroad, and a profit is obtained from that placement of securities. But that profit is based on the use of that capital in the investment accounts of entities domiciled abroad, not on the use of the capital in Costa Rica. Otherwise, the challenged thesis would imply that any use of capital of national source to obtain profits in other tax jurisdictions would be subject to national tax, under the consideration of an alleged economic linkage, leading to a situation of worldwide income that has no provision or support in the literal wording of the rules regulating that fiscal relationship.

Likewise, we consider it necessary to specify that the origin of the accounts from which the funds are taken to place in temporary investments in foreign countries does not constitute an element upon which the challenged levy can be sustained. In effect, the concepts of location and placement to which the tax authorities allude fundamentally seek to justify the thesis they have applied at the administrative level and which was endorsed by the precedents of the high instance of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia). However, it is evident that the investment transaction involves the movement of account values and implies the unavailability of those funds for the term or time the investment lasts. The investor cannot dispose of these funds until they are released and made available by the international financial entity. Therefore, it cannot be said that these amounts remain located in Costa Rica, despite having been placed in international accounts. It involves a transfer of values for the purpose of placing them in an investment regime, agreed upon by the parties, in order to obtain a projected gain, according to the risk and profitability analysis that characterizes the transaction. Viewed this way, they are not profits generated in Costa Rica, nor can they be considered to fit within the legal concept of "income of Costa Rican source," because they do not derive from capital utilized in national territory, when, on the contrary, they are gains from the use of that capital in foreign securities markets.

The criterion of territoriality endorsed by the First Chamber (Sala Primera) leads to the subjection of those incomes generated with national capital produced as a result of an economic activity, regardless of where they are generated, an application that this Chamber considers broadens the taxable event (hecho generador) established by law, without having a normative basis that so enables it. Ergo, income from investments made abroad with national capital cannot be considered as of Costa Rican source, and therefore, under that concept, its taxation is not supported by what is established in articles 1, 2, and 6 subsection ch) of Law No. 7092.

Thus, it is the criterion of the undersigned that the challenged jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) is contrary to the principle of legal reserve in tax matters, developed in Article 121, subsection 13) of the Constitution, by establishing the possibility that the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) can tax income generated abroad through the income tax on profits. The above, because the jurisprudential rule under analysis has broadened the taxable event (hecho generador) of the law, by including the concept of "belonging" or "linkage to the economic structure," which are not defined or established in Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, LISR) No. 7092. In this way, it can be evidenced that, contrary to what was expressed by both the Administrative Tax Tribunal (Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo) and the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de la República), when establishing the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax on profits, the legislator did not contemplate the possibility of being able to tax income coming from abroad, much less established any levy in relation to foreign income, based on it being produced by a company domiciled in the country or that capital of Costa Rican source was used to be taxed. On the contrary, in the third paragraph of Article 1 of the LISR (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta), the legislator emphasized what should be understood as income, proceeds, or benefits of Costa Rican source, among which the type of income that has given rise to this action is not inferred.

Hence, contrary to what was argued by the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de la Republica) and the Administrative Tax Tribunal (Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo), we, the undersigned judges, consider that the interpretation contained in the challenged jurisprudential rule, according to which, by a criterion of economic linkage, income obtained from investments abroad made by companies domiciled in Costa Rica is included in the taxable base for calculating the income tax on profits, because the producing source of the income is Costa Rican and the capital invested abroad is Costa Rican—hence the returns obtained form part of the company's taxable income in Costa Rica—has no basis in the legal provisions analyzed. It involves an extensive legal interpretation of Articles 1, 5, and 6, subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto Sobre la Renta), which varies the way the taxable base of a tax is determined, and therefore, in our view, the challenged jurisprudence is contrary to the Law of the Constitution.

This position contradicts the nature and spirit of the legislator at the time they created the essential elements of the tax on profits. It can be evidenced that the legislator did not contemplate, within the tax on profits, the possibility of taxing income coming from abroad, much less established any levy in relation to foreign income, based on it being produced by a company domiciled in the country or that capital of Costa Rican sources was used to be taxed.

Due to the foregoing, we consider that the interpretation made by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) is not in accordance with what is established in the tax regulations, since what it is doing through its jurisprudence is taxing income that is not defined by law, which is contrary to Article 121, subsection 13) of the Political Constitution and generates legal uncertainty, since, as previously developed, the Legislative Branch is the only body with the competence to create tax legal rules. Finally, we consider that the interpretation of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) is also not compatible with the tax regulations, as it follows the subjective criterion, according to which income is taxed regardless of where it was generated, considering only who produced the income, in order to determine whether it is taxed or not. In that sense, it is important to recall that the Costa Rican tax system is applied based on the objective criterion of territoriality, which means that, for the tax obligation to arise, it is essential that the income be generated on national soil, in order to be considered Costa Rican source based on the principle of territoriality, which takes the place where the income was generated as the basis for subjection, to determine whether it can be taxed or not, in accordance with the legal system.

For the reasons stated, we consider that the unconstitutionality action must be granted as to this extreme, because the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) challenged herein, through an extensive interpretation, subjects extraterritorial income to the tax on profits, which is not included in the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax on profits and is contrary to the objective territorial criterion followed by the Costa Rican tax system. Consequently, we order the annulment of the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) contained in judgments 617-F-S1-2010 of 09:10 hours on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 of 08:50 hours on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 hours on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 of 13:05 hours on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 of 10:55 hours on March 23, 2017, for violating the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. Furthermore, pursuant to the provisions of Article 89 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), the unconstitutionality extends, by connection, to all general directives or instructions of the tax administration, directed at taxpayers, that have coverage in the jurisprudential rule we declare unconstitutional." The foregoing reasoning was reiterated in rulings No. 2023-000357 and No. 2023-000359, both at 9:20 hours on January 11, 2023. Consequently, in the sub lite case, I partially grant the action and order the annulment of the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) contained in judgments No. 617-F-S1-2010 of 09:10 hours on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 of 08:50 hours on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 hours on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 of 13:05 hours on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 of 10:55 hours on March 23, 2017, for transgressing the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. Additionally, based on Article 89 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), I declare that this unconstitutionality extends by connection to all general directives or instructions of the tax administration directed at taxpayers that have coverage in the jurisprudential rule I deem unconstitutional.

XI.- 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 office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, as provided in the "Regulation on the Electronic Case File before the Judicial Branch (Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial)", approved by the Full Court (Corte Plena) in session No. 27-11 of August 22, 2011, Article XXVI, and published in Judicial Newsletter (Boletín Judicial) number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as in the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judicial Branch (Consejo Superior del Poder Judicial), in session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, Article LXXXI.

Por tanto:

The action is rejected on the merits. Judge Rueda Leal dissents and partially grants the unconstitutionality action and, consequently, orders the annulment as unconstitutional of the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) contained in judgments 617-F-S1-2010 of 09:10 hours on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 of 08:50 hours on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 hours on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 of 13:05 hours on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 of 10:55 hours on March 23, 2017, for violating the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. Likewise, by connection, he orders the annulment of all general directives or instructions of the tax administration, directed at taxpayers, that have coverage in the rules now declared unconstitutional.

Fernando Castillo V.

Fernando Cruz C.

Paul Rueda L. Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jorge Araya G. Anamari Garro V.

Ingrid Hess H.

Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador --  San José, at nine hours twenty-five minutes on February fourteenth, two thousand twenty-four.

Action of unconstitutionality brought by Anayansi Mora Palma, in her capacity as special judicial representative of Pan-American Life Insurance de Costa Rica S.A., legal identification number 3-101-601884, against the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, contained in judgments no. 617-F-S1-2010 of 9:10 a.m. on May 20, 2010, no. 55-F-S1-2011 of 8:50 a.m. on January 27, 2011, no. 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 a.m. on April 7, 2011, no. 976-F-S1-2016 of 1:05 p.m. on September 22, 2016, and no. 326-A-S1-2017 of 10:45 a.m. on March 23, 2017.

**Resultando:** **1.-** By brief received in this Chamber on December 13, 2023, the petitioner requests that the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, contained in judgments no. 617-F-S1-2010 of 9:10 a.m. on May 20, 2010, no. 55-F-S1-2011 of 8:50 a.m. on January 27, 2011, no. 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 a.m. on April 7, 2011, no. 976-F-S1-2016 of 1:05 p.m. on September 22, 2016, and no. 326-A-S1-2017 of 10:45 a.m. on March 23, 2017, be declared unconstitutional, deeming it infringes the constitutional principles of legal reserve (reserva de ley), legal certainty, and equality, as well as articles 6 and 7 of the Political Constitution. The petitioner indicates that, in each of those judgments, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice analyzed article 1 of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, LISR), from which it concluded that income generated or obtained outside Costa Rican territory is subject to the profits tax in Costa Rica because it maintains a close connection or relationship with the Costa Rican economic structure. She also points out that she is fully aware of judgments no. 23955-2022, no. 355-2023, and no. 359-2023, all issued by this Constitutional Court, through which a series of unconstitutionality actions filed precisely against the same jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice were declared without merit -by majority-. However, she considers that there has been a supervening change in circumstances that should lead the Constitutional Chamber to change its criterion. She affirms that this supervening change of circumstances is the recent discussion and approval by the Legislative Branch of Law no. 10,381 of September 14, 2023, called "Modificación a la ley N° 7092, Ley de impuesto sobre la renta, para lograr la exclusión de Costa Rica de la lista de países no cooperantes en materia fiscal de la Unión Europea", which partially modified the text of article 1 of the LISR and confirmed the territorial system of taxation that has governed in Costa Rica. She maintains that on February 13, 2023, the Government of the Republic reported that the country had entered the European Union's list of non-cooperative jurisdictions for tax purposes, due to the non-fulfillment of a commitment acquired the previous year to reform the taxation system to levy extraterritorial passive income before December 31, 2022. By virtue of the foregoing, on February 21, 2023, a bill was presented in the Legislative Assembly aimed at excluding the country from said list. The bill also proposed a modification to article 1 of the LISR, with the objective of clarifying the territorial taxation criterion that governs our country. She asserts that although, since the original version of the LISR, the country has been characterized by having a territorial income system, for years the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice extended said connecting criterion to a link with the taxpayers' economic structure to allow the levy on extraterritorial income. A criterion that the Constitutional Chamber subsequently validated with the three aforementioned precedents. However, with the approval of the reform to article 1 of the LISR, through Law no. 10,381, the Legislative Assembly took it upon itself to clarify and harmonize once and for all the connecting criterion in force in Costa Rica.

The amended version of the cited article 1 expressly states that income, revenue, or benefits from a Costa Rican source shall be understood as those obtained within the national territory according to the geographical limits established in articles 5 and 6 of the Political Constitution, regardless of the origin of the goods or capital, the place of negotiation over them, or their link to the economic structure within the national territory. Said reform not only reaffirms the territorial taxation system that has always governed in our country, but also that income generated from capital located abroad, even if it was agreed upon and executed wholly or partially in Costa Rica, is not subject to the income tax (impuesto sobre las utilidades). This situation disregards any link that one might seek to connect to the economic structure. It indicates that the study of legislative file no. 23.581, which later became Law No. 10.381, makes it clear that the creation, modification, and elimination of taxes, as well as defining the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax relationship, are the exclusive authority of the Legislative Assembly. Moreover, being a law subsequent to rulings No. 23955-2022, No. 355-2023, and No. 359-2023 of this Court, which in its text and legislative discussion came to clarify the scope of the original article 1 of the LISR, it is plausible to assert that we are facing a supervening change in the circumstances of the legal system. It states that this Constitutional Court had indicated that “if the plaintiff company is a company domiciled in Costa Rica, its income-producing source is Costa Rican and the capital invested abroad is Costa Rican, the returns obtained form part of the company's taxable income in Costa Rica, since there is an economic link (vinculación económica) between the income produced abroad and the income-producing source of the company domiciled in Costa Rica (...) Therefore, without a doubt, the economic link criterion derives from the law itself by considering income linked to the income-producing source as taxable” (The highlighting is not from the original). It asserts that this economic link criterion has been overcome after the scope, both current and original, of the territoriality principle was clarified, following the approval and entry into force of Law No. 10.381; therefore, there is evidently a change of circumstances that may motivate this Court to change its criterion and thereby declare the unconstitutionality of the challenged rulings of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in order to safeguard the fundamental rights of taxpayers. It maintains that this fundamental change in the life relations of the governed is manifested not only after the approval of Law No. 10.381, but also through the statements made by the Executive Branch itself in its partial veto request, by which it recognizes that, with the approval of the bill, it would be clear that the territoriality principle of article 1 of the LISR has been limited exclusively to income obtained within the Costa Rican territory under the geographical scope. It adds that in official communication PR-P-071-2023 of September 14, 2023, signed by the Minister of Finance and the President of the Republic, regarding the partial veto of the bill approved in second debate and which is incorporated into the legislative file from folios 1674 to 1685, it is stated: "Regarding the implications of the reform of the third paragraph of article 1. This modification completely eliminates the application of the territoriality principle based on economic belonging and limits it exclusively to income obtained within the national territory under the geographical scope, an aspect that would prevent taxing with the income tax those incomes that had a direct origin in the country and were located abroad to continue increasing the capital of individuals or legal entities (...) The application of a territoriality principle based exclusively on the geographical scope of a country, as established by the Legislative Decree of reference, implies a weakening of the Costa Rican tax system (...) One of the main aspects for the presentation of this partial veto is the possible economic impact this could represent (...) From the indicated information, the Administration would be losing income of more than thirty-six billion colones, considering the cases in process at the administrative and judicial levels. In this sense, it is important to clarify that this income would be lost because, as the cases are in process and Legislative Decree No. 10.381 enters into force, the determinations made by the Administration could be rendered null and void.” The bill was finally resealed by the Legislative Assembly and became a Law of the Republic. The plaintiff considers that, based on articles 9 and 13 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, this normative change should motivate this Constitutional Court to change its criterion regarding the initial factual situation in pursuit of safeguarding legal certainty and the public interest.

Otherwise, the violation of constitutional principles and norms may persist over time, thereby causing a dislocation in the legal system between what was previously decided by this Constitutional Chamber and what was expressed by the legislature itself and the Executive Branch, even generating inequality among administered parties in identical circumstances. As for the merits, it alleges an infringement of the principle of legal reservation in tax matters protected in subsection 13 of Article 121 of the Political Constitution, due to an extensive interpretation of the principle of territoriality and, consequently, of Article 6 of the Political Constitution and the principle of legal certainty. It indicates that Article 35 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (CNPT) defines the taxable event (hecho generador) as the "legal prerequisite established by law to define the tax and whose occurrence gives rise to the obligation." It adds that said taxable event must be analyzed from a subjective and objective perspective, and the latter from a temporal, quantitative, and spatial aspect. Regarding specifically the spatial dimension of the taxable event, it is a criterion of subjection that refers to the geographical scope of validity of the norm in which the taxable event produces its effect or, in other words, the spatial aspect specifies the place where the taxable event is materialized. It asserts that, in our legal system, that spatial aspect is located in Article 1 of the LISR, from which it can be inferred that Costa Rica pursues a territorial income system, that is, only income obtained within the Costa Rican jurisdiction will be taxed. It claims that although said subjection criterion was normatively embodied in the original version of the LISR since 1999, for years the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice extended it to one related to the connection to the taxpayer's economic structure. It indicates that reference must be made to the subjection criteria that design fiscal policy, that is, to the elements that determine whether an income or a subject is subject or not to a specific tax. Subjection criteria can be personal or subjective (referring to situations in which there is a link related to the very nature of the individual or the taxpayer, defined for example by virtue of the status of national or tax resident) and real or objective (that which does not take the individual into consideration, but rather the origin of the income in a specific territory). The application of a personal subjection criterion gives rise to the principle of worldwide income, while the application of a real or objective criterion leads to the principle of territoriality. The worldwide income system seeks to tax the income or profits of residents and/or nationals of a certain jurisdiction, regardless of the place where they are located or have obtained the income, which is the case of capital-exporting countries. This model is mainly used in developed jurisdictions and is based on the premise that whoever holds the status of resident must pay taxes in their country of residence for the total income obtained in the course of their activity, regardless of the place where it was obtained. Said system would allow income obtained abroad to be taxed, since the model itself precisely seeks to grant the State in which the taxpayer is a resident the sovereign power to collect taxes independently of the place of receipt. Logically, those who choose to implement this taxation model must guarantee their residents that the fiscal system has internal tax relief measures to prevent the same income from being subjected to double taxation. This is achieved by establishing within the tax rules the possibility that the tax resident can deduct the tax applied in the source country or allow a tax credit for the tax that was withheld abroad. Thus, to maintain what in commerce is called neutrality in exports and imports and to prevent asymmetries in tax treatment from generating competitiveness problems for the country, it is logical that the taxpayer's country of residence taxes worldwide income, but recognizes the tax that the taxpayer paid in the source country. It maintains that, based on this explanation, it is feasible to arrive at the first conclusion: Costa Rica does not have a worldwide income system and, therefore, also does not have internal rules that allow crediting the tax paid in the source country. Our country does not follow the personalist subjection criterion, nor does the legal system contemplate internal measures—typical in this type of jurisdiction—to alleviate double taxation. On the other hand, the criterion or principle of territoriality, of majority application in capital-receiving countries such as Costa Rica, seeks to tax the income generated by taxpayers in a specific territory. In this way, it corresponds to a subjection criterion from which the connection to a fiscal system is determined by the source of the income, that is, income will be taxed in the place where it is generated. Unlike what happens with the worldwide income criterion, this other one addresses a relationship between the objective element of the taxable event and the active subject of the taxation (criterion of objective connection); a system that does not govern in Costa Rica.

Thus, it is necessary to specify that territoriality in our country responds to the fact that the spatial objective element of the taxable event is limited to those "from any Costa Rican source", "in the national territory" or "lucrative activities or businesses in the country," with subsection (ch) of Article 6 expressly excluding income generated outside Costa Rican territory, even incorporating the phrase "even if they were entered into and executed wholly or partially in the country." That is, even if the latter occurs, such income must be considered extraterritorial because it escapes the spatial element of the tax. The foregoing is reinforced even more by the reform suffered by Article 1 of the LISR, through Law No. 10.381, in which the territorial system that governs Costa Rica was clarified, strengthened, and consolidated for the purpose of providing legal certainty to taxpayers. Thereby, the interpretation argued by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice—and which was endorsed by this Constitutional Court—becomes absolutely outdated, and its existence implies a violation of the principle of legal reserve (principio de reserva legal) in tax matters and the principle of legal certainty (principio de seguridad jurídica). It points out that the principle of legal reserve entails that the regulation of certain matters is expressly subject to the existence of a formal law. In tax matters, it finds constitutional basis in subsection 13) of Article 121 of the Political Constitution, which recognizes that the Legislative Assembly, through the procedure provided by law, shall be responsible for "establishing national taxes and contributions, and authorizing municipal ones." This constitutional provision must be read concomitantly with numeral 5 of the CNPT. For this reason, when speaking of the creation of taxes, it should be understood as that tax authority held by the State to establish them. This Constitutional Court has defined the cited principle as that which guarantees that the creation, modification, or suppression of taxes, the definition of the taxable event of the tax relationship, as well as the granting of exemptions or benefits, can only be provided for by formal law. The requirement of formal law intervention for the creation of the tax and the regulation of its essential elements can and should be explained from the perspective of the taxpayer's right to certainty and legal certainty. It is plausible to assert that the constitutional principle of legal reserve in tax matters establishes that the taxable event of the tax must be determined by the Legislator, and it is improper for another branch of government, such as the Executive or the Judicial (in the present matter), to be able to modify, through an interpretation, any of its elements (as happens with the spatial objective element). However, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in the jurisprudence that is the subject of this action, expanded such taxable event to tax income generated abroad or capital located outside our jurisdiction, in clear violation of the cited principle of legal reserve. The criterion of "link to the Costa Rican economic structure" followed by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice unconstitutionally expanded the spatial element of the taxable event so that income obtained outside the national territory can be taxed as a "Costa Rican source," even when by express mandate of the Legislator it is prohibited. It is before that interpretation that the constitutional principle of legal reserve safeguarded by subsection 13) of Article 121 of the Constitution is violated, because with it the First Chamber assumes a competence that is exclusive to the Legislative Branch. The interpretation of the First Chamber introduces a subjective criterion of imposition, since from it, taxpayers would be taxed for the simple fact of being domiciled in Costa Rica, even if their income is obtained abroad. The foregoing is characteristic of a worldwide income system, as previously stated, not a territorial one like the one that prevails in Costa Rica. However, the constitutional infringement does not stop solely there, but rather its repeated reasoning has also been responsible for violating Article 6 of the Political Constitution, which provides: "The State exercises complete and exclusive sovereignty in the air space of its territory, in its territorial waters within a distance of twelve miles from the low-tide line along its coasts, on its continental shelf, and on its insular base in accordance with the principles of International Law. It also exercises special jurisdiction over the seas adjacent to its territory within an extent of two hundred miles from the same line, for the purpose of protecting, preserving, and exclusively exploiting all natural resources and riches existing in the waters, the soil, and the subsoil of those zones, in accordance with those principles." Note that the provision is clear: the State shall exercise its sovereignty over the air, territorial, and maritime space of the country, limits clearly restricted to geographic aspects. Hence, attempting to tax income obtained outside our jurisdiction due to an apparent "economic link" undoubtedly disrespects Article 6 brought up, because the Costa Rican State (specifically the Tax Administration) would be exercising its sovereignty over spaces outside Costa Rica.

In fact, note that the reform to Article 1 of the LISR, through Law No. 10.381, is clear in indicating that income, revenue, or profits from a Costa Rican source shall be understood as those obtained within the national territory according to the geographical limits of Articles 5 and 6 of the Magna Carta, regardless of the origin of the goods or capital, the place of negotiation thereof, or their connection to the economic structure within the national territory. It insists that by reforming Article 1 of the LISR, the Legislative Branch reaffirmed the system of territorial taxation (sistema de imposición territorial) that has always governed in Costa Rica. It is enough to review the minutes of legislative file No. 23.581 to corroborate that the deputies of the Republic, when discussing the aforementioned reform in the Plenary, made it clear that the territorial system is the one that has always prevailed in our country and the need to clarify it at the regulatory level is plainly to end the irregularities that the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) has committed for years, sheltered by the precedents of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. After the approval and subsequent publication of Law No. 10.381 in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 180 of October 2, 2023, it is more than clear that the exclusive power of the Legislative Assembly is the creation, modification, and suppression of taxes, as well as defining the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax relationship. It indicates, again, that the approval of the aforementioned law is the basis for this Court to modify the criterion expressed in judgments No. 23955-2022, No. 355-2023, and No. 359-2023, because, from the foregoing, it is shown that the jurisprudence of the First Chamber undoubtedly violates the principle of legal reserve (principio de reserva de ley). It affirms that if the reasoning of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice remains in force, there would be a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty (principio de seguridad jurídica). It points out that the principle of legal certainty must be understood as the trust that citizens place in the legal system with the purpose of observing and respecting valid and current norms for various situations. Although in Costa Rica legal certainty as a constitutional principle does not find exclusive support in any specific norm of the Fundamental Charter, it is inferred from reading a set of constitutional norms and the pronouncements issued by this Court. The jurisprudence of this Constitutional Chamber has indicated that legal certainty is the guarantee that the legal system provides to individuals so they know what to expect. This Court has also mentioned that the principle of legal certainty is linked to the principle of legal reserve. For this reason, by infringing the principle of legal reserve, the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice consequently also violates the principle of legal certainty. This is further reinforced by the simple fact that maintaining the erroneous interpretation of the Court of Cassation (Sala de Casación), after the entry into force of Law No. 10.381, would create an environment of legal insecurity and uncertainty for thousands of taxpayers. It also claims an infringement of Article 7 of the Political Constitution, because the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice opposes international conventions, in particular, the conventions for the avoidance of double taxation on income and on capital entered into by Costa Rica with the States of Germany, Spain, Mexico, and the United Arab Emirates. As has been indicated, there are two distinct criteria of tax liability, one worldwide income and the other territorial income, the latter being the one our country follows based on what the legislator expressly provides. In the same vein, it was mentioned above that the worldwide income system seeks to tax the income or profits of residents and/or nationals of a certain jurisdiction regardless of the place where they are located or have obtained the income, which is the case for capital-exporting countries. For this reason, those who choose to implement a worldwide tax liability criterion must guarantee their residents internal tax relief measures to prevent the same income from being subject to double tax payment. One tool to achieve this are the international conventions for the avoidance of double taxation entered into between States, which contain a series of regulatory provisions to prevent international juridical double taxation that may arise as a result of cross-border operations. Costa Rica has entered into conventions for the avoidance of double taxation with Germany, Spain, Mexico, and the United Arab Emirates, each of them containing, as well as the respective protocols (applicable only in the case of Germany and Spain), provisions that refer to the cited principle of territoriality applicable to Costa Rica. From what is provided in such instruments, it follows that Costa Rica follows a territorial income tax liability criterion that, contrary to the thesis held by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, is strictly limited to the geographical space and has no relation whatsoever to the supposed "economic link (vinculación económica)".

In accordance with articles 1, 2, 5, and ch) 6 of the LISR, the cited conventions are clear in indicating that income shall be from a Costa Rican source when obtained within our geographical limits, which, in accordance with article 6 of the Political Constitution, comprise the land territory, the airspace, the maritime areas (including the subsoil and seabed adjacent to the outer limit of the territorial sea). Therefore, it is insisted that any income, revenue, or benefit obtained outside such limits shall be an extraterritorial income and therefore not subject to the income tax in Costa Rica. Hence, the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is contrary to the regulatory provisions contained in the conventions for the avoidance of double taxation signed with Germany, Spain, Mexico, and the United Arab Emirates. It additionally alleges that the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is also currently violating the principle of tax equality (principio de igualdad tributaria). Although Costa Rican law contains no constitutional norm that expressly establishes or fixes a principle of tax equality, as does exist, for example, in Spain, this principle follows from a combined reading of articles 18 and 33 of the Magna Carta. Based on these constitutional provisions, it is plausible to assert that all citizens must be subject to the same public burdens without creating any discrimination. However, it is this Constitutional Court that has truly been responsible for extensively developing the principle of tax equality. It cites judgments No. 5749-93 and No. 8196-1999. It asserts that in this context, currently, following the approval of Law No. 10.381, which amended article 1 of the LISR, it became evident that the reasoning employed by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgments No. 617-F-S1-2010, No. 55-F-S1-2011, No. 475-F-S1-2011, No. 976-F-Sl-2016 and No. 326-A-S1-2017 is unconstitutional and, to keep it in force, would constitute treating taxpayers in equal situations unequally. For instance, in the case of its represented entity, the Tax Administration pursued an audit (proceso de fiscalización) for income tax (profits) for the 2017 fiscal period in which it reclassified income obtained outside Costa Rican jurisdiction as taxable based on the "economic nexus (vinculación económica)" criterion endorsed by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. It is probable that many other taxpayers have experienced the same situation, in the sense that before October 2023, the Tax Administration initiated audit (auditoría) processes against taxpayers in which it resorted to the jurisprudence of the Cassation Chamber to justify adjustments for income obtained outside Costa Rica. However, it is clear from the legislative discussion that the principle of territoriality (principio de territorialidad), as understood by the First Chamber, did not coincide with the legislator's intention, and if, currently, the Tax Administration were to initiate an audit process against a taxpayer after the approval of Law No. 10.381, it could not resort to that jurisprudence to justify a tax adjustment for extraterritorial income because the Legislative Branch clarified the territorial income system that governs our tax system. That material impossibility of relying on that jurisprudence undoubtedly creates a scenario of tax inequality, for while hundreds of taxpayers face litigation processes in which they have to or will have to defend themselves against the economic nexus criterion adopted by the First Chamber that extends the principle of territoriality, as is the case of its represented entity, hundreds of other taxpayers were benefited and the Tax Administration cannot apply such economic nexus criterion against them, but rather, only income obtained in Costa Rican territory according to the geographical limits of article 6 of the Magna Carta can be taxed. That is to say, we are in the presence of different factual situations in which equals are treated unequally. Thus, it is plausible to assert that the alleged inequality lacks an objective and reasonable justification, that is: there are no substantive reasons why some can be audited following an economic nexus criterion and others not. For that reason, given the supervening change of circumstances (the entry into force of Law No. 10.381), the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice generates a state of tax inequality in the Costa Rican legal system and must be recognized as such by this Court. It requests that this action of unconstitutionality be granted.

2.- For the purpose of supporting its standing, the petitioner indicates that article 75 of the Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional requires, for the admissibility of an action of unconstitutionality, the existence of a prior matter to be resolved, whether in judicial or administrative proceedings, in which the unconstitutionality must be invoked as a reasonable means to defend the rights or interests considered harmed.

In the specific case, this prior matter consists of the jurisdictional proceeding being processed before the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda), under judicial file (expediente judicial) no. [Valor 001]; which is currently pending judgment. It asserts that in such proceeding, in the complaint (libelo de demanda), the unconstitutionality of the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) was invoked, which has been applied in its specific case by the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria).

**3.-** By means of official communication (oficio) of January 11, 2024, the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José was requested to remit to this Chamber the judicial file being processed under number [Valor 001], which is an ordinary proceeding (proceso de conocimiento) by Pan-American Life Insurance de Costa Rica S.A. against the State.

**4.-** On January 25, 2024, a copy of the file being processed under number [Valor 002] was attached to this file.

**5.-** Article 9 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) empowers the Chamber to dismiss outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its presentation, any motion (gestión) submitted to its cognizance that proves to be manifestly improper, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to dismiss it, or that it is the simple reiteration or reproduction of a prior, equal or similar, dismissed motion.

Drafted by Magistrate Castillo Víquez; and,

Considering:

**I.- REGARDING LEGITIMATION (LEGITIMACIÓN).** The plaintiff (parte accionante) is deemed to have standing (legitimada) to bring this action (acción), based on Article 75, paragraph 1, of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, as there is a prior matter pending resolution being processed in file no. [Valor 001], which is an ordinary proceeding by Pan-American Life Insurance de Costa Rica S.A. against the State, in which the unconstitutionality of the jurisprudence challenged here was invoked, for having been applied in the plaintiff's case by the Tax Administration.

**II.- OBJECT OF THIS ACTION (ACCIÓN).** The plaintiff brings this unconstitutionality action (acción de inconstitucionalidad) against the jurisprudential line (línea jurisprudencial) of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, contained —specifically— in judgments (sentencias) no. 617-F-S1-2010, no. 55-F-S1-2011, no. 475-F-S1-2011, no. 976-F-S1-2016, and no. 326-F-S1-2017, pertaining to the interpretation of Article 1 of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta). It is specifically alleged that the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice engaged in an expansive interpretation (interpretación extensiva) of the law, by means of which it broadened the taxable event (hecho generador) of the income tax on profits, to tax income generated or obtained outside Costa Rican territory, under the criterion that they maintain a close connection or link with the Costa Rican economic structure. It alleges an infringement of the constitutional principles of legal reserve (reserva de ley) and legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), in relation to Articles 6 and 7 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política). The plaintiff indicates that it is aware of the existence of precedents from this Chamber in which several unconstitutionality actions brought against that same jurisprudential line were dismissed, but it alleges that there is a new fact that justifies modifying this Constitutional Court's criterion, which is the enactment of Law No. 10,381 of September 14, 2023, called "Amendment to Law No. 7092, Income Tax Law, to achieve the exclusion of Costa Rica from the list of non-cooperative countries for tax purposes of the European Union" ("Modificación a la ley N° 7092, Ley de impuesto sobre la renta, para lograr la exclusión de Costa Rica de la lista de países no cooperantes en materia fiscal de la Unión Europea"), which partially amended the text of Article 1 of the Income Tax Law and which confirmed the system of territorial taxation (sistema territorial de imposición) that has governed in Costa Rica, which is limited exclusively to income obtained in Costa Rican territory under the geographic scope. It affirms that, with such legal reform, both the interpretation put forward by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and by this Constitutional Court becomes absolutely outdated.

**III.- ON THE MERITS.** The plaintiff itself acknowledges that this Court recently ruled on the constitutionality of the referred jurisprudential line. The foregoing, in unconstitutionality action no. 20-007518-0007-CO, in which the jurisprudence issued by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, captured in the cited rulings (votos) numbers 326-F-S1-2017, 976-F-S1-2016, 475-F-S1-2011, 55-F-S1-2011, and 617-F-S1-2010, concerning the interpretation of Articles 1, 5, and 6, subsection ch), of the Income Tax Law (Law No. 7092), in relation to the principle of territoriality in tax matters, was challenged, as it was deemed that such jurisprudential guideline was contrary to the literal wording of the cited articles of Law No.

7902, thereby violating the principles of legal reserve, economic capacity, and double taxation. The aforementioned unconstitutionality action was declared without merit, by majority vote, through judgment no. 2022-023955 of 4:42 p.m. on October 12, 2022. Subsequently, through vote no. 2022-023958 of 9:20 a.m. on October 14, 2022, it was ordered to correct the material error in the operative part of the cited judgment no. 2022-023955, so that it read as follows:

"Unanimously, the joinder motion filed by Antonio Vargas Villalobos, in his capacity as general attorney-in-fact without limit of amount of Coca-Cola Industrias Ltda., is rejected. By majority, the accumulated unconstitutionality actions are declared without merit regarding the grievance of violation of the principle of legal reserve in tax matters (principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria). Judge Garita Navarro dissents and declares the accumulated unconstitutionality actions partially with merit and, consequently, orders the annulment on constitutional grounds of the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) contained in judgments 617-F-S1-2010 of 9:10 a.m. on May 20, 2010, 55-FS1-2011 of 8:50 a.m. on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 a.m. on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 of 1:05 p.m. on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 of 10:55 a.m. on March 23, 2017, for violating the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. Likewise, by connection, orders the annulment of all general directives or instructions of the tax administration, addressed to taxpayers, that are covered by the norms now declared unconstitutional. Unanimously, the accumulated actions are declared without merit regarding the allegations of violation of the principles of economic capacity (principios de capacidad económica) and double taxation (doble imposición). Let this pronouncement be notified to the parties and to the judicial authority hearing the prior matter." This criterion was reiterated later in votes 2023-000355, 2023-000357, and 2023-000359, upon hearing various unconstitutionality actions filed against the same jurisprudential line, in which it was alleged—as in the sub lite—a violation of the constitutional principles of legal reserve and legal certainty (principios constitucionales de reserva de ley y seguridad jurídica), as well as Articles 6 and 7 of the Political Constitution (Constitución Política). Therefore, we now proceed to resolve the present action, based on the considerations set forth in the already mentioned judgments.

IV.- ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL RESERVE AND ARTICLES 6 AND 121, SUBSECTION 13, OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION. The plaintiff claims that the jurisprudential criterion of the First Chamber—challenged here—violates the principle of legal reserve, because, via judicial interpretation, an expanded scope of the principle of territoriality is established, which does not correspond to what was provided by the legislator in the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) and which entails the adoption of a worldwide income concept, contravening the territorial income concept followed by the Costa Rican income taxation system, with the aim of taxing, without legal basis, extraterritorial passive income with the profits tax. Regarding this aspect, in the cited judgment no. 2022-023955, the majority of the members of the Constitutional Court (Tribunal Constitucional) decided to declare the action without merit and considered that the challenged jurisprudence of the First Chamber was limited to the correct application and interpretation of the material norms in force "at the date the modifications to the plaintiff company were made and when the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued the rulings," regarding the determination of the taxable base and, therefore, the principles of legal reserve and tax legality were not violated. In this regard, the following was stated:

"(...) V.- The object of the action. The plaintiffs challenge the legal criterion expressed by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, contained in votes numbers 617-F-S1-2010 of 9:10 a.m. on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 of 8:50 a.m. on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 a.m. on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 of 1:05 p.m. on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 of 10:55 a.m. on March 23, 2017. They allege that the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in its jurisprudence adopts an extensive interpretation of the concept of territoriality, to establish a levy via interpretation. To determine the subjection of income generated abroad, and thus be taxed by the profits tax, it considers it to be Costa Rican-source income (ingreso de fuente costarricense) for having originated from Costa Rican capital, because the taxpayer uses a company located and domiciled in the country and Costa Rican capital to generate extraterritorial income. They deem that the subjective elements adopted in the challenged jurisprudence are characteristic of a tax system governed by the worldwide income criterion, even though in Costa Rica the governing system is an objective criterion based on the principle of territoriality. Therefore, they indicate that the criterion issued is contrary to the literal wording of Articles 1, 5, and 6, subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law No. 7092, thereby violating the principle of legal reserve; and that of economic capacity and double taxation.

VI.- On the methodology for analyzing the action. To facilitate the study of the unconstitutionality action filed, the following recitals will generally analyze the invoked constitutional norms and principles, and then analyze the grievances of unconstitutionality set forth by the plaintiffs against the challenged jurisprudence.

VII.- On the tax power of the State. This Constitutional Court, in judgment no. 1341-93 of 10:30 a.m. on March 29, 1993, stated the following regarding the tax power:

"II).- THE TAX POWER- The so-called "Tax Power"—the sovereign power of the State to demand contributions from persons or property within its jurisdiction or to grant exemptions—recognizes no limitations other than those originating in the Political Constitution itself." That power to levy, is the power to enact legal norms from which the obligation to pay a tax or to respect a tax limit derives or may derive, and among the constitutional principles of Taxation are immersed the Principle of Legality, or Reserve of Law, that of Equality or Isonomy, of Generality, and of Non-Confiscation. Taxes must emanate from a Law of the Republic, must not create discriminations to the detriment of taxable persons, must comprehensively cover all persons or goods provided for in the law and not just a part of them, and care must be taken that they are not of such a nature as to violate private property (articles 33, 40, 45, 121 subsection 13 of the Political Constitution)." Likewise, in judgment No. 2020020838 of 9:20 a.m. on October 28, 2020, the Chamber reiterated such considerations, and in the pertinent part, stated:

"Article 18 of the Political Constitution provides:" "Article 18.- Costa Ricans must observe the Constitution and the laws, serve the Homeland, defend it, and contribute to public expenses." Thus, the obligation of constitutional rank to contribute to public expenses is verified, without unjustified or arbitrary exceptions or privileges (article 33 of the Political Constitution). Likewise, the Political Constitution confers on the legislator the tax power, according to which it is responsible for establishing national taxes and contributions and authorizing municipal ones (article 121, subsection 13). Regarding the content and exercise of the tax power, this Chamber has indicated:

"(...) The legislator may discretionarily create the taxes it deems necessary according to the parameters it considers convenient, in order to satisfy public needs, with the sole limits established by the Political Constitution. In that sense, it has been repeatedly pointed out:"

"V.- Legislative competence in tax matters. The Political Constitution, in its article 121 subsection 13), gives the Legislative Assembly the power to create national taxes and contributions, and to authorize municipal ones. This broad -although not unlimited- power allows the Assembly not only to create taxes, determining their essential elements (taxable person, taxable event, tax base, and amount or percentage of the levy), but also it may exempt certain individuals, goods, or activities from the application of the same (exemption), it may eliminate existing taxes, and it may even modify them, varying any of the already-referred elements of the tax obligation. Said power to modify existing taxes gives the State the possibility of reducing, modifying, or increasing the imposed burden, either as an instrument of fiscal policy or to fulfill any other lawful purposes." (Voto No. 2014-000852 of 2:30 p.m. on January 22, 2014) This Chamber has also recognized that such tax power, which is enshrined in the Constitution itself, responds to the inexorable need of the State to capture resources for the fulfillment of its purposes. Indeed, this Tribunal has pointed out that the tax power (article 121, subsection 13, of the Political Constitution) and the principle of equality in the bearing of public burdens (constitutional articles 18 and 33) are absolutely consubstantial to the Social and Democratic State of Law, because:

"(...) Without the tax power and the correlative duty of every person to contribute to public expenses, the various public entities that provide positive benefits to the inhabitants to eradicate real and effective inequalities -proper and typical of a Social State of Law- could not exercise their functions, fulfill their competencies, and satisfy the public interest, since it would be impossible for them to have public resources for that purpose." (Voto No. 2008-011210 of 3 p.m. on July 16, 2008).

In this way, the reason for the tax power finds due justification not only in the need of the State to obtain income to finance the functions and services it provides to the community, but also in the fact that the person benefits from those services and from the social function of the State. As this Chamber has clarified:

"(...) Although from the traditional point of view the purpose of the tax is revenue collection, today it is conceptualized as a fundamental instrument of the State for the satisfaction of public needs. On this aspect, the Spanish Constitutional Tribunal has pointed out that the constitutional duty of collaboration places the citizen in a situation of subjection and of collaboration with the Tax Administration in order to sustain public expenses, -clothed in an unquestionable public interest- that justifies the imposition of certain legal limitations on the exercise of individual rights." (Voto No.

2005-4704 of 3:00 p.m. on April 27, 2005)”</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">”</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 35.65pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; line-height:115%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">From the foregoing, it is determined that the taxing power (poder tributario) constitutes the authority to create and impose taxes and to demand contributions from persons or property located within the territory of the State, with the exceptions and limitations established in the Political Constitution and the laws, which are applied to Costa Rican citizens as well as to foreigners living in the country, and to any person who carries out activities that form part of the tax structures that the State has defined by formal law, regardless of their residence (territorial or fiscal). This authority also entails that of tax administration (gestión tributaria), which includes the determination, supervision, control of due compliance with formal and material tax obligations, as well as the adoption of corrective and sanctioning measures arising from the failure to fulfill such duties and tax burdens, while also enabling it to interpret the rules that make up the tax legal system, through the adoption of interpretative criteria, tax consultations, among others. Article 121, subsection 13) of the Magna Carta grants the Legislative Assembly the authority to establish national taxes, duties, and contributions; that is, it limits their exercise, creation, and approval through the legislator, to safeguard legal certainty and the collective interest of the population, respecting the constitutional tax principles.</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 35.65pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; line-height:115%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">VIII.- Regarding the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">The principle of legal reserve (reserva de ley), of constitutional origin, is connected with other constitutional principles, such as the principle of normative hierarchy and that of legal certainty, the achievement of which in turn presupposes respect for the principle of legal reserve. In tax matters, the referred principle is called upon to perform essential functions, such as serving as a vehicle for various substantive requirements, ensuring uniform treatment for diverse groups of citizens (guarantee of equality of citizens before tax law). On the other hand, the constitutional principle of legal reserve constitutes the axis of relations between the executive branch and the legislative branch regarding the production of norms; it presupposes the separation of powers and precludes the regulation of certain matters through channels other than law. Furthermore, it constitutes a limit, not only for the executive branch, but also for the legislative branch itself, which cannot renounce a function that has been attributed to it for mandatory exercise. The most precise delimitation of the principle of legal reserve occurs in the field of tax obligations, as a consequence of the clear individualization and singularity of taxes in the field of public patrimonial benefits. The content of the principle of legal reserve in tax matters implies the need for the legislative branch to determine the essential elements of the tax, a core of matters that must be specified by law.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 35.65pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; line-height:115%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">Repeatedly, this Constitutional Chamber has stated that the principle of legal reserve derives from the provisions of Article 121, subsection 13 of the Political Constitution. By virtue of such provision, it is exclusively incumbent upon the Legislative Assembly to establish national taxes and contributions, an authority that, moreover, is non-delegable to the Executive Branch and stands as a guarantee for the governed that its imposition must follow the formal procedure of a law. On this matter, this Court noted in judgment No. 4785-93, of 8:39 a.m. on September 30, 1993:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 35.65pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; line-height:115%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">"VI.- The alleged principle of legal reserve in tax matters was developed by the Supreme Court of Justice, then in its functions of constitutional jurisdiction, in a Resolution at eight o'clock on November twenty-ninth, nineteen seventy-three, stating in relevant part:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 35.65pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; line-height:115%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">"II.- The principle of "legal reserve" in tax matters arises from the provisions of Article 121, subsection 13 of the Political Constitution, according to which it is exclusively incumbent upon the Legislative Assembly to "establish national taxes and contributions"; an attribution which, pursuant to Article 9 of the same Constitution, the Assembly could not delegate to the Executive Branch, nor would it be lawful for the Executive Branch to invade the legislator's sphere in the exercise of the regulatory powers granted by Article 140, subsection 3 of the same Constitution. The problem consists, then, in defining what should be understood by "establish taxes," in order to thereby determine whether the Tax Reform Law delegated or not to the Executive Branch, in the manner alleged in the appeal, the exclusive authority conferred by Article 121, subsection 13 of the Political Constitution.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 35.65pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; line-height:115%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">III.- Establish means "to institute," and also "to order, command, decree," according to the Dictionary of the Language. To establish a tax is, therefore, to order or decree a certain tax burden; that is, stated more broadly, to create the tax and determine "the taxable objects, the bases, and the rates..."</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 35.65pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; line-height:115%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">Likewise, in judgment 2006-009170 of 4:36 p.m. on June 28, 2006, the Chamber referred to the principle of legal reserve and its scope, in the following terms:</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 35.65pt 0pt 35.45pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; line-height:115%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">“V.- A) Constitutional jurisprudence regarding the principle of legal reserve as one of the constitutional principles governing tax imposition.- </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">Previously and consistently, constitutional jurisprudence has referred to the principles governing the State's tax activity.</span></p> Thus, for example, it has been said that the State has the sovereign power within its jurisdiction to demand contributions from persons or to levy charges on their property. That power to levy charges is the power to enact legal norms from which the obligation to pay a tribute (tributo) derives. Our legal system recognizes the State's taxing power (potestad tributaria) at the constitutional level, such that the Legislative Assembly holds the authority to "Establish national taxes and contributions..." (Article 121, subsection 13 of the Political Constitution), thus constituting an obligation for Costa Ricans to pay the public charges established by the State to contribute to public expenses, an obligation that has constitutional status under the terms of Article 18 of the Constitution, while the Executive Branch is correspondingly responsible for ordering the collection of national revenues, per Article 140, subsection 7 of our Magna Carta. However, the exercise of that taxing power (potestad tributaria) must respect the constitutional principles of Taxation, referring to the Principle of Legal Reserve, the Principle of Equality or Isonomy, the Principle of Generality, and the Principle of Non-Confiscation. In other words, tributes must emanate from a Law of the Republic (legal reserve), must not create discrimination against taxpayers (equality), must comprehensively cover all persons or property provided for in the law and not only a part of them (generality), and must be careful not to be of such a nature that it violates private property (non-confiscation), according to Articles 33, 40, 45, and 121, subsection 13 of the Political Constitution (see in this regard ruling number 6455-94). Based on the foregoing, and regarding the principle of legal reserve (reserva legal), only through a law passed by the Legislative Assembly can tributes be legitimately imposed, by virtue of the provisions of Article 121, subsection 13) of the Constitution, an attribution conferred upon the Legislative Branch and which cannot be delegated to the Executive Branch. The most important doctrine on the matter has generally indicated that the "taxing power" - taxing power (potestad tributaria), power to impose taxes, power of imposition, among others - is inherent to the State and cannot be suppressed, delegated, or ceded (ruling number 1687-96, and in a similar sense, rulings number 4072-95, 5544-95, 0730-95, 4949-94, 2947-94, and 4785-93). Therefore, the principle of legal reserve (reserva legal) in tax matters (tributaria) constitutes one of the fundamental pillars of our Rule of Law, such that the definition of the constituent elements of the tax obligation (obligación tributaria) are reserved exclusively to the law (active and passive subjects, object of the obligation, cause, tax rate), although through constitutional jurisprudence, relative delegation in this matter has been admitted only with respect to the determination of the amount to be paid, and provided that the law creating the tax clearly establishes the elements or parameters on which it must be defined (see ruling number 0730-95, at 3:00 p.m. on February 3, 1995, and among others, rulings number 1426-95, 1427-95, and 0687-96). Likewise, this Court has indicated the possibility that the Executive Branch has to establish the collection mechanism for a tribute, without this implying a violation of the principles of legal reserve in tax matters (tributaria) and regulatory power contained in Articles 11, 121 subsection 13), and 140 subsection 3) of the Political Constitution, nor of any fundamental right, as long as a new tribute is not established or the one established by law is modified (rulings number 3016-95, at 11:36 a.m. on June 9, 1995, and 3449-96, at 3:27 p.m. on July 9, 1996). In summary, the constitutional principle of legal reserve (reserva legal) in tax matters (tributaria) refers to the fact that the power to create tributes is exclusive to the legislator. (...)” It can be concluded then that it is solely the Legislative Assembly which, through the procedure for the creation of formal law, can establish the essential elements of tributes, these being: the tax base, the taxable event (hecho generador), the rate, the taxpayer and the active subject, as well as the fiscal period. Hence, there can be no tribute without a prior law establishing it - nullum tributum sine lege -.

IX.- By majority, the accumulated unconstitutionality actions are dismissed regarding the grievance of infringement of the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. Justice Castillo Víquez writes. It must be clear that the Court of Cassation is responsible for the interpretation and application of legal norms in the specific case - just like the rest of the judges; it is the ultimate interpreter, not the only one, of ordinary law. It is called to establish the correct meaning of the law.

Following the doctrine of living law – the interpretation and application of the norm to the specific case and not the abstract vision of when the legislator enacts the law – the Court of Cassation, as well as the ordinary courts, adopting the legislator’s intent – the ratio legis – as a frame of reference, are called upon to resolve the legal dispute in such a way that the parties find a solution to the conflict. In the case of tax matters, this is no exception; however, due to the principle of tax legality, the judge – the a-quo, the ad-quem, and the magistrate – faces a series of insurmountable barriers or constitutional and legal impediments. Indeed, through the interpretation and application of tax regulations, taxes – imposts, rates, and special contributions –, exemptions, non-subjections, etc., cannot be created, modified, or extinguished. Much less can the essential or structural elements of the tax be established or expanded, nor can analogy be used to create or modify taxes. Now, what the ordinary judge can do is resort to the traditional methods of legal interpretation provided for in ordinary legislation – the literal, the historical, the teleological, the systematic, etc. Adopting the foregoing as a parameter, as explained below, the crux of the matter in this legal dispute consists of whether the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice – identical rulings from which a rule of law is extracted – broadens the tax base (base tributaria) of the income tax (impuesto a las utilidades) by including as company income the profits they obtain from operations carried out abroad. That is, whether or not it affects the companies’ equity by extending the territoriality criterion to financial operations carried out abroad from which a certain profit is obtained. For a better understanding of the issue, it is necessary to bring up that, in the base case of this action, the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), as a result of the audit activity, made an adjustment to the income declared by the plaintiff bank for “income from demand deposits and investments in entities abroad,” because it considered that the returns obtained by the bank were generated with capital from a Costa Rican source. The adjustments made by the Tax Audit were confirmed by the Tax Administration through resolutions DT 10R-107-19 and AU10R-19. The Tax Administration makes clear in resolution AU10R-19 that it relies on the jurisprudential criterion of the First Chamber, expressed, among others, in resolutions 000326-F-SI-2017 and 000976-F-S1-2016, which are the most recent rulings of said Chamber and which endorse the Tax Administration’s position that the principle of territoriality derived from the Income Tax Law (Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta) does not refer solely to a geographical aspect. The jurisprudence of the First Chamber has been evident in resolutions from 2010 and 2011.

The plaintiff considers that the jurisprudence of the First Chamber violates the principle of constitutional legal reserve (reserva legal) in tax matters enshrined in Article 121, subsection 13) of the Political Constitution, in that the returns obtained by companies investing abroad form part of the taxable base (base imponible) of the income tax provided for in Article 1 of the Income Tax Law No. 7092, as argued in the appeal being processed before the Administrative Tax Tribunal (Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo), thereby mutating the concept of territoriality established by Law No. 7092 into the concept of worldwide income (renta mundial) by way of interpretation, invading powers that belong to the ordinary legislator.

Article 121, subsection 13 of the Political Constitution establishes the principle of legal reserve in tax matters, and Article 5, subsection a) of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures develops it. According to said principle, only through formal law can taxes be created, as well as their essential elements: the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo), the taxable base (base imponible), the taxable event (hecho generador), and the tax rate. Ergo, the manner in which the taxable base of a tax is determined cannot be altered through legal interpretation. In order to clarify the position of the Tax Administration and the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, it must be borne in mind that Article 1 of the Income Tax Law – in force at the date the adjustments were made to the plaintiff company and when the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued its rulings – expressly defines the essential elements of the tax levied on corporate profits. Thus, the legislator establishes that the taxable event of the income tax is constituted by the perception of income in money or in kind, continuous or occasional, coming from any Costa Rican source, as well as continuous or eventual income from a Costa Rican source received or accrued by individuals or legal entities domiciled in Costa Rica, as well as any other income or benefit from a Costa Rican source not exempted by law. On the other hand, Chapter IV of the aforementioned law refers to the determination of the taxable base, while Articles 5, 6, 7, and 8 establish the procedure for its determination, such that it is neither the Tax Administration nor the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice that, through its jurisprudence, has included within the taxable base for the calculation of the income tax the income obtained by the appellant company from its investments abroad, as the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) correctly maintains. It is evident, then, that if the plaintiff company is a company domiciled in Costa Rica, its income-producing source is Costa Rican and the capital invested abroad is Costa Rican, the returns obtained form part of the company’s taxable income in Costa Rica, since there is an economic link (vinculación económica) between the income produced abroad and the producing source of the company domiciled in Costa Rica, which does not in itself entail a change from the concept of territorial income – in force at the time of the audit actions – to the worldwide income criterion, because the legislator expressly provided which income was taxable. Therefore, without a doubt, the economic link criterion derives from the law itself by considering income linked to the income-producing source as taxable. It must be pointed out that in Article 1 of the aforementioned law, the legislator expressly provides that any income or benefit from a Costa Rican source not exempted by law is taxable, and it is true that the legislator does not establish any exception in this regard.

The exception that the petitioner claims in order to not declare income from foreign investments as taxable, and to argue that the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is taxing them via case law, is based on an interpretation that this Court does not share, since subparagraph ch) of Article 6 of Law No. 7092, which establishes the exclusions from gross income (renta bruta), refers to income generated by virtue of contracts, agreements, or negotiations on goods or capital located abroad. In this regard, the Advisory Body tells us that, insofar as the returns that the petitioner company obtains abroad are not from goods or capital located abroad, but rather derive from capital domiciled in Costa Rica, which is where the petitioner’s income-producing source is located, they are therefore taxable with the income tax. The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic adds, moreover, that the action of the Tax Administration cannot be considered arbitrary and contrary to law, much less to the case law of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, and, therefore, the constitutional principle of tax legality is not violated, since the determination of the taxable base (base imponible) of a tax such as the one imposed on profits, in accordance with the principle of legality that governs tax matters, is nothing other than the application of the substantive legal rules that circumscribe it to specific facts, such that the activity to be carried out by the Tax Administration is, on the one hand, a simple verification of those facts necessary to determine the obligation and, on the other, the application of the substantive rules. Therefore, the cases that gave rise to the case law of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and that are accused of violating the constitutional principle of legality are limited to the correct application and interpretation of the substantive rules regarding the determination of the taxable base (base imponible). Thus, in the case of taxes, the principle of legal reserve requires that the substantive legal norms of the base (base) be contained in a legal provision, as occurs with Articles 1, 5, and subparagraph ch) of Article 6 of the Income Tax Law, which prevents them from being created for the specific case by mere administrative or judicial will. Therefore, following the arguments provided by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, it is concluded that the principle of tax legality is not violated, and it is appropriate to declare this action without merit (…).” **V.-** **REGARDING THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY (SEGURIDAD JURÍDICA).** In full consonance with the foregoing, in vote no. 2023-000357 of 9:20 a.m. on January 11, 2023, this Chamber resolved -in relation to that same jurisprudential line- that:

"**VII.- REGARDING THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY (SEGURIDAD JURÍDICA).** The petitioners also accuse an infraction of the principle of legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), since, they allege -again- that the case law of the First Chamber stems from an erroneous and extensive interpretation of the law. They particularly accuse an 'expansion via interpretation of the taxable event (hecho generador) of a tax established in the law' and that 'those administered (taxpayers) have no reason to be in a situation of legal uncertainty (incerteza jurídica) regarding the determination of the elements of the taxable bases (bases imponibles) of the taxes; it is thus held that the actions of the First Chamber in its repeated rulings on the criterion of "linkage with the country's economic structure" dismantles legal certainty (certeza jurídica) regarding the interpretation of the norm.' However, on this point, reference must be made to what was already decided in vote no. 2022-023955, in the sense that the questioned jurisprudential line is limited to the correct application and interpretation of the substantive rules regarding the determination of the taxable base (base imponible). Ergo, it is also appropriate to reject the action regarding this reproach." **VI.- REGARDING THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION AND DOUBLE TAXATION.** The petitioner also questions whether the challenged case law could generate a scenario of double taxation (doble imposición) and mentions the existence of various international agreements signed by Costa Rica precisely to avoid such a situation. He maintains that from those same agreements it can be derived that Costa Rica pursues a criterion of territorial income subjection that, contrary to the thesis upheld by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, is strictly limited to geographical space and has no relation whatsoever to the supposed "economic linkage." Regarding this point, in the aforementioned vote no. 2023-000355 of 9:20 a.m. on January 11, 2023, this Court resolved that:

VI.- ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF ECONOMIC CAPACITY. On the other hand, the representative of the plaintiff company alleges that the challenged jurisprudence violates the principle of economic capacity (principio de capacidad económica), enshrined in article 18 of the Political Constitution. He states that the taxing power must be directed toward the real capacity of each taxpayer. The reclassification of the income tax entails an impact on the patrimonial sphere of his client, which affects their ability to pay. Regarding this aspect, in judgment no. 2022-023955 of 4:42 p.m. on October 12, 2022, the Constitutional Court unanimously ruled to dismiss the actions regarding the claims of violation of the principles of economic capacity and double taxation, given that the plaintiff party omitted to indicate parameters that would allow for the determination of a true economic impact that would make it impossible for them to fulfill the tax obligation, nor did it provide appropriate elements so that this Chamber could assess whether the alleged double taxation, if it existed, would seriously diminish its gross income. In this regard, it was ordered as follows:

"XIII.- Doctrinally, the principle of ability to pay (principio de capacidad contributiva) is understood as that capacity of the taxpayer to be the subject of tax obligations, a capacity that is established by the presence of facts revealing wealth that, after being subjected to a valuation by the legislator and reconciled with political, social, and economic purposes, are elevated to the rank of taxable category; thus, this Court has indicated. In judgment number 4788-93, of eight forty-eight in the morning on September thirtieth, nineteen ninety-three, this Chamber considered:

"Article 18 of the Political Constitution states 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 in any case, they must be based on the general principles of Tax Law, which are implicit in that norm. Therefore, it is said that the tax must be just, based on the contribution of all according to their economic capacity and must respond to the principles of equality... and progressivity. This last principle responds to an aspiration of justice, which is reflected in the maxim that those with a higher level of income pay proportionally more taxes, which implicitly carries, of course, the principle of the prohibition of confiscatory taxes. In accordance with the foregoing, the call to contribute to the support of public expenses must be made effective, according to the 'ability to pay or economic capacity,' through a just tax system, which must be informed by the principle of equality.

In this regard, in judgment number 5749-93, of two thirty-three in the afternoon on November ninth, nineteen ninety-three, THIS Court clarified that:

"Economic capacity is the magnitude upon which the amount of public payments is determined, a magnitude that takes into account the minimum levels of income that subjects must have for their subsistence and the amount of income subject to taxation... In accordance with said principle - that of economic capacity -, the tax must be appropriate to the capacity of the subject obligated to pay, and this determines the justice of the tax, hence those with a greater economic capacity contribute a greater amount than those who are situated at a lower level." In the same vein, judgments number 2001-02657, of three-fifteen in the afternoon on April fourth, two thousand one, and number 2012002510 of four o'clock and three minutes in the afternoon on February twenty-second, two thousand twelve." In light of the foregoing precedents, this Court considers that this aspect of the action must be rejected, because the arguments raised by the plaintiff are incomplete value judgments, as they omit to indicate parameters that would allow for the determination of a true economic impact that would make it impossible for them to fulfill the tax obligation.

Nor do they indicate that, based on the income taxed abroad, a disproportionate impact on their financial spheres has been caused, demonstrating that their right to property is being illegitimately limited by confronting the questioned tax burden. It should be noted that in each case where the violation of this principle is alleged, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove such impact on the patrimony contrary to what is derived from Article 40 of the Constitution (judgment No. 2020020838 of 9:20 a.m. on October 28, 2020). Thus, lacking such elements of judgment, this Court cannot consider it proven that the economic capacity of the plaintiffs has been affected or that it is impossible for them to comply with it, due to their tax burden, as a consequence of the application of the challenged jurisprudential criterion, which they claim is contrary to the principle of economic capacity.

**VII.- ON THE VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 7, FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE OPPOSES INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.** The plaintiff's representative also alleges that the challenged constitutional interpretation promotes double taxation (doble imposición), because in those cases where a double taxation treaty has not been signed, the national taxpayer who invests abroad and generates credits they assumed were not subject to tax would have to pay tax on them in the territory of the nation where the income was generated, without being able to apply any deduction in Costa Rica because Article 9, subsection d) of the Income Tax Law prevents it. In this regard, the Chamber considers that the grievance is not sufficiently substantiated, since the plaintiff merely states that the questioned jurisprudence promotes a double taxation scenario, without identifying the levies that fall on the same taxable object, nor are elements provided to prove them, so that the Court can assess whether the alleged double taxation, if it exists, seriously diminishes the gross income of the plaintiffs, by forcing them to contribute in an exorbitant or ruinous manner, that is, in a proportion that goes beyond their true economic capacity. In the scenario indicated, it is appropriate to dismiss the action also regarding double taxation with respect to the questioned jurisprudence.

Considerations that are applicable to the sub lite case, since the plaintiff also does not provide elements of judgment that allow proving that, if an effective double taxation scenario exists, it "seriously diminishes the gross income of the plaintiffs, by forcing them to contribute in an exorbitant or ruinous manner, that is, in a proportion that goes beyond their true economic capacity." Likewise, it must be reiterated what has already been indicated, in the sense that the challenged jurisprudential line was limited "to the correct application and interpretation of the substantive rules regarding the determination of the tax base (base imponible)," as "occurs with Articles 1, 5, 6 subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law," in force "on the date the modifications were made to the plaintiff company and when the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued the rulings." The foregoing without prejudice, of course, that if in the specific case of the plaintiff, any of the mentioned international agreements is effectively applicable, even preferentially to the Income Tax Law, it may be alleged in the underlying matter itself.

**VII- ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CHALLENGED JURISPRUDENCE AND THE DUE DELIMITATION OF ITS OBJECT.** In this way, it can be corroborated that this Court already concluded that the challenged jurisprudential line, far from implying an erroneous or extensive interpretation of the regulations in force at the time the rulings in question were issued by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, was limited to the correct application and interpretation of such regulations regarding the determination of the tax base (base imponible), which made it possible to rule out a violation of the principles of legal reserve, tax legality (legalidad tributaria), and legal certainty, in relation to Articles 6 and 7 of the Political Constitution.

It should be added, moreover, that in the aforementioned action No. 20-007518-0007-CO, this Chamber heard a request for addition and clarification, in which it was sought that this Court add to and clarify the operative part of judgment No. 2022-023955.

</p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub">It was expressly requested that this Chamber specify that the jurisprudential criterion (criterio jurisprudencial) set forth by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgments 617-F-S1-2010, 55-FS1-2011, 475-F-S1-2011, 976-F-S1-2016 and 326-F-S1-2017 made exclusive reference to articles 1, 5 and 6 subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) (Law No. 7092), in its version prior to the reform enacted through the Law for the Strengthening of Public Finances (Ley de Fortalecimiento de las Finanzas Públicas) (Law No. 9635), which occurred on July 1, 2019. It was indicated that such clarification and addition (adición) was imperative, in order to have the necessary legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) regarding the fiscal periods that could be affected by the jurisprudential criterion (criterio jurisprudencial) set forth by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgments 617-F-S1-2010, 55-FS1-2011, 475-F-S1-2011, 976-F-S1-2016 and 326-F-S1-2017.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub">In response, this Chamber issued decision No. 2023-013388 of 9:50 a.m. on June 7, 2023, in which it resolved that: </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 46.15pt 0pt 35.5pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">I.-</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">Pursuant to Article 12 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), the judgments issued by this Chamber may be clarified or added to, at the request of a party, if requested within three days, and on its own motion at any time, including in execution proceedings, to the extent necessary to give full compliance to the content of the ruling.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 46.15pt 0pt 35.5pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">In the</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">sub examine, this request was filed within the legally established period, since the judgment was notified in its entirety to the plaintiff last November 21, and the filing of this new brief occurred on November 24, 2022.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 46.15pt 0pt 35.5pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">II.-</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">Notwithstanding, this Court does not consider that judgment number 2022-23955, of 4:42 p.m. on October 12, 2022, is obscure or omitted regarding the points raised by the parties, since they were duly resolved and addressed. The petitioner’s claim is entirely inadmissible, not only because it is a judgment whose points were dismissed by the Majority, but also because, furthermore, the reasoning and resolution provided are framed within what was the subject of study in this proceeding.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 46.15pt 0pt 35.5pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">As was explained in that judgment, and as the plaintiff argues, what is challenged here is the legal opinion expressed by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in judgments number 617-F-S1-2010 of 9:10 a.m. on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 of 8:50 a.m. on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 a.m. on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 of 1:05 p.m. on September 22, 2016 and 326-F-S1-2017 of 10:55 a.m. on March 23, 2017. Consequently, the pronouncement made by this Court in this action is limited solely to the analysis of the jurisprudential criterion (criterio jurisprudencial) therein issued by the jurisdictional authority, which was evidently resolved by that authority, in accordance with the legal system in force at that time. And thus, what was resolved was delimited in the recitals, by pointing out, for example, in recital IX the following:</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">“…In order to clarify the position of the Tax Administration and the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, it must be borne in mind that Article 1 of the Income Tax Law -</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">in force at the date the adjustments were made to the plaintiff company and when the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued its rulings</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">- expressly defines what the essential elements are of the tax levied on the profits of companies</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">…</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">It is evident, then, that if the plaintiff company is a company domiciled in Costa Rica, its income-producing source is Costa Rican and the capital invested abroad is Costa Rican, the returns obtained form part of the taxable income of the company in Costa Rica, since there is an economic link between the income produced abroad and the productive source of a company domiciled in Costa Rica, which does not in itself entail a change from the concept of territorial income</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> -in force at the time of the audit actions-</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> to the worldwide income criterion, because the legislator expressly provided what the taxable incomes were</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">…”</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">.</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">Thus, what is sought by the plaintiff in the sense that the operative part of a dismissal judgment expressly indicate that the jurisprudential criterion (criterio jurisprudencial) that was the subject of this unconstitutionality action refers solely and exclusively to the interpretation of articles 1, 5 and 6 subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) No. 7092, in its version prior to the reform enacted through the entry into force of the Law for the Strengthening of Public Finances (Ley de Fortalecimiento de las Finanzas Públicas) No. 9635, which occurred on July 1, 2019, is inadmissible, since this Court was clear in the context of its pronouncement and did not incur in any omission that must be corrected.</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">Therefore, the request filed is dismissed.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 46.15pt 12pt 35.5pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">III.-</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">Dissenting vote of Judge Rueda Leal.</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">In the sub examine, I clarify that I did not vote on the main resolution of this proceeding No. 2022-23955 of 4:42 p.m. on October 12, 2022; however, after analyzing its content, I concur with the minority position of Judge Garita Navarro.</span></p> In that sense, since I do not share the majority position of the main judgment in this case file, I do not subscribe to its eventual scope, omissions, or ambiguities. Consequently, I issue a dissenting vote (voto particular), given that, in my opinion, the action should have been partially granted, in the terms of the dissenting vote of Judge Garita Navarro: "Judge Garita Navarro dissents and partially grants the accumulated actions of unconstitutionality and, consequently, orders the annulment on constitutional grounds of the case law of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice contained in judgments 617-F-S1-2010 of 09:10 hours on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 of 08:50 hours on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 hours on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 of 13:05 hours on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 of 10:55 hours on March 23, 2017, for violating the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. Likewise, by connection, orders the annulment of all general directives or instructions of the tax administration, directed at taxpayers, that are covered by the norms now declared unconstitutional." Therefore, it was finally resolved that:

"The motion filed is dismissed. Judge Rueda Leal issues a dissenting vote (voto particular)." In this way, from the very beginning it was clear that: a) the analysis and pronouncement of this Chamber was circumscribed "solely to the analysis of the jurisprudential criterion issued therein by the jurisdictional authority, which was evidently resolved by that authority, in accordance with the legal system then in force" and b) that the challenged case law was restricted "to the correct application and interpretation of the substantive norms regarding the determination of the taxable base (base imponible)", in accordance with the regulations "in force at the date the modifications were made to the plaintiff company and when the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued the rulings." In which case, this Chamber finds no reason whatsoever to vary the criterion already expressed on that occasion.

VIII.- ON THE REFORM THROUGH LAW NO. 10,381. Now, in the present action, an attempt is made to argue that the aforementioned case law has become unconstitutional by reason of a subsequent legal reform, which has come to modify article 1 of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta), and it is therefore requested that the criterion already expressed by this Constitutional Court be varied. However, such allegation and claim are inadmissible. It must be reiterated what has already been indicated, in the sense that - from the very beginning - this Chamber clarified that the challenged case law was restricted "to the correct application and interpretation of the substantive norms regarding the determination of the taxable base (base imponible)", in accordance with the regulations "in force at the date the modifications were made to the plaintiff company and when the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued the rulings." In which case, if a subsequent legal reform has existed, which would justify varying the interpretation and application of such legal norm - by reason of modifications introduced to its normative text - then this, prima facie, must be discussed and resolved in the ordinary venue. Additionally, the plaintiff refers to an alleged violation of the principle of equality, as she maintains that if the challenged case law is not modified, some taxpayers will not be able to benefit from the aforementioned legal reform. The plaintiff expressly refers to her case and to the result of the audit (fiscalización) process conducted against her regarding the income tax (profits) for the 2017 fiscal period. However, determining the effects of said legal reform in relation to prior periods also constitutes an issue to be resolved in the ordinary venue. Regarding specifically the proper application of the law over time, in vote no. 2020-014224 of 9:15 hours on July 29, 2020, this Chamber - in what is relevant - resolved that:

"IV.- On the other hand, the plaintiff argues that his case should have been heard under the Civil Procedure Code that was in force in July 2016, the moment from which he filed his process and for which such exclusion provided for by the current code did not exist. In that sense, as noted in the underlying matter, the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José based its decision on the provisions of Transitory Provision I of the current code which states: 'TRANSITORY I.- Processes that were pending upon the entry into force of this Code shall be processed, as far as possible, by adjusting them to the new legislation, seeking to apply the new provisions and harmonizing them, insofar as possible, with the acts already carried out.' Now, if the plaintiff considers that there is an erroneous application of the law over time, as he argues that the 1989 Civil Procedure Code should apply, and not the procedural code that entered into force as of October 2018, and by which he considers his injunction (interdicto) was declared inadmissible, this is a discussion that, in the terms proposed, is also exempt from being heard in this jurisdiction, as it is not a matter of constitutionality, but of legality." Let us examine the following precedents in this regard:

1- "...In addition to the foregoing, if the appellant considers that the regulations applied to him in the particular case were not the appropriate ones, since, in his opinion, his situation was covered by a prior regulation that allowed for the granting of a higher percentage for duties in the position, **what is raised is not a problem of retroactive application of the law but rather the application of the law over time, a task that falls to the judge of legality, in the broad sense**. Nor is it the jurisdiction of this Court to declare any acquired right (derecho adquirido) in favor of the protected party, as this also corresponds to the legality venue." (judgment 2020-2579 of 9:30 a.m. on February 7, 2020) 2- **"I.- On the inadmissibility of the action filed against the Jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.** First, the Chamber notes that the plaintiff cites five judgments of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice to demonstrate the existence of the contested jurisprudential line, among which is number 00047-A-51-2009 of 11:05 a.m. on January 22, 2009, issued in the proceeding in which he appears as the defendant. The action is inadmissible on this point, first because Article 10 of the Political Constitution establishes that jurisdictional acts of the Judicial Branch are not contestable in the constitutional jurisdiction; likewise, Article 74 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction determines that the unconstitutionality action (acción de inconstitucionalidad) shall not be admissible against jurisdictional acts of the Judicial Branch. One of the resolutions the plaintiff cites is the one issued in the proceeding in which he was a party, so he would be questioning a jurisdictional pronouncement issued in a specific case through this unconstitutionality action, which is improper. On the other hand, regarding the arguments put forth to attack the constitutionality of the jurisprudence, the Chamber considers that they are not of constitutional relevance, **since the plaintiff alleges that the jurisprudence has denied the cassation appeal (recurso de casación) in collection proceedings in which the statute of limitations (prescripción) was declared, proceedings that were served before the entry into force of that law, which in his opinion goes against the letter of Transitory Provision I of the Judicial Collection Law. What is raised amounts to a legality dispute, since disagreements about the application of the law over time are points that must be argued in the ordinary jurisdictional venue and not in an unconstitutionality action**." (Judgment No. 2012-7166 of 10:31 a.m. on May 30, 2012) 3- "...Note that the plaintiff seeks for this Court to tell him **'what the applicable labor legal regime is for labor proceedings where consolidated legal situations prior to the entry into force of the Labor Procedural Reform on July 25, 2017, are being judged'** ; in which case, the Constitutional Chamber must not issue any judgment regarding such point, as it is a purely legality conflict outside its scope of competence, which must be ventilated in the ordinary jurisdiction. This Court already indicated as much in the cited judgment No. 2018-008531, where it was resolved –in relevant part– the following: "(...) In the sub judice, the plaintiff states that he challenges Transitory Provision I of Law No. 9343 of January 25, 2016. Additionally, he indicates as challenged Articles 399, 404 to 408, 413, and 499 of the Labor Code, amended by that same law. In relation to Transitory Provision I, the rule regulates the application of the cited procedural reform regarding proceedings 'initiated before the entry into force' of Law No. 9343, that is, before July 26, 2017. However, in this case, the prior proceeding he cites was filed on August 10, 2017, that is, after the law had entered into force. It is clear, then, that regarding this rule, the action is not a reasonable means to protect the right deemed injured, since the proceeding in process does not fall under the assumption regulated by the provision for '(...) proceedings initiated before the entry into force of this law (...)'. That is, the Transitory Provision has no bearing on the main proceeding because it was filed after the law's entry into force. To which it must be added, moreover, that **this Chamber recently pointed out that resolving the following constitutes a conflict outside its scope of competence**: **'(...) a controversy over the validity of the law over time, or whether or not the retroactive application of the provisions of the Labor Procedural Reform is appropriate, in accordance with the transitory regime established by that regulation'** (Judgment No. 2017-016270 of 09:15 hrs. on October 11, 2017)." (See, to the same effect, judgment No. 2018-13139 of 9:30 a.m. on August 14, 2018, and 2018-11652, among others).

Thus, the action is inadmissible...".

Considerations applicable to the case under study, as there is no reason that justifies changing the criterion.

**IX.- IN CONCLUSION.** As a corollary to the foregoing, it is appropriate to dismiss the filed action on its merits, as is hereby ordered. Judge Rueda Leal dissents and partially grants the unconstitutionality action due to a violation of the principle of legal reserve in tax matters.

**X.- DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE RUEDA LEAL DUE TO VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL RESERVE.** First of all, I note that I partially dissented from the vote in judgments nos. 2023-000355, 2023-000357, and 2023-000359, all from 9:20 a.m. on January 11, 2023, which the Majority cites. Specifically, in judgment no. 2023-000355, together with Magistrate Garita Navarro, I dissented from the vote and partially granted the action for violation of the principle of legal reservation in tax matters, based on these considerations:

“VIII.- Dissenting vote of Magistrates Rueda Leal and Garita Navarro regarding the grievance related to the Principle of Legal Reservation, with the drafting of the latter. With the utmost respect and consideration, we disagree with the resolution of the majority of the Chamber regarding the alleged violation of the principle of legal reservation in tax matters, as we consider that the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice questioned here does injure that constitutional principle, based on the considerations set forth below:

• 1)On the principle of legal reservation in tax matters. Based on the constitutional norms and principles developed in Considerandos VII and VIII of judgment No. 2022-023955, the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), Law 4755 of May 3, 1971, adopts the constitutional provision in its numeral 5, by expressly indicating that the creation, modification, and elimination of taxes is a matter reserved to the law issued by the Legislative Power, as follows:

“Article 5.- Matter exclusive to the law. In tax matters, only the law may: a) Create, modify or suppress taxes; define the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax relationship; establish the tax rates and their calculation bases; and indicate the taxable person (sujeto pasivo); b) Grant exemptions, reductions, or benefits; c) Classify violations and establish the respective sanctions; d) Establish privileges, preferences, and guarantees for tax credits; and e) Regulate the modes of extinguishment of tax credits by means other than payment (…)." That is, it is determined that prior to demanding the tax obligation, the essential and structural elements of the tax -taxable event, rate, tax base, active subject and taxable person, fiscal period- must be established, which have to be expressly defined in the law and must conform to the constitutional principles of legal reservation, economic capacity, equality, non-confiscation, progressivity, among others. The foregoing is related to the constitutional principle, also of constitutional rank, of legal certainty, according to which, prior to the accrual of the tax obligation to make the respective payment, taxpayers must be aware of them.

For its part, Article 11 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures provides, in relation to the foregoing:

“Article 11.- Concept. The tax obligation arises between the State or other public entities and the taxable persons as soon as the taxable event provided for in the law occurs; and it constitutes a bond of a personal nature, even if its fulfillment is secured through a real guarantee or with special privileges.” In this regard, this Constitutional Court, in judgment 2003-06316 from 2:08 p.m. on July 3, 2003, cited judgment 10134-99 from 11:00 a.m. on December 23, 1999, which defined the figure of the tax and its different types as follows:

“«Costa Rican legal doctrine has traditionally followed the most generalized positions regarding the definition of the concept of tax and its tripartite classification (taxes (impuestos), levies (tasas), and special contributions (contribuciones especiales)). In a generic sense, it has been considered, from the perspective of financial law doctrine, that the tax is a mandatory payment, commonly in money, demanded by the State by virtue of its power of imperium and which gives rise to legal relationships of public law. National legislation followed the model of the Tax Code for Latin America and in Article 4 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Tax Code), it was based on the classic concept to express that "taxes are payments in money (taxes (impuestos), levies (tasas), and special contributions (contribuciones especiales)), which the State, in the exercise of its power of imperium, demands in order to obtain resources for the fulfillment of its purposes." Subsequently, it defined the three possible modalities of the tax, as follows:

"Tax (Impuesto) is the tax whose obligation has as its taxable event a situation independent of all state activity relative to the taxpayer.

Levy (Tasa) is the tax whose obligation has as its taxable event the effective or potential provision of an individualized public service to the taxpayer; and whose proceeds must not have a destination unrelated to the service that constitutes the reason for the obligation.

The consideration received from the user in payment for services not inherent to the State is not a tax.

**Special Contribution (Contribución Especial)** is the tax whose obligation has as its taxable event (hecho generador) benefits derived from the execution of public works or state activities, whether carried out in a decentralized manner or not; and whose proceeds must not be destined for purposes other than the financing of the works or activities that constitute the reason for the obligation (…).

From this perspective, once the Legislative Branch creates taxes and establishes their regulatory framework, defining their essential elements, the taxable event, the tax rate and its calculation bases, as well as the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) and its tax period, those responsible for applying the tax regime act, with the Ministry of Finance, through the Dirección General de Tributación, assuming tax administration through auditing and verification actions, for the purpose of collecting the taxes established in the current tax regulations, and the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, which resolves administrative tax disputes between the taxpayer and the Dirección General de Tributación, a body of full jurisdiction and independent in its organization, functioning, and competence from the Executive Branch, whose rulings exhaust administrative remedies. Likewise, this power is assigned to the Decentralized Tax Administrations, by virtue of the provisions of canon 99 of the aforementioned Código Tributario, regarding the fiscal charges over which they have been assigned the power of tax management.

In this dynamic, it is insisted, the principle of legal reserve (reserva de ley) is a core component of the legal security and certainty of the tax system, principles that constitute guarantee schemes for the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) and a parameter of validity for the various conducts of the Tax Administrations. As has been indicated, the tax obligation comes into legal existence when the taxable event (hecho generador) provided for by law and that typifies the respective tax is configured. It is from the materialization of the conduct that the legislator has defined as the objective element of the taxable event (hecho imponible), that the Legal System imposes on the respective subject, material duties (assessment and payment) and formal duties (registration, enrollment, deregistration, information, declaration, etc.) and therefore, at that moment, the set of competencies that are characteristic of the aforementioned fiscal power is attributed to the Administration, empowering it to require the fulfillment of those conducts that the normative plexus imposes on the taxpayer. More simply, the configuration of the conduct defined by law as the taxable event is the point of origin of the tax obligation and it is only from that moment that the legal-tax relationship arises and the person acquires the status of tax obligor, taxpayer, or taxpayer (sujeto pasivo). Such synergy imposes, without a doubt, an environment of certainty and security, so that individuals have clarity regarding the implications that their economic activities entail in the tax sphere. Hence, the clear and precise definition of the core and structural components of taxes, through formal law, is a pillar of the fiscal system, of its transparency and guarantee of tax justice, to the extent that it allows for objective and identifiable parameters regarding the various elements of tax categories and their elements. This is decisive in a fiscal system that presents tax structures that impose upon the obligated subject duties of self-assessment, self-declaration, and self-liquidation, which impose on them the burden of establishing which of their activities are subject to a particular tax, defining the tax base in their specific case, declaring their specific situation, and subsequently, paying the tax debt that, according to their analysis, they have established. Then, the Tax Administration, in the exercise of its determinative and auditing power, verifies the correct compliance with those obligations, requiring, as the case may be, the respective adjustments, or else, establishing the contributory duty for those who have not considered that those obligations apply to them. The foregoing is without prejudice to fiscal relationships that are satisfied through withholding-at-source figures, in which collection schemes such as the withholding agent or transfer agent are used. Hence, the legal reserve (reserva de ley) in the terms discussed is fundamental for an environment of security and neutrality in the management of fiscal relationships, preventing tax burdens from being imposed or modified based on criteria outside the law, generating risks of harm to the recipients of the tax power, and at the same time, it is insisted, it constitutes a parameter of control of the validity of administrative conduct, and an undoubted benchmark for the legitimacy of the obligations to be imposed on administered persons. For what is relevant in this case, as will be addressed below, the legal definition of the taxable event constitutes the cornerstone of said legal certainty, as it is the element from which the various legal obligations that a particular fiscal relationship entails become enforceable. It is not an element that can be left to interpretative liberality or the value judgment of the Administration, and must be clearly determined and fixed by law, as a consequence of the doctrine imposed by numeral 121 subsection 13 of the Constitución Política.

**2) Regarding the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta.** The Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta (LISR) No. 7092 of April 21, 1988, is one of the most relevant laws in the Costa Rican tax system. This tax is characterized by having a schedular structure, to the extent that it establishes various tax manifestations according to the nature of the income upon which the rent falls, whether it involves income from profits derived from the economic activity of individuals (personas físicas) or legal entities (personas jurídicas), and on the other hand, a withholding-at-source scheme. Prior to the reform made by Law No. 9635, this regulation established the following tax schedules: taxes on the profits of individuals (personas físicas) or legal entities (personas jurídicas), and in the case of withholding at source: income from dependent personal work (salary tax), tax on disposable income, tax on securities and other financial instruments, tax on outward remittances, tax on withdrawals from complementary (voluntary) pension funds, and withholdings as advance payments of income tax (at 2% or 3%). With the reform introduced by Law No. 9635, said structural scheme is composed of the tax on the profits of individuals (personas físicas) and legal entities (personas jurídicas), and in the case of withholding at source, the manifestations of the salary tax, income from movable capital, income from immovable capital, income from securities, and outward remittances.

Within Chapter XI on capital income, regulations are adjusted regarding the various taxable situations, each with its respective tax treatment.

Now, it is pertinent to analyze the tax on profits, which taxes the income of individuals, legal entities, and collective entities without legal personality that carry out lucrative activities in the country from a Costa Rican source, as established in numeral 1 of the LISR, with the clarification that the following references are made in the context of the version of that regulation in force at the time the precedents that support the jurisprudential line of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which constitutes the object of this action, were issued:

"Article 1.- Tax covered by the law, taxable event (hecho generador) and taxable matter. A tax is established on the profits of companies and individuals who carry out lucrative activities. (The preceding paragraph was thus added by Article 102 of the Extraordinary Budget Law, No. 7097 of August 18, 1988) The taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax on the profits referred to in the preceding paragraph is the receipt of income in cash or in kind, continuous or occasional, from any Costa Rican source. (The preceding paragraph was thus reformed and its numbering corrected by Article 102 of the Extraordinary Budget Law, No. 7097 of August 18, 1988, which transferred it from the first paragraph to the second) This tax also levies continuous or eventual income from a Costa Rican source, received or accrued by individuals or legal entities domiciled in the country; as well as any other income or benefit from a Costa Rican source not exempted by law, including income received by beneficiaries of export contracts for Tax Credit Certificates. The condition of being domiciled in the country shall be determined according to the regulation. The provisions of this law shall not be applicable to the environmental promotion and compensation mechanisms established in the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), No. 7575, of February 13, 1996. (The numbering of the preceding paragraph was corrected by Article 102 of the Extraordinary Budget Law, No. 7097 of August 18, 1988, which transferred it from the second paragraph to the third) (The preceding third paragraph was thus reformed by Article 1 of Law No. 7838 of October 5, 1998) For the purposes of the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, sales, income, or benefits from a Costa Rican source shall be understood as those coming from services rendered, goods located, or capital used in the national territory, which are obtained during the fiscal period in accordance with the provisions of this law." Based on the foregoing, to establish the existence and enforceability of the tax relationship between the taxpayer and the taxable event (hecho imponible), the criteria of subjection (criterios de sujeción), linkage, or connection are available, which are the determining elements for income to be affected by the Costa Rican tax system; that is, they are objective parameters for applying the tax regulations. Thus, the national tax regime, regarding income from profits, establishes the following criteria of subjection (criterios de sujeción):

• a)Income-product (renta producto) is understood as those incomes or benefits, continuous or occasional, coming from a Costa Rican source, that is, derived from goods located, services rendered, or capital used in the national territory. This concept seeks to impose the tax levy on the profit and not on the source producing the wealth, an economic component intended to remain intact. That is, the economic benefit (net) derived from the use of those factors of production (land, labor, and capital) is taxed, but not the value of those factors themselves. Hence, in accordance with that principle, Law No. 7092 itself establishes the figure of deductible expenses (Articles 8 and 9), which are applied to the gross income base to generate a diminishing or reducing effect on that reference, in order to obtain the net income, a concept which in turn constitutes the taxed income (see Articles 5 and 14 of the same law). The logic of this system is the tax recognition of expenses that are necessary to produce taxed income, provided they comply with the formal and substantial requirements imposed by Article 8 of the Income Tax Law. This means that the source producing the wealth is preserved and the profit is taxed, not the increase in equity itself.
• b)Schedularity (cedularidad) refers to the schedular (cedular) nature of the tax, which establishes different taxes, according to the types of income that will be taxed, based on the criteria chosen and established in the Law. As indicated, it entails the necessary distinction and differentiation of tax treatment according to the source of income production, which materializes in the definition (classification) of the respective taxable event (hecho generador).
• c)Territoriality (territorialidad), which only allows taxing income generated from a Costa Rican source. It is an objective link to the national territory, that is, income generated abroad cannot be taxed. This objective criterion is expressly found in the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, LISR) No. 7092, in its first article, a provision that specifies and details the objective parameters that allow establishing the relationship called "from a Costa Rican source." That precept states: "Article 1- (…) For the purposes of the provisions of the preceding paragraph, **income, revenues, or benefits from a Costa Rican source shall be understood as those generated in the national territory from services rendered, assets located, or capital utilized**, which are obtained during the fiscal period, in accordance with the provisions of this law (…)" (The bold highlighting does not belong to the original). In this way, the principle of territoriality arises, which constitutes a limitation directed at the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), so that it has a pre-established framework to be able to assess and demand contributions from persons or assets located within its territory.

Furthermore, the income tax (impuesto sobre las utilidades) is governed by the system of self-assessment (auto determinación), self-declaration (auto declaración), and self-settlement (auto liquidación) of the tax obligation, by virtue of which it is the taxpayer himself who is assigned the duty of initiative regarding the definition of the aspects that are inserted in his respective declaration and that have an impact on the settlement of the tax quota, under the requirements and on the dates established by the Tax Administration. However, said procedure, in the exercise of the sovereign powers of the Administration, is subject to review to determine the correct fulfillment of the tax burden, since if a difference is found, through the various determination mechanisms (on a certain basis, a presumptive basis, or an objective basis), it may impose a payment higher than that declared by the taxpayer, as well as establish any administrative sanctions that may correspond for potential infractions of tax regulations.

**3) Regarding the violation of the principle of legal reserve in tax matters with respect to the challenged jurisprudence.** The petitioner considers that the jurisprudence adopted by the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice is unconstitutional, because it injures the principle of legal reserve, since, through an extensive interpretation of the concept of territoriality and the inclusion of the term called "economic link (vinculación económica)," it accepts that income generated abroad be taxed, considering them to be from a Costa Rican source because they were generated by a company located and domiciled in the country, or because Costa Rican capital is used.

Now, for the purposes of what is analyzed here, it is pertinent to cite Article 10 of the Civil Code, which provides that "Norms shall be interpreted according to the proper meaning of their words, in relation to the context, the historical and legislative background, and the social reality of the time in which they are to be applied, fundamentally attending to the spirit and purpose of them." In a similar sense, canon 10 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) establishes teleological interpretation as a measure of protection of the public interest in the following sense:

"1. The administrative norm must be interpreted in the manner that best guarantees the realization of the public purpose to which it is directed, within due respect for the rights and interests of the individual.

2. It must be interpreted and integrated taking into account the other related norms and the nature and value of the conduct and facts to which it refers." In the sphere of tax law, Article 6 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) imposes that the interpretation of those norms be subject to the rules and methods admitted by common law.

Thus, it regulates:

"**Article 6.- Interpretation of tax rules.** Tax rules must be interpreted in accordance with all methods admitted by Common Law. Analogy is an admissible procedure to 'fill legal gaps' but by virtue of it, taxes or exemptions cannot be created." (highlighting not in the original).

Likewise, article 8 of the same regulatory body establishes the following:

"**Article 8.- Interpretation of the rule regulating the taxable event of the tax obligation.** When the rule relating to the taxable event refers to situations defined by other legal branches, without expressly referring to or departing from them, the interpreter may assign it the meaning that best adapts to the reality considered by the law when creating the tax. The legal forms adopted by taxpayers do not bind the interpreter, who may attribute to the situations and acts that occurred a significance consistent with the facts, when it arises from the tax law that the taxable event of the respective obligation was defined attending to reality and not to legal form. When the legal forms are manifestly inappropriate to the reality of the taxed facts and this results in a decrease in the amount of the obligations, the tax law must be applied disregarding such forms." Based on the foregoing, it is clearly stated that the interpretation of tax regulations must be carried out respecting constitutional principles, in accordance with the purpose and spirit of the tax, that is, the interpretation must be declarative of the legislator's will at the time said tax was generated. Furthermore, the rule expressly *prohibits* analogy (a form of integration) as a means to create taxes or exemptions, as it is only permitted to fill possible legal gaps in tax rules.

Thus, the interpretation of the rules that regulate and govern fiscal activity must adhere to the logical procedure corresponding to each regulatory case. Moreover, in this exercise, it is necessary to consider that through interpretation it is not feasible to substitute the legislator's will regarding the configuration and specification of the fundamental elements of the tax, given that, it is reiterated, such basic structural components are a matter reserved for formal law. Otherwise, legitimizing through interpretation the creation, modification, or suppression of the elements of the tax that must be defined by law, injures the very basis of the democratic system and allows the Executive Branch to substitute the legislator, breaking the very logic of the principle of separation of functions established by precept 9 of the Fundamental Charter. Interpretation is a mechanism aimed at seeking the straightforward and correct application of the law, but by its virtue, the law cannot be surpassed, disregarded, or reformed.

Thus, the core point in this action revolves around defining whether the challenged jurisprudential standard constitutes an excess in defining the elements of the income tax on profits, by extending the scope of the material element of the taxable event to activities and income that, according to the plaintiff's claims, are not part of the taxable event. As has been indicated, this element must be expressly regulated by law, and it is unfeasible for that objective parameter—nuclear for a tax system that must guarantee legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), legitimate expectations (confianza legítima), and transparency as supporting rules for the rights and guarantees of the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo)—to be broadened through interpretation. Thus, it is necessary to examine whether the activity of investing funds abroad, carried out with capital generated in Costa Rican fiscal territory, forms part of the taxable event of the income category, given the application of the criterion of economic connection (vinculación económica) with the source, or if, on the contrary, that application transcends the territorial income scheme, as claimed by the petitioners.

On this particular matter, it is worth emphasizing the taxable event of the income tax on profits. Articles 1 and 2 of Law No. 7092, with the wording in effect at the time of the assessment procedures (procedimientos determinativos) by virtue of which the challenged jurisprudence was issued, define that element, indicating that this tax falls on the profits of individuals (personas físicas), legal entities (personas jurídicas), and collective entities without legal personality, domiciled in the country, that develop lucrative activities of Costa Rican source. Although the tax is defined on profits, it is conditioned on that economic product deriving from activities in which the factors of production (land, labor, and capital) that are of Costa Rican source are utilized. The taxation is established on all income received or accrued within the fiscal period, regardless of whether it is continuous or occasional, but, in addition, it falls on any patrimonial benefit that is not duly justified or supported. It should be noted that the taxation regime in question also falls on any patrimonial benefit that has not been expressly excluded from the tax, provided that said income or benefit derives from a Costa Rican source. Up to this point in the regulatory scheme, the relevance of the definition of the concept "of Costa Rican source" is observed, because it is this referent that allows the connection of the income to its respective tax charge.

Hence, immediately thereafter, the provision clarifies what is to be understood as Costa Rican-source income, specifying:

"For the purposes of the provisions in the preceding paragraphs, sales, income, or profits from Costa Rican sources shall be understood as those arising from services rendered, assets located, or capital utilized within the national territory, which are obtained during the tax period in accordance with the provisions of this law." The provision in question allows for establishing that, by express mandate of law, the concept of Costa Rican source refers to income or patrimonial profits that have been earned or received IN THE NATIONAL TERRITORY, from the rendering of services, the lease of assets, or the utilization of capital. Of course, in the context of the territorial element imposed by this normative scheme, the taxed income must be derived from the use of land or capital, as well as from the rendering of services within the Costa Rican fiscal territory. By logical derivation, the obtaining of income from the mere use of assets located in national territory imposes the duty to contribute, even for a party not domiciled in the country, since the material criterion allows that income to be considered Costa Rican-source. The same occurs with income associated with services rendered in Costa Rica, for, if the wealth is produced from that offering of services in national territory, the territorial criterion is imposed, and the party that rendered the activity becomes a liable subject, even if they are not a national fiscal resident. Of course, if the recipient of the income does not reside in the country, the remittance of the profits imposes upon the remitter the duty of withholding, under penalty of joint and several liability in that regard. Similarly, the use of capital in the country imposes a similar fiscal treatment, regardless of the origin of the funds or the capital utilized. The relevant factor is that the material activity of using capital from which an income, economic benefit, or credit right is obtained or produced occurs within the Costa Rican territorial jurisdiction, and to that extent, said income will be subject to the tax in question.

By contrast, when a Costa Rican fiscal resident obtains income derived from services rendered abroad, assets located abroad, or capital utilized outside the Costa Rican geographical limits, it cannot be considered Costa Rican-source and, to that extent, such income is excluded from the national fiscal power. Note that this is not a tax exemption (exención fiscal), since, as clearly established by numeral 61 in relation to 62 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, an exoneration (exoneración) supposes a legal dispensation from the material duty to contribute. That is, in exemptions, the taxable event (hecho generador) is configured, and therefore, a tax obligation exists; however, the legislator, expressly, imposes a liberation from the duty of payment (total or partial), either objectively or through the insertion of subjective conditions verifiable before the Tax Authority, as a requirement to enjoy the fiscal benefit. Precisely because a tax obligation exists, the non-exonerated duties persist, as is the case with formal obligations. The case alluded to configures, conversely, a non-subjection (no sujeción), a situation in which there is no fiscal duty whatsoever, since the activity is not included within the scope of the taxable event (which must be established by law). Thus, in non-subjections, it is not necessary for the law to define which income is excluded from the coverage parameter of the tax. Hence, non-subjections are defined through negative application or by discarding from the analysis of the taxable event; more simply, if the act or conduct of the subject is not included among those typified as a taxable act (hecho imponible), it is not taxed, without the need for an express norm to so indicate. Although Ley No. 7092 itself establishes in its numeral 6 cases of exclusion from gross income, this does not mean that any income not found within that list is subject to the tax. In essence, the subjection of wealth to the income tax (impuesto a las utilidades) is conditioned upon it deriving from a Costa Rican source, with the exceptions of unsupported income already alluded to, so that the patrimonial profits that the Costa Rican fiscal resident has not obtained from the use of the factors of production and situations defining Costa Rican-source income cannot be considered taxable income. Otherwise, extending the taxing power to those incomes not related to Costa Rican-source income would imply migrating toward a worldwide income system (renta mundial) (and not a territorial one), which imposes the duty of declaration and material contribution based on the totality of income generated by the passive subject, regardless of the place where they earned or received it. It would be a subjective subjection criterion, and not an objective territorial one, as is the one operating in the income scheme defined by Ley No. 7092. This is a fiscal vision that must be embodied in formal law; however, it is reiterated, this worldwide income system is not the one defining the national tax system for income tax (renta sobre las utilidades), which subjects them, it is reiterated, to the concept of Costa Rican source.

Thus, the fiscal treatment of those incomes that are not of Costa Rican source, in the case of territorial income tax systems, is subject to the tax regime of the country in which the income was produced. Once such income is repatriated, and the capital it represents is utilized in the country, the profits that such utilization may generate in Costa Rican territory are considered of national source, and to that extent, the profits—not the primary capital produced extra-territorially, from the fiscal standpoint—would be taxed.

In this sense, it is the criterion of the undersigned that the position established in the case law that is the subject of debate considers that the income generated by the use of national capital in foreign placement or temporary investment markets of monetary values, that is, that are placed in financial investment activities, is taxed in Costa Rica. The foregoing is based on the estimation that the concept of "appurtenance" ("pertenencia") or "linkage to the economic structure" ("vinculación a la estructura económica") applies in these stock exchange transactions. At its core, the logic of this position rests on the fact or circumstance that the primary capital used in the transaction with a foreign entity is of Costa Rican source, because that investment wealth was generated in the country and is held in Costa Rican accounts. Therefore, the mere placement in international securities does not imply a disconnection from the exercise of activities taxed by the income schedule.

As has been indicated, the use of capital that is taxed in these cases is that which has been utilized in Costa Rican territory. For this, the analysis does not fall upon the origin of the capital, but upon the place where that capital is used and the benefit is produced. From this angle of examination, although the base capital might have been generated in Costa Rica, the truth of the matter is that those items are placed in transitory investments of financial entities that are domiciled in other countries, and it is at the location of those entities that the legal transaction is concluded, by virtue of which the financial yield is produced. It is clear that, given the investment model, those resources are later repatriated to the original bank accounts from which the investments were made; however, that does not mean that those profits obtained from the use of national capital in foreign territory can be considered Costa Rican-source income.

The mere circumstance that the investing entities use that business model as a means of boosting profits through the use of available capital in order to maximize liquidity or obtain better returns, or that the investments in question are temporary and short-term, as in the case of so-called "overnight" investments, does not introduce a concrete element into the case file from which it could be affirmed that the income in question is Costa Rican source and, therefore, subject to the profits tax. Moreover, the regularity or otherwise of the use of this economic option also does not introduce an element of taxability, since the chargeable event defined by the legislator does not provide for a tax based on the habitual nature of that income model. The economic benefit that those financial entities may obtain by way of investment placement fees charged to clients is a different matter, since that activity derives from services provided in national territory, but the profit itself, which is obtained—it must be reiterated—from the use of capital abroad, is a different matter entirely. On this point, it is appropriate to cite the provisions of Article 6, subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law, which states:

"ch) Income generated by virtue of contracts, agreements, or negotiations regarding assets or capital located abroad, even if they were entered into and executed wholly or partially in the country." Note that this mandate excludes from taxation income generated from assets or capital located abroad, or services provided abroad, even if contracted in the country. This regulation is entirely consistent with the Costa Rican source income principle that has been referenced, in that it does not consider as subject to the tax, profits derived from services provided, capital located, or assets situated abroad, because those factors of production have not been used within national territory. Contrary to the position held by the public bodies that have participated in this process and what is expressed in the jurisprudential line of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, it is our view that said provision does not constitute the legal basis for the taxation that has been imposed on the aforementioned income obtained from the temporary placement of Costa Rican capital in investments abroad. On one hand, regardless of the site where the legal transaction is considered perfected, the fact of the matter is that the capital involved is, ultimately, used abroad, and it is from that placement of securities that a profit is obtained. But that profit is based on the use of that capital in the investment accounts of entities domiciled abroad, not on the use of the capital in Costa Rica. Otherwise, the censured thesis would imply that every use of domestically sourced capital to obtain profits in other tax jurisdictions would be subject to national tax, under the consideration of an alleged economic link, leading to a worldwide income assumption that finds no provision or support in the letter of the norms regulating that tax relationship.

Similarly, we deem it necessary to clarify that the origin of the accounts from which funds are taken to be placed in temporary investments in foreign countries does not constitute an element upon which the taxation in question can be supported. Indeed, the concepts of location and placement to which the tax authorities allude, fundamentally seek to justify the thesis they have applied at the administrative level and which was adopted by the precedents of the high instance of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. However, it is evident that the investment business entails displacement of account values and implies an unavailability of those funds for the period or time the investment lasts. The investor cannot dispose of those funds until they are released and made available by the international financial entity. Therefore, it cannot be said that those amounts continue to be located in Costa Rica, despite having been placed in international accounts. It involves a transfer of values for the purpose of placing them in an investment regime, agreed upon by the parties, in order to obtain a projected profit, in accordance with the risk and profitability analysis that characterize the business. Viewed thus, these are not profits generated in Costa Rica, nor can they be considered to fit within the legal concept of "Costa Rican source income," as they do not derive from capital used within national territory, but rather, on the contrary, are profits from the use of that capital in foreign securities markets.

The territoriality criterion endorsed by the First Chamber leads to the taxation of income forged with domestic capital produced in relation to an economic activity, regardless of where it is generated, an application that this Chamber deems broadens the chargeable event established by law, without having a normative basis that so enables it. Ergo, the income from investments made abroad with domestic capital cannot be considered Costa Rican source; therefore, under that concept, its taxation is not covered by the provisions of articles 1, 2, and 6 subsection ch) of Law No. 7092.

Thus, it is the view of the undersigned that the challenged jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is contrary to the principle of legal reserve in tax matters, developed in Article 121 subsection 13) of the Constitution, by establishing the possibility that the Tax Administration may tax income generated abroad through the profits tax. The foregoing, because the jurisprudential norm under analysis has broadened the chargeable event of the law, by including the figure of "belonging" or "link to the economic structure," which are neither defined nor established in the Income Tax Law (LISR) No. 7092. Thereby, it can be evidenced that, contrary to what was expressed by both the Administrative Tax Tribunal and the Attorney General's Office of the Republic, when establishing the chargeable event of the profits tax, the legislator did not contemplate the possibility of being able to tax income from abroad, much less established any taxation in relation to foreign income, based on it being produced by a company domiciled in the country or that Costa Rican source capital was used, in order to be taxed. On the contrary, in the third paragraph of Section 1 of the LISR, the legislator emphasized what should be understood as Costa Rican source income, benefits, or profits, within which, the type of income that has given rise to this action is not inferred.

Hence, contrary to what was argued by the Attorney General's Office of the Republic and the Administrative Tax Tribunal, we the undersigned magistrates consider that the interpretation contained in the challenged jurisprudential norm, according to which, by a criterion of economic link, income obtained from investments abroad made by companies domiciled in Costa Rica is included within the tax base for the calculation of the profits tax, on the grounds that the income-producing source is Costa Rican and the capital invested abroad is Costa Rican, and that therefore the returns obtained form part of the taxable income of the company in Costa Rica, has no basis in the legal provisions analyzed.

This constitutes an extensive legal interpretation of articles 1, 5, and 6, subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto Sobre la Renta), which alters the way the taxable base of a tax is determined, and therefore, in our opinion, the challenged jurisprudence is contrary to the Law of the Constitution.

This position contradicts the nature and spirit of the legislator at the time the essential elements of the income tax were generated. It is evident that the legislator did not contemplate within the income tax the possibility of taxing income originating from abroad, nor did it establish any imposition in relation to foreign income based on it being produced by a company domiciled in the country or on the use of capital from Costa Rican sources for it to be taxed.

Based on the foregoing, we consider that the interpretation made by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is not in accordance with the provisions of the tax regulations, since what it is doing through its jurisprudence is taxing income that is not defined by law, which is contrary to Article 121, subsection 13) of the Political Constitution and generates legal uncertainty, because, as developed above, the Legislative Branch is the only body with the authority to create tax legal norms. Finally, we estimate that the interpretation of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is also incompatible with the tax regulations, as it follows the subjective criterion, under which income is taxed regardless of where it was generated, considering only who produced the income to thus determine whether it is taxed or not. In this regard, it is important to remember that the Costa Rican tax system is applied based on the objective criterion of territoriality, meaning that, for the tax obligation to arise, it is essential that the income be generated on national soil, to thus be considered a Costa Rican source based on the principle of territoriality, which takes as its subject the place where the income was generated, to determine whether it can be taxed or not, in accordance with the legal system.

For the reasons stated, we estimate that the action of unconstitutionality should be declared partially granted regarding this point, because the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice challenged herein, through an extensive interpretation, subjects extraterritorial income to the income tax, which is not set forth in the taxable event (hecho generador) of the income tax and is contrary to the objective territorial criterion followed by the Costa Rican tax system. Consequently, we order the annulment of the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice contained in rulings 617-F-S1-2010 of 09:10 hours on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 of 08:50 hours on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 hours on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 of 13:05 hours on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 of 10:55 hours on March 23, 2017, for violating the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. Furthermore, as provided in Article 89 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, this unconstitutionality extends, by connection (conexidad), to all directives or general instructions of the tax administration directed at taxpayers that are covered by the jurisprudential norm we declare unconstitutional." The aforementioned reasoning was reiterated in rulings no. 2023-000357 and 2023-000359, both at 9:20 hours on January 11, 2023. Therefore, in the sub lite, I partially grant the action and order the annulment of the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice contained in rulings no. 617-F-S1-2010 of 09:10 hours on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 of 08:50 hours on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 hours on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 of 13:05 hours on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 of 10:55 hours on March 23, 2017, for violating the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. In addition, based on Article 89 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, I declare that this unconstitutionality extends by connection (conexidad) to all directives or general instructions of the tax administration directed at taxpayers that are covered by the jurisprudential norm I deem unconstitutional.

**XI.- DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE CASE FILE (EXPEDIENTE)**. The parties are warned that if they have submitted 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 office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulation on the Electronic Judicial File before the Judiciary (Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial)", approved by the Full Court in Session No. 27-11 on August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in Judicial Bulletin number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judiciary, in Session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.

**Por tanto:** The action is rejected on the merits. Judge Rueda Leal issues a dissenting vote and partially grants the action of unconstitutionality and, consequently, orders the annulment for being unconstitutional of the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice contained in rulings 617-F-S1-2010 of 09:10 hours on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 of 08:50 hours on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 hours on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 of 13:05 hours on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 of 10:55 hours on March 23, 2017, for violating the principle of legal reserve in tax matters.

Likewise, by connection, it orders the annulment of all general directives or instructions of the tax administration, directed at taxpayers, which are covered by the rules that are now declared unconstitutional.

Considerando III.—That on October 21, 2010, through minute 309-GO-2010, SINAC approved the updating of the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) of the Reventazón Hydroelectric Project, where compliance with the General Regulation on Procedures for EIA (Decreto N° 31849-MINAE) is stated.

Por tanto: Article 1.—To modify Article 19 of the Environmental Viability granted to ICE for the Reventazón Hydroelectric Project, specifically clause c), to read as follows:

• c)Compensation Payment for Environmental Services (Pago de Servicios Ambientales, PSA). The Developer, through the Forestry Engineer specializing in the PSA, shall serve as the technical liaison with FONAFIFO in coordinating the development of the PSA contract for the lands acquired, so that the Program for Payment of Environmental Services (PSA) is effectively implemented on the protected lands identified in the acquisition map of the Reventazón Hydroelectric Project (Anexo 2) and in compliance with Anexo 1 of the Resolution that granted the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), under the activities of Forest Protection (one hundred seventy-four hectares) and Forest Management (sixty-eight hectares), in the following sub-areas of the PSA Program of the Reventazón Hydroelectric Project identified by FONAFIFO, which are part of Anexo 1 of the Resolution and whose bounds and cartographic location are contained in Anexo 2, both annexed to this resolution.

The document of *** including coordinates in Annex 2 documents the Official Survey Map No. A-1106324-2010 associated with Plan G-726067-1995, which locates the spring (naciente). However, based on a technical visit, it was determined that the D-1 project is not located within the lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad) area of the spring (naciente) (see image).

<p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub">Luis Fdo.

Salazar A.</span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore">&nbsp;</span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; 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" data-mce-src=""></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub">Jorge Araya G.</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; 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" data-mce-src=""></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub">Anamari Garro V.</span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore">&nbsp;</span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; 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" data-mce-src=""></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub">Luis Gmo. Chavarría V.</span></p></td></tr></tbody></table> Ingrid Hess H.

Digitally Signed Document -- Verification code -- FILE No. 23-030920-0007-CO **X.- DISSENTING VOTE OF MAGISTRATE RUEDA LEAL FOR VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL RESERVE.** First, I note that I partially dissented in rulings no. 2023-000355, 2023-000357, and 2023-000359, all from 09:20 hours on January 11, 2023, which the Majority cites. In particular, in ruling no. 2023-000355, jointly with Magistrate Garita Navarro, I dissented and partially granted the action for infringement of the principle of legal reserve in tax matters based on these considerations:

“**VIII.- Dissenting vote of magistrates Rueda Leal and Garita Navarro regarding the grievance related to the Principle of Legal Reserve, with drafting by the latter**. With the usual respect and consideration, we disagree with what was resolved by the majority of the Chamber regarding the alleged infringement of the principle of legal reserve in tax matters, as we consider that the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice questioned here does injure that constitutional principle, based on the considerations set forth below:

**1) On the principle of legal reserve in tax matters.** Based on the constitutional rules and principles developed in recitals VII and VIII of ruling No. 2022-023955, the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, Law 4755 of May 3, 1971 adopts the constitutional provision in its article 5, by expressly indicating that the creation, modification, and elimination of taxes is a matter reserved to the law enacted by the Legislative Branch, as follows:

“Article 5.- Matters exclusive to the law. In tax matters, only the law may: a) Create, modify, or suppress taxes; define the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax relationship; establish the tax rates and their calculation bases; and indicate the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo); b) Grant exemptions, reductions, or benefits; c) Define infractions and establish the respective sanctions; d) Establish privileges, preferences, and guarantees for tax credits; and e) Regulate the methods of extinguishing tax credits by means other than payment (...)”.

That is, it is determined that prior to demanding the tax obligation, the essential and structural elements of the tax must be established—taxable event, rate, tax base (base imponible), active subject, and taxpayer, fiscal period—which must be expressly defined in the law and must conform to the constitutional principles of legal reserve, economic capacity, equality, non-confiscation, progressivity, among others. The foregoing relates to the constitutional principle, also of constitutional rank, of legal certainty, according to which, before the tax obligation to make the respective payment arises, the taxpayers must have knowledge of it.

For its part, article 11 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures provides, in relation to the foregoing:

“Article 11.- Concept. The tax obligation arises between the State or other public entities and the taxpayers as soon as the taxable event provided for in the law occurs; and it constitutes a personal bond, even though its fulfillment is ensured by a real guarantee or with special privileges.” In this regard, this Constitutional Court in ruling 2003-06316 of 14:08 hours on July 3, 2003, cited ruling 10134-99 of 11:00 on December 23, 1999, which defined the concept of tax and its different types as follows:

“«Costa Rican legal doctrine has traditionally followed the most generalized positions regarding the definition of the concept of tax and its tripartite classification (taxes (impuestos), fees (tasas), and special contributions (contribuciones especiales)). In a generic sense, it has been considered, from the perspective of financial law doctrine, that the tax is a mandatory payment, commonly in money, demanded by the State by virtue of its power of imperium and which gives rise to legal relationships of public law. National legislation followed the Tax Code for Latin America model and in Article 4 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (Tax Code), it relied on the classic concept to state that “taxes are payments in money (taxes, fees, and special contributions), which the State, in exercise of its power of imperium, demands with the purpose of obtaining resources for the fulfillment of its purposes.” It then defined the three possible modalities of tax, as follows:

"**Tax (Impuesto)** is the tax whose obligation has as its taxable event a situation independent of any state activity related to the taxpayer.

**Fee (Tasa)** is the tax whose obligation has as its taxable event the effective or potential provision of an individualized public service to the taxpayer; and whose proceeds must not have a destination unrelated to the service that constitutes the rationale of the obligation. The consideration received from the user in payment for services not inherent to the State is not a fee.

**Special Contribution (Contribución Especial)** is the tax whose obligation has as its taxable event benefits derived from the execution of public works or state activities, exercised in a decentralized manner or not; and whose proceeds must not have a destination unrelated to the financing of the works or activities that constitute the rationale of the obligation (…)”.

From that standpoint, it follows that once the Legislative Branch creates the taxes and establishes their regulatory framework, defining their essential elements, the taxable event, the tax rate and its calculation bases, as well as the taxpayer of the tax and its fiscal period, those responsible for applying the tax regime act, being the Ministry of Finance, who through the General Directorate of Taxation, assumes the tax administration by means of auditing and verification actions, with the purpose of collecting the taxes established in the current tax regulations, and the Administrative Fiscal Court, which settles administrative tax disputes between the taxpayer and the General Directorate of Taxation, a body with full jurisdiction and independent in its organization, operation, and competence from the Executive Branch, whose rulings exhaust the administrative channel. Likewise, this power is assigned to the Decentralized Tax Administrations, by virtue of what is stipulated in article 99 of the cited Tax Code, regarding the fiscal charges over which the tax management power has been assigned to them.

In this dynamic, it is reiterated, the principle of legal reserve is a core component of the security and legal certainty of the tax system, principles that constitute guarantee schemes for the taxpayer and a parameter of validity for the various conducts of the Tax Administrations. As indicated, the tax obligation comes into legal existence when the taxable event provided for by law and that characterizes the respective tax is configured. It is from the moment the conduct that the legislator has defined as the objective element of the tax-imposable event materializes, that the Legal System imposes on the respective subject material duties (settlement and payment) and formal duties (registration, inscription, deregistration, information, declaration, etc.) and therefore, at that instant, the Administration is attributed the set of powers inherent to the aforementioned tax authority, which empowers it to demand the fulfillment of those conducts that the normative plexus imposes on the taxpayer.

More simply, the configuration of the conduct defined by law as the taxable event (hecho generador) is the point of origin of the tax obligation, and it is only from that moment that the legal tax relationship arises and the person acquires the status of taxpayer (obligado tributario), contributor (contribuyente), or taxable person (sujeto pasivo). Such synergy imposes, without a doubt, an environment of certainty and security, so that individuals have clarity regarding the implications that their economic activities entail in the tax sphere. Hence, the clear and precise definition of the core and structural components of taxes, through formal law, is a pillar of the tax system, its transparency, and the guarantee of tax justice, to the extent that it allows for objective and identifiable parameters regarding the various elements of tax categories and their components. This is decisive in a tax system that presents tax structures imposing duties of self-assessment (auto determinación), self-declaration (auto declaración), and self-liquidation (auto liquidación) on the taxpayer, which impose the burden of establishing which of their activities are subject to a specific tax, defining the taxable base in their specific case, declaring their specific situation, and subsequently paying the tax debt that, according to their analyses, has been established. Subsequently, the Tax Administration, in the exercise of its assessment and auditing powers, verifies the correct fulfillment of those obligations, requesting, if applicable, the respective adjustments, or establishing the contributory duty for those who have not considered those obligations applicable to them. The foregoing is without prejudice to tax relations satisfied through withholding at source figures, in which collection schemes such as the withholding agent (agente retenedor) or transfer agent (agente de traslación) are used. Hence, the principle of legality (reserva de ley) in the terms discussed is fundamental for an environment of security and neutrality in the handling of tax relations, preventing tax burdens from being imposed or modified based on criteria outside the law, generating risks of affecting those subject to tax power, and at the same time, it is insisted, it constitutes a parameter for controlling the validity of administrative conduct, and an undoubted reference for the legitimacy of the obligations to be imposed on administered persons. For what is relevant in this case, as will be discussed below, the legal definition of the taxable event (hecho generador) constitutes the cornerstone of said legal certainty, as it is the element from which the various legal obligations that a specific tax relationship entails become enforceable. It is not an element that can be left to the interpretive liberality or value judgment of the Administration, and must be clearly determined and established by law, as a consequence of the doctrine imposed by Article 121, paragraph 13 of the Political Constitution.

• 2)Regarding the Income Tax Law. The Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, LISR) No. 7092 of April 21, 1988, is one of the most relevant laws in the Costa Rican tax system. This tax is characterized by having a schedular structure (estructura cedular), insofar as it establishes various tax manifestations according to the nature of the income upon which the tax is levied, depending on whether it is income from profits derived from the economic activity of individuals or legal entities, and on the other hand, a withholding at source scheme. Prior to the reform made by Law No. 9635, this regulation established the following tax schedules: taxes on the profits of individuals or legal entities, and in the case of withholding at source: income from dependent personal work (salary tax), tax on disposable income, tax on securities and other financial instruments, tax on remittances abroad, tax on withdrawals from supplementary (voluntary) pension funds, and withholdings as advance payments of income tax (2% or 3%). With the reform introduced by Law No. 9635, said structural scheme is composed of the tax on the profits of individuals and legal entities, and in the case of withholding at source, the manifestations of the salary tax, income from movable capital, income from real estate capital, income from securities, and remittances abroad. Within Chapter XI on capital income, regulations are readjusted regarding the various taxable scenarios, each with its respective tax treatment.

Now, it is pertinent to analyze the tax on profits, which levies taxes on the income of individuals, legal entities, and collective entities without legal personality that develop lucrative activities in the country from a Costa Rican source, as established by Article 1 of the LISR, with the clarification that the following references are made in the context of the version of that regulation in force at the time the precedents were issued that support the jurisprudential line of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which constitutes the object of this action:

"Article 1.- Tax covered by the law, taxable event and taxable matter. A tax is established on the profits of companies and individuals who develop lucrative activities. (Thus added the previous paragraph by Article 102 of the Extraordinary Budget Law, No. 7097 of August 18, 1988) The taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax on the profits referred to in the previous paragraph is the perception of income in cash or in kind, continuous or occasional, coming from any Costa Rican source. (Thus reformed and the numbering of the previous paragraph run by Article 102 of the Extraordinary Budget Law, No. 7097 of August 18, 1988, which transferred it from the first paragraph to the second) This tax also levies continuous or eventual income from a Costa Rican source, received or accrued by individuals or legal entities domiciled in the country; as well as any other income or benefit from a Costa Rican source not exempted by law, among them the income received by beneficiaries of export contracts for tax credit certificates (certificados de abono tributario). The condition of being domiciled in the country will be determined according to the regulation. The provisions of this law shall not be applicable to the environmental promotion and compensation mechanisms established in the Forestry Law (Ley Forestal), No. 7575, of February 13, 1996. (Numbering of the previous paragraph run by Article 102 of the Extraordinary Budget Law, No. 7097 of August 18, 1988, which transferred it from the second paragraph to the third) (Thus reformed the previous third paragraph by Article 1 of Law No. 7838 of October 5, 1998) For the purposes of the provisions in the previous paragraphs, sales, income, or benefits from a Costa Rican source shall be understood as those coming from services rendered, goods located, or capital used in the national territory, which are obtained during the fiscal period in accordance with the provisions of this law." Based on the foregoing, to establish the existence and enforceability of the tax relationship between the taxpayer and the taxable event, there are criteria of subjection (criterios de sujeción), connection, or nexus, which are the determining elements for income to be affected by the Costa Rican tax system, that is, they are objective parameters for applying tax regulations. Thus, it is understood that the national tax regime, regarding income from profits, establishes the following criteria of subjection:

• a)income-product (renta producto) is understood as those income or benefits, continuous or occasional, coming from a Costa Rican source, that is, derived from goods located, services rendered, or capital used in the national territory. This concept seeks to impose the tax levy on the profit and not on the source producing the wealth, an economic component that is intended to be kept intact. In other words, the net economic benefit derived from the use of those factors of production (land, labor, and capital) is taxed, but not the value of those factors themselves. Hence, in accordance with that principle, Law No. 7092 itself establishes the concept of deductible expenses (gastos deducibles) (Articles 8 and 9), which are applied to the gross income base to generate a diminishing or reducing effect on that reference, in order to obtain the net income, a concept that in turn constitutes the taxable income (renta gravada) (see Articles 5 and 14 of the same law). The logic of this system is the tax recognition of expenses that are necessary to produce taxable income, provided they comply with the formal and substantial requirements imposed by Article 8 of the Income Tax Law. This means that the source producing the wealth is preserved and the profit is taxed, not the increase in assets itself.
• b)schedularity (cedularidad) refers to the schedular nature of the tax, which establishes different taxes, according to the types of income that will be taxed, based on the criteria chosen and established in the Law. As indicated, it implies the necessary distinction and differentiation of tax treatment according to the source of income production, which is concretized in the definition (classification) of the respective taxable event (hecho generador).
• c)territoriality (territorialidad), which only allows income generated from a Costa Rican source to be taxed. This is an objective link to the national territory, that is, income generated abroad cannot be taxed. This objective criterion is expressly found in the Income Tax Law (LISR) No. 7092, in its first article, a provision that specifies and details the objective parameters that allow establishing the relationship called "from a Costa Rican source." That precept states: "Article 1- (…) For the purposes of the provisions in the previous paragraph, income, or benefits from a Costa Rican source shall be understood as those generated in the national territory coming from services rendered, goods located, or capital used, which are obtained during the fiscal period, in accordance with the provisions of this law (…)" (The bold highlighting does not belong to the original). In this way, the principle of territoriality arises, which constitutes a limitation directed at the Tax Administration, so that it has a pre-established framework to be able to establish and demand contributions from persons or property located in its territory.

On the other hand, the tax on profits is governed by the system of self-assessment (auto determinación), self-declaration (auto declaración), and self-liquidation (auto liquidación) of the tax obligation, by virtue of which, it is the taxpayer himself who is assigned the duty of initiative regarding the definition of the aspects that are inserted in his respective declaration and that have an impact on the liquidation of the tax quota, under the requirements and on the dates established by the Tax Administration. However, this procedure, in the exercise of the Administration's sovereign powers, is subject to review to determine the correct fulfillment of the tax burden, as if a difference is found, through the various assessment mechanisms (on a certain base, presumed base, or objective base), it may impose a payment higher than that declared by the taxpayer, as well as establish any administrative sanctions that may correspond for potential infractions of tax regulations.

• 3)Regarding the violation of the principle of legality in tax matters with respect to the challenged jurisprudence. The petitioner considers that the jurisprudence adopted by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is unconstitutional, as it violates the principle of legality (reserva de ley), since, through a broad interpretation of the concept of territoriality and the inclusion of the term called "economic nexus" (vinculación económica), it accepts that income generated abroad is taxed, by considering it from a Costa Rican source because it was generated by a company located and domiciled in the country, or because Costa Rican capital was used.

Now, for the purposes of what is analyzed here, it is pertinent to cite Article 10 of the Civil Code, which provides that "Norms shall be interpreted according to the proper meaning of their words, in relation to the context, historical and legislative background, and the social reality of the time in which they are to be applied, fundamentally attending to their spirit and purpose." In a similar sense, Article 10 of the General Law of Public Administration establishes teleological interpretation as a measure of protection of the public interest in the following sense:

"1. The administrative norm must be interpreted in the way that best guarantees the realization of the public purpose to which it is directed, within due respect for the rights and interests of the individual.

2. It must be interpreted and integrated taking into account the other related norms and the nature and value of the conduct and facts to which it refers." In the sphere of tax law, Article 6 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures imposes the subjection of the interpretation of those norms to the rules and methods admitted by common law.

Thus, it regulates:

"**Article 6.- Interpretation of tax rules.** Tax rules must be interpreted in accordance with all methods admitted by Common Law.

Analogy is an admissible procedure to "fill legal gaps" but by virtue of it **taxes or exemptions cannot be created**." (highlighting not in the original).

Likewise, Article 8 of the same regulatory body establishes the following:

"**Article 8.- Interpretation of the rule that regulates the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax obligation.** When the rule related to the taxable event refers to situations defined by other legal branches, without expressly referring to or departing from them, the interpreter may assign it the meaning that best suits the reality considered by the law when creating the tax.

The legal forms adopted by the taxpayers do not bind the interpreter, who may attribute to the situations and acts that occurred a meaning consistent with the facts, when it emerges from the tax law that the taxable event of the respective obligation was defined considering reality and not the legal form.

When the legal forms are manifestly inappropriate to the reality of the taxed facts and this results in a decrease in the amount of the obligations, the tax law must be applied regardless of such forms." Based on the foregoing, it is clearly stated that the interpretation of tax regulations must be carried out respecting constitutional principles, in accordance with the purpose and spirit of the tax, that is, the interpretation must be declarative of the legislator's will at the time said tax was generated. Furthermore, the rule expressly **prohibits** analogy (a form of integration) as a means to create taxes or exemptions, as it is only permitted to fill possible legal gaps in tax rules.

Thus, the interpretation of the rules that regulate and govern fiscal activity must be subject to the logical procedure that corresponds to each normative case. Moreover, in this exercise, it is necessary to consider that through interpretation it is not feasible to substitute the legislator's will regarding the configuration and precision of the fundamental elements of the tax, given that, it is reiterated, such basic structural components are a matter reserved for formal law. Otherwise, legitimizing through interpretation the creation, modification, or suppression of the tax elements that must be defined by law injures the very basis of the democratic system and allows the Executive Branch to substitute the legislator, breaching the very logic of the principle of distribution of functions established by precept 9 of the Fundamental Charter. Interpretation is a mechanism aimed at ensuring the correct and proper application of the law, but by virtue of it, the law cannot be overcome, disregarded, or reformed.

Thus, the core point in this action revolves around defining whether the questioned jurisprudential guideline constitutes an excess in the definition of the elements of the income tax on profits (tributo de renta a las utilidades), by extending the scope of the material element of the taxable event (hecho imponible) to activities and income that, according to the plaintiff's claim, do not form part of the taxable event (hecho generador). As indicated, this element must come expressly regulated by law, it being unfeasible that through interpretation this objective parameter can be broadened, which is core for a tax system that must guarantee legal certainty, legitimate expectations, and transparency as supporting rules for the rights and guarantees of the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo). Thus, it is necessary to examine whether the activity of investing funds abroad, carried out with capital generated in Costa Rican tax territory, forms part of the taxable event of the income tax category (cédula de renta), given the application of the economic connection criterion with the source, or if, on the contrary, that application transcends the territorial income scheme, as alleged by the promoters.

On this particular point, it is worth emphasizing the taxable event of the tax on profits. Numerals 1 and 2 of Law No. 7092, with the wording in force at the time of the determinative procedures by virtue of which the challenged jurisprudence was issued, define that element, pointing out that said tax falls on the profits of individuals, legal entities, and collective entities without legal personality, domiciled in the country, that develop lucrative activities of Costa Rican source. Although the tax is defined on profits, it is conditioned on that economic product deriving from activities in which the factors of production (land, labor, and capital) that are of Costa Rican source are used. The imposition is established on all income received or accrued within the fiscal period, regardless of whether it is continuous or occasional, but, in addition, it falls on any patrimonial benefit that is not duly justified or supported. It should be noted that the aforementioned tax regime likewise falls on any patrimonial benefit that has not been expressly excluded from the tax, provided that said income or benefit derives from a Costa Rican source. Up to this point in the regulatory scheme, the relevance of the definition of the concept "of Costa Rican source" is observed, because it is this referent that allows the linking of income to its respective tax imposition. Hence, the rule subsequently clarifies what must be understood as income of Costa Rican source, specifying:

"For the purposes of the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, sales, income, or benefits of Costa Rican source shall be understood as those coming from services rendered, goods located, or capital used in the national territory, which are obtained during the fiscal period in accordance with the provisions of this law." The rule in question allows establishing that, by express legal mandate, the concept of Costa Rican source alludes to income or patrimonial benefits that have been accrued or received IN THE NATIONAL TERRITORY, from the rendering of services, leasing of goods, or use of capital. Of course, in the context of the territorial element imposed by said regulatory scheme, the taxed income must be a derivation of the use of land or capital, as well as the rendering of services in the Costa Rican tax territory. By logical derivation, obtaining income from the mere use of goods located in national territory imposes the duty to contribute, even for a party not domiciled in the country, insofar as the material criterion allows considering that income as of Costa Rican source. The same happens with income associated with services rendered in Costa Rica, because, if the wealth is produced from that offer of services in national territory, the territorial criterion is imposed and whoever has rendered the activity constitutes a obligated subject, even if they are not a national tax resident. Of course, if the recipient subject of the income does not reside in the country, the remittance of the profits imposes on the remitter the duty of withholding, under penalty of joint and several liability regarding that particular. Likewise, the use of capital in the country imposes a similar tax treatment, regardless of the origin of the funds or the capital used. What is relevant is that the material activity of using capital from which income, economic benefit, or credit right is obtained or produced, is carried out within the Costa Rican territorial jurisdiction, and to that extent, said income will be subject to the tax in question.

By contrast, when a Costa Rican tax resident obtains income derived from services rendered abroad, goods located abroad, or capital used outside Costa Rican geographical limits, they cannot be considered as of Costa Rican source and to that extent, they are income that is excluded from national fiscal power. Note that this is not a tax exemption, since, as clearly established by numeral 61 in relation to 62 of the Tax Code of Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), the exoneration supposes a legal dispensation from the material duty to contribute. That is, in exemptions, the taxable event is configured and therefore, a tax obligation exists, however, the legislator, expressly, imposes a release from the duty of payment (total or partial), either objectively or through the insertion of subjective conditions verifiable before the Tax Authority (Fisco), as a requirement to enjoy the fiscal benefit. Precisely because of the existence of a tax obligation, non-exonerated duties survive, as is the case of formal obligations. The aforementioned case configures, on the contrary, a non-subjection (no sujeción), a situation in which no fiscal duty exists, since the activity is not included within the scope of the taxable event (which must be established by law). Thus, in non-subjections, it is not necessary for the law to define which income is excluded from the coverage parameter of the tax. Hence, non-subjections are defined through a negative application or by discarding the analysis of the taxable event; more simply, if the act or conduct of the subject is not included within those that have been typified as a taxable event, it is not taxed, without the need for an express rule indicating so. Although Law No. 7092 itself establishes in its numeral 6 cases of exclusion from gross income, this does not mean that any income not on that list is subject to the tax. In essence, the subjection of wealth to the tax on profits is conditioned on it deriving from a Costa Rican source, with the exceptions of unsupported income already alluded to, such that patrimonial benefits that the Costa Rican tax resident did not obtain from the use of the factors of production and cases that define income of Costa Rican sources could not be considered as subject income. Otherwise, extending the taxing power to that income not related to Costa Rican source income would imply moving towards a worldwide income system (and not a territorial one), which imposes the duty of declaration and material contribution on the basis of the total income generated by the taxpayer, regardless of the place where they accrued or received it. It would be a subjective subjection criterion, and not an objective territorial one, as operates in the income scheme defined by Law No. 7092. This is a fiscal vision that must be embodied in formal law, however, it is insisted, this worldwide income system is not what defines the national tax system of income on profits, which subjects, it is reiterated, to the concept of Costa Rican source.

Thus, the tax treatment of that income that is not of Costa Rican source, in the case of territorial income tax systems, is subject to the tax regime of the country in which the income was produced. Once said income is repatriated, and the capital it represents is used in the country, the profits that such use may generate in Costa Rican territory are considered as of national source and to that extent, the profits would be taxed, not the primary capital that was produced extra-territorially, from the fiscal standpoint.

In that sense, it is the undersigned's criterion that the position established in the jurisprudence that is the subject of debate considers that income generated by the use of national capital in foreign markets of placement or temporary investment of monetary values, that is, that are placed in financial investment activities, is taxed in Costa Rica. This is based on estimating that the figure of "belonging" or "linkage to the economic structure" applies to these stock market transactions. At its core, the logic of this position rests on the fact or circumstance that the primary capital used in the transaction with a foreign entity is of Costa Rican source, since that investment wealth was generated in the country and is found in Costa Rican accounts. Therefore, the mere placement in international securities does not imply a disconnection from the exercise of activities taxed by the income tax category.

As has been indicated, the use of capital that is taxed in these cases is that which has been used in Costa Rican territory. For this, the analysis does not fall on the origin of the capital, but on the place where that capital is used and the benefit is produced. From this examination perspective, although the base capital could have been generated in Costa Rica, the truth of the matter is that these items are placed in transitory investments of financial entities that are domiciled in other countries, and it is at the location of those entities that the legal transaction by virtue of which the financial return is produced is concluded. It is clear that, given the investment model, these resources are later repatriated to the original bank accounts, from which the investments were made, however, this does not mean that those profits obtained from the use of national capital in foreign territory can be considered as Costa Rican source income. The mere circumstance that investment entities use this business scheme as a means of boosting profits through the use of available capital in order to maximize liquidity or obtain better returns, or that the alluded investments are transitory and short-term, as is the case of so-called "overnight" investments, does not introduce a concrete element into the proceedings from which it can be affirmed that those incomes in question are of Costa Rican source and that, therefore, they are subject to the profits tax. On the other hand, the regularity or not of the use of that economic option also does not introduce a subjection element, since within the taxable event defined by the legislator, a tax for the habitual nature of that income model is not provided for. A different matter is the economic benefit that, for investment placement commission fees charged to clients, these financial entities may have, since that activity derives from services rendered in national territory, but a different matter is the profit itself, which is obtained, it is insisted, from the use of capital abroad.

At this point, it is pertinent to cite the provision of Article 6, subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law (Ley de Renta), which states:

“ch) Income generated by virtue of contracts, agreements, or negotiations concerning assets or capital located abroad, even if they were entered into and executed wholly or partially in the country.” Note that this mandate excludes from income taxation those earnings generated from assets or capital located abroad, or services rendered abroad, even if the contracts were entered into in the country. This regulation is entirely consistent with the principle of Costa Rican-source income (renta de fuente costarricense) to which reference has been made, inasmuch as it does not consider as subject to the tax, profits derived from services rendered, capital located, or assets situated abroad, because those factors of production have not been used within the national territory. Unlike the position held by the public bodies that have participated in this process and what has been expressed in the jurisprudential line of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia), it is our criterion that said norm does not constitute the legal basis for the imposition that has been established regarding the aforementioned income obtained from the temporary placement of Costa Rican capital in foreign investments. On the one hand, regardless of the place where the legal transaction is considered perfected, the fact of the matter is that it involves capital that is, ultimately, used abroad, and from that placement of securities, a profit is obtained. But that profit is based on the use of that capital in the investment accounts of entities domiciled abroad, not on the use of the capital in Costa Rica. Otherwise, the reproached thesis would imply that any use of nationally-sourced capital to obtain profits in other fiscal jurisdictions would be subject to the national tax, under the consideration of a supposed economic link, leading to a presumed worldwide income scenario that finds no provision or support in the literal text of the norms regulating this fiscal relationship.

Similarly, we consider it necessary to clarify that the origin of the accounts from which funds are taken to place in temporary investments in foreign countries does not constitute an element upon which the reproached imposition can be sustained. Indeed, the concepts of localization and placement referred to by the tax authorities essentially seek to justify the thesis they have applied at the administrative level and which was endorsed by the precedents of the high instance of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia). However, it is evident that the investment business involves the transfer of book-entry securities and implies that those funds are unavailable for the term or period during which the investment lasts. The investor cannot dispose of those funds until they are released and made available by the international financial entity. Therefore, it cannot be said that those amounts remain located in Costa Rica, despite having been placed in international accounts. It is a transfer of securities for the purpose of placing them in an investment regime, agreed upon by the parties, in order to obtain a projected profit, according to the risk and profitability analysis that characterize the transaction. Seen this way, they are not profits generated in Costa Rica, nor can they be considered to fall within the legal concept of “Costa Rican-source income” (rentas de fuente costarricense), as they do not derive from capital used within national territory, but rather, are profits from the use of that capital in foreign securities markets.

The territoriality criterion endorsed by the First Chamber (Sala Primera) leads to the subjection of those earnings generated with national capital produced as a result of an economic activity, regardless of where they are generated, an application that this Chamber believes broadens the taxable event (hecho generador) provided by law, without having a normative basis that enables it to do so. Ergo, the income from investments made abroad with national capital cannot be considered Costa Rican-source. Therefore, under that concept, its taxation is not covered by what is established in Articles 1, 2, and 6, subsection ch) of Law No. 7092.

Thus, it is the criterion of the undersigned that the challenged jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) is contrary to the principle of legal reservation in tax matters (principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria), developed in Article 121, subsection 13) of the Constitution, by establishing the possibility that the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) may tax income generated abroad through the income tax (impuesto a las utilidades). The foregoing, because the jurisprudential norm under analysis has broadened the taxable event (hecho generador) of the law, by including the concept of “belonging” or “link to the economic structure,” which are neither defined nor established in the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, LISR) No. 7092. In this way, it can be shown that, contrary to what has been expressed by both the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal (Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo) and the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República), when establishing the taxable event (hecho generador) for the income tax, the legislator did not contemplate the possibility of being able to tax income from abroad, nor did it establish any imposition in relation to foreign income, based on it being produced by a company domiciled in the country or that Costa Rican-sourced capital was used, in order for it to be taxed. On the contrary, in the third paragraph of Article 1 of the LISR, the legislator emphasized what must be understood as Costa Rican-source income, revenues, or benefits, among which the type of income that has given rise to this action is not included.

Consequently, contrary to what was argued by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic (Procuraduría General de la República) and the Administrative Fiscal Tribunal (Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo), we the undersigned judges consider that the interpretation contained in the challenged jurisprudential norm, according to which, by a criterion of economic linkage, income obtained from investments abroad made by companies domiciled in Costa Rica is included in the taxable base for calculating the income tax, because the producing source of the income is Costa Rican and the capital invested abroad is Costa Rican, hence the returns obtained form part of the taxable income of the company in Costa Rica, **has no basis in the legal provisions analyzed**. It is a broad legal interpretation of Articles 1, 5, and 6, subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto Sobre la Renta), which varies the way the taxable base of a tax is determined. Therefore, in our view, the challenged jurisprudence is contrary to the Law of the Constitution.

This position contradicts the nature and spirit of the legislator at the time it created the essential elements of the income tax. It can be shown that the legislator did not contemplate within the income tax the possibility of being able to tax income from abroad, nor did it establish any imposition in relation to foreign income, based on it being produced by a company domiciled in the country or that Costa Rican-sourced capital was used for it to be taxed.

For the above reasons, we consider that the interpretation made by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) is not in accordance with what is established in tax legislation, since what it is doing, through its jurisprudence, is taxing income that is not defined by law, which is contrary to Article 121, subsection 13) of the Political Constitution and creates legal uncertainty, given that, as developed previously, the Legislative Branch is the sole body with the competence to create binding tax legal norms. Finally, we consider the interpretation of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) is also incompatible with tax legislation, as it follows the subjective criterion, according to which income is taxed regardless of where it was generated, considering only who produced the income to determine whether it is taxed or not. In this regard, it is important to recall that the Costa Rican tax system is applied based on the objective criterion of territoriality, which means that for the tax obligation to arise, **it is essential** that the income be generated on national soil, in order to be considered Costa Rican-source under the principle of territoriality, which takes as its basis the place where the income was generated, to determine whether it can be taxed or not, in accordance with the legal system.

For the reasons set forth, we consider that the action of unconstitutionality must be declared with merit on this point, because the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) challenged here, through a broad interpretation, subjects extraterritorial income to the income tax (impuesto sobre las utilidades), which is not set forth in the taxable event (hecho generador) of the income tax and is contrary to the objective territorial criterion followed by the Costa Rican tax system. Consequently, we order the annulment of the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) contained in rulings 617-F-S1-2010 of 09:10 hours on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 of 08:50 hours on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 hours on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 of 13:05 hours on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 of 10:55 hours on March 23, 2017, for violating the principle of legal reservation in tax matters (principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria). Furthermore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 89 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), the unconstitutionality extends, by connection, to all general directives or instructions of the tax administration, directed at taxpayers, that have coverage under the jurisprudential norm that we declare unconstitutional.” The foregoing reasoning was reiterated in rulings No. 2023-000357 and 2023-000359, both at 9:20 hours on January 11, 2023. Therefore, in the case at bar (sub lite), I partially grant the action and order the annulment of the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice (Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia) contained in rulings No. 617-F-S1-2010 of 09:10 hours on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 of 08:50 hours on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 hours on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 of 13:05 hours on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 of 10:55 hours on March 23, 2017, for transgressing the principle of legal reservation in tax matters (principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria). Additionally, based on Article 89 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), I declare that this unconstitutionality extends by connection to all general directives or instructions of the tax administration directed at taxpayers, which have coverage under the jurisprudential norm I consider unconstitutional.

**CO04/24** no. 617-F-S1-2010 of 9:10 a.m. on May 20, 2010, no. 55-F-S1-2011 of 8:50 a.m. on January 27, 2011, no. 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 a.m. on April 7, 2011, no. 976-F-S1-2016 of 1:05 p.m. on September 22, 2016 and no. 326-A-S1-2017 of 10:45 a.m. on March 23, 2017, deeming that it infringes the constitutional principles of legal reserve, legal certainty and equality, as well as articles 6 and 7 of the Political Constitution. The plaintiff indicates that, in each one of those judgments, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice analyzed article 1 of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, LISR), from which it concluded that income generated or obtained outside Costa Rican territory is taxed with the income tax in Costa Rica because it maintains a close connection or relationship with the Costa Rican economic structure. She also notes that she has full knowledge of judgments no. 23955-2022, no. 355-2023 and no. 359-2023, all issued by this Constitutional Court, by which a series of unconstitutionality actions filed precisely against the same jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice were declared without merit —by majority—. However, she believes that there has been a supervening change in circumstances that should motivate the Constitutional Chamber to change its criterion. She affirms that this supervening change in circumstances is the recent discussion and approval by the Legislative Power of Law no. 10.381 of September 14, 2023, called "Amendment to Law No. 7092, Income Tax Law, to achieve the exclusion of Costa Rica from the list of non-cooperative jurisdictions in tax matters of the European Union", which partially modified the text of article 1 of the LISR and confirmed the territorial taxation system that has governed in Costa Rica. She maintains that on February 13, 2023, the Government of the Republic reported that the country had entered the list of non-cooperative jurisdictions in tax matters of the European Union, due to the breach of a commitment acquired the previous year to reform the taxation system to tax extraterritorial passive income before December 31, 2022. By virtue of the foregoing, on February 21, 2023, a bill aimed at excluding the country from said list was presented in the Legislative Assembly. The bill also proposed a modification to article 1 of the LISR, with the objective of specifying the criterion of territorial taxation that governs in our country. She asserts that although, since the original version of the LISR, the country has been characterized by having a territorial income system, for years the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice extended said criterion of subjection to a connection with the economic structure of taxpayers to allow the taxation on extraterritorial income. A criterion that the Constitutional Chamber subsequently validated with the three aforementioned precedents. However, with the approval of the reform to article 1 of the LISR, through Law no. 10.381, the Legislative Assembly took it upon itself to clarify and harmonize once and for all the criterion of subjection in force in Costa Rica. The amended version of said article 1 expressly says that income, revenues, or profits of Costa Rican source shall be understood as those obtained within the national territory according to the geographic limits established in articles 5 and 6 of the Political Constitution, regardless of the origin of the goods or capital, the place of negotiation over them or their connection to the economic structure in the national territory. Said reform not only reaffirms the territorial taxation system that has always governed in our country, but also that income generated from capital located abroad, even if they have been agreed upon and executed totally or partially in Costa Rica, are not subject to the income tax. This situation leaves aside any link that is intended to be connected with the economic structure. She points out that the study of legislative file no. 23.581, which later became Law no. 10.381, makes it clear that the creation, modification and abolition of taxes is the exclusive power of the Legislative Assembly, as well as defining the taxable event of the tax relationship. Furthermore, as it is a law subsequent to judgments no. 23955-2022, no. 355-2023 and no.

359-2023 of this Court, which in its text and legislative discussion came to clarify the scope of the original article 1 of the LISR, it is plausible to assert that we are facing a supervening change in the circumstances of the legal system. It states that this Constitutional Court had indicated that "if the plaintiff company is a company domiciled in Costa Rica, its income-producing source is Costa Rican and the capital invested abroad is Costa Rican, the returns obtained form part of the company's taxable income in Costa Rica, because there is an economic link (vinculación económica) between the income produced abroad and the producing source of the company domiciled in Costa Rica (...) Therefore, without a doubt, the criterion of economic link (vinculación económica) derives from the law itself by considering as taxable the income linked to the income-producing source" (The highlighting does not belong to the original). It asserts that this criterion of economic link (vinculación económica) has been superseded, the current and original scope of the principle of territoriality having been clarified after the approval and entry into force of Law No. 10.381; therefore, there is evidently a change of circumstances that may motivate this Court to change its criterion and thereby declare the unconstitutionality of the challenged judgments of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in order to safeguard the fundamental rights of taxpayers. It maintains that this fundamental change in the life relationships of the administered parties is manifested not only after the approval of Law No. 10.381, but also through the statements made by the Executive Branch itself in its partial veto request, by which it acknowledges that, with the approval of the bill, it would be clear that the principle of territoriality of article 1 of the LISR has been limited exclusively to income obtained within Costa Rican territory under the geographical scope. It adds that in official communication PR-P-071-2023 of September 14, 2023, signed by the Minister of Finance and the President of the Republic, regarding the partial veto of the bill approved in the second debate and which is incorporated in the legislative file from folio 1674 to 1685, it is indicated: "Regarding the implications of the reform of the third paragraph of article 1. This modification completely eliminates the application of the principle of territoriality based on economic belonging (pertenencia económica) and limits it exclusively to income obtained within the national territory under the geographical scope, an aspect that would prevent taxing with the income tax those profits that had a direct origin in the country and were located abroad to continue increasing the capital of persons, whether individuals or legal entities (...) The application of a principle of territoriality based exclusively on the geographical scope of a country, as established by the referenced Legislative Decree, implies a weakening of the Costa Rican tax system (...) One of the main aspects for the presentation of this partial veto is the possible economic impact that this could mean (...) From the information indicated, the Administration would be losing income of more than thirty-six billion colones, considering the cases in process in administrative and judicial venues. In this regard, it is important to clarify that these revenues would be lost because, with the cases being in process and Legislative Decree No. 10.381 entering into force, the determinations made by the Administration could be rendered void." The bill was finally re-approved by the Legislative Assembly and became a Law of the Republic. The plaintiff considers that, based on articles 9 and 13 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), this regulatory change must motivate this Constitutional Court to change its criterion regarding the initial factual situation in order to safeguard legal security (seguridad jurídica) and the public interest. Otherwise, the violation of constitutional principles and norms may be maintained over time and thereby cause a dislocation in the legal system between what was previously resolved by this Constitutional Chamber and what was expressed by the legislator itself and the Executive Branch, even generating inequality among administered parties in identical circumstances. As for the merits, it accuses an infringement of the principle of legal reserve in tax matters protected in subsection 13 of article 121 of the Political Constitution, due to an extensive interpretation of the principle of territoriality and, consequently, of article 6 of the Political Constitution and the principle of legal security (seguridad jurídica). It indicates that article 35 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (CNPT) defines the taxable event or tax-triggering event (hecho generador or hecho imponible) as the "prerequisite established by law to typify the tax and whose realization originates the birth of the obligation".

It adds that said taxable event (hecho generador) must be analyzed from a subjective and objective plane, and the latter from a temporal, quantitative, and spatial aspect. With specific reference to the spatial dimension of the taxable event, this is a connecting factor (criterio de sujeción) that refers to the geographical scope of validity of the norm in which the taxable event produces its effect or, in other words, the spatial aspect specifies the place where the taxable event materializes. It asserts that, in our legal system, that spatial aspect is located in article 1 of the LISR, from which it follows that Costa Rica pursues a territorial income system, meaning only income obtained within Costa Rican jurisdiction will be taxed. It alleges that although this connecting factor was normatively enshrined in the original version of the LISR since 1999, for years the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice extended it to one related to the connection to the taxpayer's economic structure. It indicates that one must refer to the connecting factors that design fiscal policy, that is, the elements that determine whether an income or a subject is subject or not to a particular tax. Connecting factors can be personal or subjective (referring to situations in which there is a link related to the very nature of the individual or taxpayer, defined for example by virtue of nationality or tax resident status) and real or objective (one that does not take the individual into consideration, but rather the source (origen) of the income in a given territory). The application of a personal connecting factor gives rise to the worldwide income (renta mundial) principle, while the application of a real or objective factor leads to the territoriality (territorialidad) principle. The worldwide income system seeks to tax the income or profits of residents and/or nationals of a given jurisdiction, regardless of the place where they are located or have obtained the income, which is the case of capital-exporting countries. This model is mainly used in developed jurisdictions and is based on the principle that whoever holds the status of resident must pay taxes in their country of residence on the total income obtained in the course of their activity, regardless of the place where it was obtained. Said system would allow taxing income obtained abroad, since the model itself seeks precisely to grant the State in which the taxpayer is a resident the sovereign power to collect taxes independently of the place of receipt. Logically, those who choose to implement this taxation model must guarantee their residents that the tax system has internal tax relief measures to prevent the same income from being subjected to double taxation. This is achieved by establishing within the tax rules the possibility for the tax resident to deduct the tax applied in the source country or to allow a tax credit (crédito fiscal) for the tax that was withheld abroad. Thus, to maintain what in commerce is called neutrality in exports and imports and to prevent asymmetries in tax treatment from generating competitiveness problems for the country, it is logical that the taxpayer's country of residence taxes worldwide income but recognizes the tax the taxpayer paid in the source country. It maintains that, based on this explanation, it is viable to arrive at the first conclusion: Costa Rica does not have a worldwide income system and, therefore, also does not have internal rules that allow crediting the tax paid in the source country. Our country does not follow the personalist connecting factor and its legal system also does not contemplate internal measures -typical in this type of jurisdiction- to alleviate double taxation. On the other hand, the territoriality principle, of majority application in capital-receiving countries such as Costa Rica, seeks to tax the income generated by taxpayers in a given territory. In this way, it corresponds to a connecting factor by which the link to a tax system is determined by the source of the income, that is, income will be taxed in the place of its generation. Unlike what happens with the worldwide income criterion, this other one addresses a relationship between the objective element of the taxable event (hecho imponible) and the active subject of the taxation (objective connecting factor); a system that does not govern in Costa Rica. Thus, it is necessary to specify that territoriality in our country responds to the fact that the spatial objective element of the taxable event is limited to "coming from any Costa Rican source" ("provenientes de cualquier fuente costarricense"), "in national territory" ("en territorio nacional"), or "lucrative activities or businesses in the country" ("actividades o negocios de carácter lucrativo en el país"), with subsection ch) of Article 6 expressly excluding income generated outside Costa Rican territory, even incorporating the phrase "even if they had been agreed upon and executed totally or partially in the country" ("aunque se hubieren celebrado y ejecutado total o parcialmente en el país"). That is, even when the latter occurs, such income must be considered extraterritorial as it escapes the spatial element of the tax. The foregoing is further reinforced by the reform that Article 1 of the LISR underwent, through Law No. 10,381, in which the territorial system governing Costa Rica was clarified, strengthened, and consolidated with the purpose of providing legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) to taxpayers. With this, the interpretation put forth by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and that was endorsed by this Constitutional Court, becomes absolutely outdated and its existence implies a violation of the principle of legal reserve (principio de reserva legal) in tax matters and the principle of legal certainty. It points out that the principle of legal reserve implies that the regulation of certain matters is expressly subject to the existence of a formal law.

In tax matters, it finds its constitutional basis in subsection 13) of Article 121 of the Political Constitution, which recognizes that it shall be the Legislative Assembly, through the procedure provided by law, that is responsible for "establishing national taxes and contributions, and authorizing municipal ones." This constitutional provision must be read concomitantly with numeral 5 of the CNPT. For this reason, when speaking of the creation of taxes, it must be understood as that taxing power that the State holds to establish them. This Constitutional Court has defined the cited principle as one that guarantees that the creation, modification, or suppression of taxes, the definition of the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax relationship, as well as the granting of exemptions or benefits, can only be provided for by formal law. The requirement of formal law intervention for the creation of the tax and the regulation of its essential elements can and must be explained from the perspective of the taxpayer's right to certainty and legal certainty. It is plausible to assert that the constitutional principle of legality (principio constitucional de reserva de ley) in tax matters establishes that the taxable event of the tax must be determined by the Legislator, and it is improper for another branch of the State, such as the Executive or the Judicial (in the present matter), to modify any of its elements through interpretation (as happens with the spatial objective element). However, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in the jurisprudence that is the subject of this action, broadened said taxable event to tax income generated abroad or capital located outside our jurisdiction in clear contravention of the cited principle of legality (principio de reserva de ley). The criterion of "linkage to the Costa Rican economic structure (vinculación con la estructura económica costarricense)" followed by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice unconstitutionally broadened the spatial element of the taxable event so that income obtained outside the national territory could be taxed as "Costa Rican source (fuente costarricense)," even when expressly prohibited by mandate of the Legislator. It is before that interpretation that the constitutional principle of legality (principio constitucional de reserva de ley) protected by subsection 13) of Article 121 of the Constitution is violated, because with it the First Chamber assumes a competence that is exclusive to the Legislative Branch. The interpretation of the First Chamber introduces a subjective criterion of taxation, since based on this, taxpayers would be taxed for the mere fact of being domiciled in Costa Rica, even if their income is obtained abroad. The foregoing is characteristic of a worldwide income system, as previously stated, not a territorial one like the one prevailing in Costa Rica. However, the constitutional violation does not stop solely there, but its reiterated reasoning has also been responsible for violating Article 6 of the Political Constitution, which provides: "The State exercises complete and exclusive sovereignty in the air space over its territory, in its territorial waters within a distance of twelve miles from the low-water mark along its coasts, on its continental shelf, and on its insular shelf in accordance with the principles of International Law. It also exercises special jurisdiction over the seas adjacent to its territory within an extension of two hundred miles from the same mark, in order to protect, conserve, and exploit exclusively all the natural resources and riches existing in the waters, soil, and subsoil of those zones, in accordance with those principles." Note that the norm is clear: the State shall exercise its sovereignty over the country's air, land, and maritime space, limits clearly restricted to geographic aspects. Hence, attempting to tax income obtained outside our jurisdiction due to an apparent "economic linkage (vinculación económica)" undoubtedly disrespects Article 6 brought up, because the Costa Rican State (specifically the Tax Administration) would be exercising its sovereignty over spaces outside of Costa Rica. In fact, note that the reform effected to Article 1 of the LISR, by means of Law No. 10.381, is unequivocal in indicating that income, receipts, or profits from a Costa Rican source shall be understood as those obtained in national territory according to the geographic limits of Articles 5 and 6 of the Magna Carta, regardless of the origin of their goods or capital, the place of negotiation over these, or their linkage to the economic structure in the national territory. He insists that by reforming Article 1 of the LISR, the Legislative Branch reaffirmed the territorial taxation system that has always governed in Costa Rica. It suffices to review the minutes of legislative file No. 23.581 to corroborate that the members of Congress, at the time of discussing the commented reform in the Plenary, made it clear that the territorial system is what has always prevailed in our country and the need to clarify it at the regulatory level is plainly to put an end to the irregularities that the Tax Administration has committed for years, protected by the precedents of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. After the approval and subsequent publication of Law No. 10.381 in the Official Gazette La Gaceta No. 180 of October 2, 2023, it is more than clear that it is the exclusive power of the Legislative Assembly to create, modify, and suppress taxes, as well as to define the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax relationship.

It indicates, again, that the approval of the law in question is the basis upon which this Court may modify the criterion expressed in judgments no. 23955-2022, no. 355-2023, and no. 359-2023, since, based on the foregoing, it is demonstrated that the jurisprudence of the First Chamber undoubtedly violates the principle of legality (principio de reserva de ley). It affirms that if the reasoning of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice were to remain in force, there would be a manifest infringement of the principle of legal certainty (principio de seguridad jurídica). It points out that the principle of legal certainty (principio de seguridad jurídica) must be understood as the trust that citizens place in the legal system with the purpose of observing and respecting valid and current norms for various situations. Although in Costa Rica legal certainty as a constitutional principle does not find exclusive support in any specific norm of the Fundamental Charter, it is inferred from a reading of a set of constitutional norms and from the pronouncements issued by this Court. The jurisprudence of this Constitutional Chamber has indicated that legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) is the guarantee that the legal system provides to individuals so that they know what to expect. This Court has also mentioned that the principle of legal certainty (principio de seguridad jurídica) is linked to the principle of legality (principio de reserva de ley). For this reason, by infringing upon the principle of legality (principio de reserva de ley), the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice consequently also violates the principle of legal certainty (principio de seguridad jurídica). This is reinforced even more by the simple fact that maintaining the erroneous interpretation of the Cassation Chamber, after the entry into force of Law no. 10.381, would create an environment of legal insecurity and uncertainty for thousands of taxpayers. It also claims an infringement of Article 7 of the Political Constitution, because the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice opposes international conventions, in particular, the conventions for the avoidance of double taxation on income and on capital entered into by Costa Rica with the States of Germany, Spain, Mexico, and the United Arab Emirates. As has been indicated, there are two distinct criteria of tax jurisdiction, one of worldwide income and another of territorial income, the latter being the one followed by our country based on what is expressly provided by the legislator. In the same vein, it was mentioned earlier that the worldwide income system seeks to tax the income or profits of residents and/or nationals of a given jurisdiction regardless of the place where they are located or have obtained the income, which is the case of capital-exporting countries. For this reason, those who opt to implement a criterion of worldwide income tax jurisdiction must guarantee their residents domestic tax relief measures to prevent the same income from being subject to double payment of taxes. One tool to achieve this is the international conventions for the avoidance of double taxation that are entered into between States and that contain a series of normative provisions to avoid international juridical double taxation that may arise as a result of cross-border operations. Costa Rica has entered into conventions for the avoidance of double taxation with Germany, Spain, Mexico, and the United Arab Emirates, each of them containing, as well as the respective protocols (applicable only in the case of Germany and Spain), provisions that refer to the aforementioned principle of territoriality (principio de territorialidad) applicable to the case of Costa Rica. From what is provided in such instruments, it follows that Costa Rica pursues a criterion of territorial income tax jurisdiction that, contrary to the thesis held by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, is strictly limited to the geographical space and has no relation whatsoever with the supposed "economic link (vinculación económica)". In accordance with Articles 1, 2, 5, and ch) 6 of the LISR, the cited conventions are clear in indicating that income shall be of Costa Rican source when obtained within our geographical limits, which, in consideration of Article 6 of the Political Constitution, comprise the territory, the airspace, and the maritime areas (including the subsoil and seabed adjacent to the outer limit of the territorial sea). Therefore, it is insisted that any income, revenue, or profit obtained outside such limits shall be income of an extraterritorial nature and therefore shall not be subject to the income tax in Costa Rica. Hence, the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is contrary to the normative provisions contained in the conventions for the avoidance of double taxation entered into with Germany, Spain, Mexico, and the United Arab Emirates. It alleges, additionally, that the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice would also currently be violating the principle of tax equality (principio de igualdad tributaria). Although in the Costa Rican legal system there is no constitutional norm that expressly specifies or establishes a principle of tax equality (principio de igualdad tributaria), as indeed occurs, for example, in Spain, this is derived from the joint reading of Articles 18 and 33 of the Magna Carta. Based on such constitutional provisions, it is plausible to assert that all citizens must be subject to the same public burdens without creating any discrimination. However, it is this Constitutional Court that has really been responsible for broadly developing the principle of tax equality (principio de igualdad tributaria). It cites judgments no.

5749-93 and no. 8196-1999. It asserts that under this context, currently, after the approval of Law no. 10,381, which amended article 1 of the LISR, it became evident that the reasoning employed by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in rulings no. 617-F-S1-2010, no. 55-F-S1-2011, no. 475-F-S1-2011, no. 976-F-Sl-2016, and no. 326-A-S1-2017 is unconstitutional and, if kept in force, would result in the unequal treatment of taxpayers in the same situation. For example, in the case of its client, the Tax Administration pursued an audit process for income tax (profits) for the 2017 fiscal period in which it reclassified income obtained outside Costa Rican jurisdiction as taxable based on the criterion of "economic connection (vinculación económica)" fostered by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. It is probable that many other taxpayers have gone through the same situation, in the sense that before October 2023, the Tax Administration may have initiated audit processes against taxpayers in which it resorted to the jurisprudence of the Cassation Chamber to justify adjustments for income obtained outside of Costa Rica. However, from the legislative discussion, it is clear that the principle of territoriality (principio de territorialidad), as understood by the First Chamber, was not coincident with the legislator's intention, and if currently the Tax Administration were to initiate an audit process against a taxpayer, after the approval of Law no. 10,381, it could not resort to that jurisprudence to justify a tax adjustment for extraterritorial income because the Legislative Branch clarified the territorial income system that governs our tax legal system (ordenamiento tributario). This material impossibility of using that jurisprudence undoubtedly creates a scenario of tax inequality, because while hundreds of taxpayers face litigious processes in which they have or will have to defend themselves against the criterion of economic connection adopted by the First Chamber that extends the principle of territoriality, as is the case of its client, other hundreds of taxpayers were benefited and against them the Tax Administration cannot apply such a criterion of economic connection, but rather only those incomes obtained in Costa Rican territory according to the geographical limits of Article 6 of the Magna Carta can be taxed. That is, there are different factual situations in which equals are treated unequally. Therefore, it is plausible to assert that the alleged inequality lacks objective and reasonable justification, that is: there are no substantive reasons for some to be audited following a criterion of economic connection and others not. For this reason, given the supervening change of circumstances (the entry into force of Law no. 10,381), the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice generates a state of tax inequality in the Costa Rican legal system (ordenamiento jurídico) and should be recognized as such by this Court. It requests that this unconstitutionality action (acción de inconstitucionalidad) be granted.

2.- For the purpose of supporting its legal standing (legitimación), the plaintiff indicates that Article 75 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional) requires, for purposes of admissibility of an unconstitutionality action, the existence of a pending matter to be resolved either in the judicial or administrative venue, in which the unconstitutionality must be invoked as a reasonable means to defend the rights or interests considered injured. In the specific case, this pending matter is the jurisdictional process handled before the Administrative and Civil Tax Court (Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda), under judicial case file (expediente judicial) no. [Value 001]; which is currently pending judgment. It asserts that in such process, in the statement of claim (líbelo de demanda), the unconstitutionality of the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice was invoked, which has been applied in its specific case by the Tax Administration.

3.- By means of official communication dated January 11, 2024, the Administrative and Civil Tax Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José (Tribunal Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José) was requested to forward to this Chamber the judicial case file processed under number [Value 001], which is an ordinary proceeding brought by Pan-American Life Insurance de Costa Rica S.A. against the State.

4.- On January 25, 2024, a copy of the case file processed under number [Value 002] was associated with this file.

5.- Article 9 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law empowers the Chamber to reject, outright or on the merits, at any time, even from its presentation, any motion brought to its attention that is manifestly without merit, or when it considers that there are sufficient elements of judgment to reject it, or that it is a simple reiteration or reproduction of a previous equal or similar rejected motion.

Drafted by Magistrate Castillo Víquez; and,

Considering:

I.- ON LEGAL STANDING (LEGITIMACIÓN).

The claimant is deemed to have standing to bring this action, based on Article 75, paragraph 1, of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, as there is a prior pending matter to be resolved being processed in case file no. [Valor 001], which is a plenary proceeding of Pan-American Life Insurance de Costa Rica S.A. against the State, in which the unconstitutionality of the case law (jurisprudencia) challenged here was invoked, as it was applied in the claimant's case by the Tax Administration.

II.- PURPOSE OF THIS ACTION. The claimant files this action of unconstitutionality against the jurisprudential line of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, contained—specifically—in judgments no. 617-F-S1-2010, no. 55-F-S1-2011, no. 475-F-S1-2011, no. 976-F-S1-2016, and no. 326-F-S1-2017, pertaining to the interpretation of Article 1 of the Income Tax Law. It is specifically alleged that the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice engaged in an expansive interpretation of the law, through which it broadened the taxable event (hecho generador) of the income tax to levy taxes on income generated or obtained outside Costa Rican territory, using the criterion that they maintain a close connection or link with the Costa Rican economic structure. An infringement of the constitutional principles of legality (reserva de ley) and legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) is alleged, in relation to Articles 6 and 7 of the Political Constitution. The claimant indicates that it is aware of the existence of precedents from this Chamber in which various actions of unconstitutionality filed against that same jurisprudential line were dismissed, but argues that there is a new fact justifying a modification of this Constitutional Court's criterion, namely the enactment of Law No. 10,381 of September 14, 2023, called "Modificación a la ley N° 7092, Ley de impuesto sobre la renta, para lograr la exclusión de Costa Rica de la lista de países no cooperantes en materia fiscal de la Unión Europea," which partially modified the text of Article 1 of the Income Tax Law and confirmed the territorial system of taxation that has governed in Costa Rica, which is limited exclusively to income obtained within Costa Rican territory under the geographical scope. It asserts that, with such legal reform, both the interpretation put forth by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, and by this Constitutional Court, is rendered absolutely outdated.

III.- ON THE MERITS. The claimant itself acknowledges that this Court recently ruled on the constitutionality of the aforementioned jurisprudential line. The foregoing, in the action of unconstitutionality No. 20-007518-0007-CO, in which the case law (jurisprudencia) issued by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, embodied in the cited decisions (votos) numbers 326-F-S1-2017, 976-F-S1-2016, 475-F-S1-2011, 55-F-S1-2011, and 617-F-S1-2010, concerning the interpretation of Articles 1, 5, and 6, subsection ch), of the Income Tax Law (Law No. 7092), in relation to the principle of territoriality in tax matters, was challenged, on the grounds that such jurisprudential standard was contrary to the literal text of the cited articles of Law No. 7902, thus violating the principles of legality, economic capacity (capacidad económica), and double taxation (doble imposición). The aforementioned action of unconstitutionality was dismissed on the merits, by a majority vote (voto de mayoría), through judgment No. 2022-023955 of 4:42 p.m. on October 12, 2022. Subsequently, through decision (voto) No. 2022-023958 of 9:20 a.m. on October 14, 2022, it was ordered to correct the material error in the operative part of the cited judgment No. 2022-023955, so that it would read as follows:

“Por unanimidad, se rechaza la gestión de coadyuvancia incoada por Antonio Vargas Villalobos, en su condición de apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma de Coca-Cola Industrias Ltda. Por mayoría, se declaran sin lugar las acciones de inconstitucionalidad acumuladas en cuanto al agravio de infracción al principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria. El magistrado Garita Navarro salva el voto y declara parcialmente con lugar las acciones de inconstitucionalidad acumuladas y, en consecuencia, dispone anular por inconstitucional la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia contenida en las sentencias 617-F-S1-2010 de las 09:10 horas del 20 de mayo de 2010, 55-FS1-2011 de las 08:50 horas del 27 de enero de 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 de las 11:20 horas del 07 de abril de 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 de las 13:05 horas del 22 de setiembre de 2016 y 326-F-S1-2017 de las 10:55 horas del 23 de marzo de 2017, por vulnerar el principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria. De igual manera, por conexidad, dispone la anulación de todas las directrices o instrucciones generales de la administración tributaria, dirigidas a los contribuyentes, que tienen cobertura en las normas que ahora se declaran inconstitucionales. Por unanimidad, se declaran sin lugar las acciones acumuladas en cuanto a los alegatos de infracción a los principios de capacidad económica y de doble imposición.” Notify this ruling to the parties and to the judicial authority hearing the prior matter." This criterion was subsequently reiterated in votes 2023-000355, 2023-000357, and 2023-000359, when hearing various unconstitutionality actions filed against the same jurisprudential line, in which—as in the *sub lite*—an infringement of the constitutional principles of legal reserve (reserva de ley) and legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), as well as Articles 6 and 7 of the Political Constitution, was alleged. We therefore now proceed to resolve the present action, based on the considerations set forth in the aforementioned judgments.

**IV.- ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL RESERVE AND ARTICLES 6 AND 121(13) OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION.** The plaintiff claims that the jurisprudential criterion of the First Chamber—challenged here—violates the principle of legal reserve (principio de reserva de ley), because, through judicial interpretation, an expanded scope of the principle of territoriality is established, which does not correspond to what was provided by the legislator in the Income Tax Law and which entails the adoption of a worldwide income concept, contravening the territorial income concept followed by the Costa Rican income tax system, with the aim of taxing, without legal basis, extraterritorial passive income with the profits tax. Regarding this aspect, in the cited judgment No. 2022-023955, the majority of the members of the Constitutional Court decided to dismiss the action and considered that the challenged jurisprudence of the First Chamber was limited to the correct application and interpretation of the material norms in force "at the time the modifications were made to the plaintiff company and when the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued its rulings," regarding the determination of the tax base (base imponible) and, therefore, did not violate the principles of legal reserve (reserva de ley) and tax legality. In this regard, the following was stated:

"(...) **V.- The object of the action.** The plaintiffs challenge the legal criterion expressed by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, contained in votes number 617-F-S1-2010 of 09:10 hours on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 of 08:50 hours on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 hours on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 of 13:05 hours on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 of 10:55 hours on March 23, 2017. They allege that the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in its jurisprudence, adopts an extensive interpretation of the concept of territoriality to establish a tax levy through interpretation. To determine the subjection of income generated abroad, and thus be taxed by the profits tax, it considers it to be income of Cost Rican source because it originated from Costa Rican capital, because the taxpayer uses a company located and domiciled in the country and Costa Rican capital to generate the extraterritorial income. They consider that the subjective elements adopted in the challenged jurisprudence are characteristic of a tax system governed by the worldwide income criterion, even though the system in force in Costa Rica is an objective criterion based on the principle of territoriality. Therefore, they indicate that the resulting criterion is contrary to the literal wording of Articles 1, 5, and 6 subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law No. 7092, thus violating the principle of legal reserve; economic capacity (capacidad económica) and double taxation (doble imposición).

**VI.- On the methodology for analyzing the action.** To facilitate the study of the unconstitutionality action filed, the following recitals will generally analyze the invoked constitutional norms and principles, and then analyze the grievances of unconstitutionality raised by the plaintiffs against the challenged jurisprudence.

**VII.- On the State's taxing power.** This Constitutional Court, in judgment No. 1341-93 of 10:30 hours on March 29, 1993, stated the following regarding the taxing power:

"II).- THE TAXING POWER- The so-called 'Taxing Power'—the sovereign power of the State to demand contributions from persons or property within its jurisdiction or to grant exemptions—recognizes no limitations other than those originating in the Political Constitution itself. That power to tax is the power to enact legal norms from which the obligation to pay a tax or to respect a tax limit derives or may derive, and among the constitutional principles of Taxation are found the Principle of Legality or Legal Reserve, that of Equality or Isonomy, of Generality, and of Non-Confiscation." Taxes must derive from a Law of the Republic, must not create discriminations to the detriment of taxable persons (sujetos pasivos), must comprehensively cover all persons or goods provided for in the law and not only a part of them, and care must be taken that they are not of such an identity that they violate private property (Articles 33, 40, 45, 121 subsection 13 of the Constitución Política).” Likewise, in judgment No. 2020020838 of 9:20 a.m. on October 28, 2020, the Chamber reiterated such considerations, and in the pertinent part stated:

“Article 18 of the Constitución Política provides:

‘Article 18.- Costa Ricans must observe the Constitution and the laws, serve the Homeland, defend it, and contribute to public expenses.’ It is thus confirmed the obligation of constitutional rank to contribute to public expenses, without unjustified or arbitrary exceptions or privileges (Article 33 of the Constitución Política). Likewise, the Constitución Política confers upon the legislator the tax authority (potestad tributaria), according to which it is responsible for establishing national taxes and contributions and authorizing municipal ones (Article 121, subsection 13). Regarding the content and exercise of the tax authority, this Chamber has indicated:

‘(…) The legislator may discretionarily create the taxes it deems necessary according to the parameters it considers convenient, in order to satisfy public needs, with the sole limits established by the Constitución Política. In that sense, it has been repeatedly stated:

“V.- Legislative competence in tax matters. The Constitución Política, in its Article 121 subsection 13), gives the Legislative Assembly the power to create national taxes and contributions, and authorize municipal ones. This broad—although not unlimited—power, allows the Assembly not only to create taxes, determining their essential elements (taxable person (sujeto pasivo), taxable event (hecho generador), taxable base (base imponible) and amount or percentage of the levy), but also to except certain individuals, goods or activities from their application (exemption (exención)), it can eliminate existing taxes and even modify them, varying some of the aforementioned elements of the tax obligation (obligación tributaria). Said power to modify existing taxes gives the State the possibility of reducing, modifying or increasing the imposed burden, either as an instrument of fiscal policy or to fulfill any other lawful purposes.’” (Voto No. 2014-000852 of 2:30 p.m. on January 22, 2014) This Chamber has also recognized that such tax authority, which is enshrined in the Constitution itself, obeys the inexorable need of the State to capture resources for the fulfillment of its purposes. Indeed, this Tribunal has indicated that the tax authority (Article 121, subsection 13, of the Constitución Política) and the principle of equality in the bearing of public burdens (Articles 18 and 33 constitutional) are absolutely consubstantial to the Social and Democratic Rule of Law (Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho), since:

‘(…) Without the tax authority and the correlative duty of every person to contribute to public expenses, the various public entities that provide positive benefits to the inhabitants to eradicate real and effective inequalities—typical of a Social Rule of Law (Estado Social de Derecho)—could not exercise their functions, fulfill their competencies and satisfy the public interest, since it would be impossible for them to count on public resources for such effect.’ (Voto No. 2008-011210 of 3:00 p.m. on July 16, 2008).

In this way, the reason for the tax authority not only finds due justification in the need of the State to obtain income to finance the functions and services it provides to the community, but also in the fact that the person benefits from those services and from the social function of the State. As this Chamber has clarified:

‘(…) Although from the traditional point of view the purpose of the tax is revenue collection, today it is conceptualized as a fundamental instrument of the State for the satisfaction of public needs. On this aspect, the Spanish Constitutional Court has indicated that the constitutional duty of collaboration places the citizen in a situation of subjection and collaboration with the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria) in order to sustain public expenses—imbued with an unquestionable public interest—which justifies the imposition of certain legal limitations on the exercise of individual rights.’ (Voto No. 2005-4704 of 3:00 p.m. on April 27, 2005)” From the foregoing, it is determined that the tax power (poder tributario) configures the authority to create and impose taxes and demand contributions from persons or goods that are within the territory of the State, with the exceptions and limitations established in the Constitución Política and the laws, which are applied both to Costa Rican citizens, and to foreigners living in the country, as well as to any person who carries out activities that form part of the tax structures (estructuras impositivas) that the State has defined by formal law, regardless of their residence (territorial or fiscal).

This power additionally entails that of tax management (gestión tributaria), which includes the determination, oversight, and control of due compliance with tax obligations of a formal and material nature, as well as the adoption of corrective and sanctioning measures arising from the failure to fulfill said duties and tax burdens, while also enabling it to exercise the interpretive function of the norms that comprise the tax legal system, through the adoption of interpretive criteria, tax consultations, among others. Article 121, subsection 13) of the Magna Carta grants the Legislative Assembly the power to establish national taxes, rates, and contributions, that is, it limits its exercise, creation, and approval through the legislator, to safeguard legal certainty and the collective interest of the population, respecting constitutional tax principles.

**VIII.- On the principle of statutory reservation in tax matters (principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria).** The principle of statutory reservation, of constitutional origin, is connected with other constitutional principles, such as the principle of normative hierarchy and that of legal certainty, the achievement of which in turn presupposes respect for the principle of statutory reservation. In tax matters, the referred principle is called upon to perform essential functions, such as serving as a vehicle for various demands of a substantial nature, ensuring uniform treatment for different groups of citizens (guarantee of equality of citizens before tax law). Furthermore, the constitutional principle of statutory reservation constitutes the axis of relations between the executive branch and the legislative branch regarding the production of norms; it presupposes the separation of powers and excludes the regulation of certain matters through channels other than law. Moreover, it constitutes a limit, not only for the executive branch, but also for the legislative branch itself, which cannot renounce a function that has been attributed to it for mandatory exercise. The most precise delimitation of the principle of statutory reservation occurs in the field of tax obligations, as a consequence of the clear individualization and uniqueness of tributes in the field of public-law patrimonial obligations. The content of the principle of statutory reservation in tax matters implies the need for the legislative branch to determine the essential elements of the tribute, a core of matters that must be specified by law.

This Constitutional Chamber (Sala Constitucional) has repeatedly indicated that the principle of statutory reservation derives from the provisions of Article 121, subsection 13 of the Political Constitution. By virtue of such a provision, it corresponds exclusively to the Legislative Assembly to establish national taxes and contributions, a power which, in addition, is non-delegable to the Executive Branch and which stands as a guarantee for the governed that their imposition must follow the formal procedure of a law. On the matter, this Tribunal noted in judgment No. 4785-93, of 8:39 a.m. on September 30, 1993:

"VI.- The alleged principle of statutory reservation in tax matters was developed by the Supreme Court of Justice, then in its functions of constitutional jurisdiction, in Resolution of eight o'clock on the twenty-ninth of November, nineteen seventy-three, expressing in relevant part:

"II.- The principle of 'statutory reservation' in tax matters results from the provisions of Article 121, subsection 13 of the Political Constitution, according to which it corresponds exclusively to the Legislative Assembly to 'establish national taxes and contributions'; an attribution which, in accordance with Article 9 ibid., the Assembly could not delegate to the Executive Branch, which could likewise not lawfully invade the sphere of the legislator in the exercise of the regulatory powers granted to it by Article 140, subsection 3 of the same Constitution. The problem consists, then, in defining what should be understood by 'establish taxes,' in order to determine thereby whether the Tax Reform Law delegated or not to the Executive Branch, in the manner alleged in the appeal, the exclusive power conferred upon it by Article 121, subsection 13 of the Political Constitution.

III.- To establish means 'to institute,' and also 'to order, command, decree,' according to the Dictionary of the Language. To establish a tax is, therefore, to order or decree a certain tax burden; that is, stated more broadly, to create the tribute and to determine 'the taxable objects, the bases, and the rates...'" Likewise, in judgment 2006-009170 of 4:36 p.m. on June 28, 2006, the Chamber referred to the principle of statutory reservation and its scope, in the following terms:

**"V.- A) The constitutional jurisprudence referring to the principle of statutory reservation as one of the constitutional principles governing tax imposition.-** Previously and consistently, constitutional jurisprudence has made reference to the principles governing the State's tax activity. Thus, for example, it has been said that the State has the sovereign power within its jurisdiction to demand contributions from individuals or to levy taxes on their property. That power to levy is the power to enact legal norms from which the obligation to pay a tribute is derived.

Our legal system recognizes the taxing power (potestad tributaria) of the State at the constitutional level, such that it corresponds to the Legislative Assembly to have the authority to "Establish national taxes and contributions, ..." (Article 121, subsection 13 of the Political Constitution), thus constituting an obligation for Costa Ricans to pay the public charges established by the State to contribute to public expenses, an obligation which has constitutional rank under the terms of Article 18 of the Constitution, while the Executive Branch, for its part, is responsible for ordering the collection of national revenues, Article 140, subsection 7 of our Magna Carta. However, the exercise of that taxing power must respect the constitutional principles of Taxation, referred to as the Principle of Legal Reserve, the Principle of Equality or Isonomy, the Principle of Generality, and the Principle of Non-Confiscation. In other words, taxes must emanate from a Law of the Republic (legal reserve), must not create discrimination to the detriment of taxable persons (equality), must comprehensively encompass all persons or goods provided for in the law and not just a part of them (generality), and must be careful not to be of such a nature that it violates private property (non-confiscation), pursuant to Articles 33, 40, 45, and 121, subsection 13 of the Political Constitution (see in this regard judgment number 6455-94). Based on the foregoing, and regarding the principle of legal reserve, only through a law approved by the Legislative Assembly may taxes be legitimately imposed, by virtue of the provisions of constitutional Article 121, subsection 13), a power conferred on the Legislative Branch and which cannot be delegated to the Executive Branch. The most important doctrine on the matter, in a generalized manner, has indicated that the "taxing power" (poder tributario) - taxing power, power of imposition, among others - is inherent to the State and cannot be suppressed, delegated, or transferred (judgment number 1687-96, and in a similar vein, judgments number 4072-95, 5544-95, 0730-95, 4949-94, 2947-94, and 4785-93). Therefore, the principle of legal reserve in tax matters constitutes one of the fundamental pillars of our Rule of Law, such that the definition of the constituent elements of the tax obligation are exclusively reserved to the law (active and passive subjects, object of the obligation, cause, tax rate), although through constitutional jurisprudence, relative delegation in this matter has been admitted solely with respect to the determination of the amount to be paid, and always provided that the law creating the tax clearly establishes the elements or parameters upon which it must be defined (see judgment number 0730-95, of 3:00 p.m. on February 3, 1995, and among others, judgments number 1426-95, 1427-95, and 0687-96). Likewise, this Tribunal has indicated the possibility that the Executive Branch has to establish the collection mechanism for a tax, without this implying a violation of the principles of legal reserve in tax matters and regulatory power contained in Articles 11, 121, subsection 13), and 140, subsection 3) of the Political Constitution, nor of any fundamental right, as long as a new tax is not established or the one established in the law is not modified (judgments number 3016-95, of 11:36 a.m. on June 9, 1995, and 3449-96, of 3:27 p.m. on July 9, 1996). In summary, the constitutional principle of legal reserve in tax matters refers to the fact that the power to create taxes is exclusive to the legislator. (...)

It can be concluded, therefore, that it is solely the Legislative Assembly which, through the procedure for the creation of formal law, can establish the essential elements of taxes, these being: the taxable base, the taxable event, the rate, the passive subject and active subject, as well as the fiscal period. Hence, there can be no tax without a prior law establishing it - nullum tributum sine lege -.

IX.- By majority, the accumulated unconstitutionality actions are dismissed regarding the grievance of violation of the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. Drafted by Magistrate Castillo Víquez. It must be clear that the Court of Cassation is responsible for the interpretation and application of legal norms in the specific case - as are the rest of the judges -; it is the ultimate interpreter, not the only one, of ordinary legislation. It is called upon to establish the correct meaning of the law. Following the doctrine of living law – the interpretation and application of the norm to the specific case and not the abstract vision of when the legislator promulgates the law –, the Court of Cassation, as well as the ordinary courts, adopting as a frame of reference the intention of the legislator - the ratio legis -, are called upon to resolve the legal controversy, in such a way that the parties find a solution to the conflict. In the case of tax matters, this is not the exception; however, due to the principle of tax legality, the judge - the a-quo, the ad-quem, and the magistrate - have a series of insurmountable barriers or constitutional and legal impediments.

Indeed, through the interpretation and application of tax regulations, taxes cannot be created, modified, or extinguished – taxes (impuestos), fees (tasas), and special contributions (contribuciones especiales), exemptions, non-subjections, etc. Much less can the essential or structural elements of the tax be established or expanded, nor can analogy be used to create or modify taxes. However, what the ordinary judge can do is resort to the traditional methods of legal interpretation provided for in ordinary legislation – the literal, the historical, the teleological, the systematic, etc. Taking the foregoing as a parameter, as explained below, the crux of the matter in this legal dispute is whether the jurisprudence of the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice – identical rulings from which a rule of law is extracted – expands the tax base (base tributaria) of the income tax (impuesto a las utilidades) by including as corporate income the profits obtained by companies from operations carried out abroad. That is, whether or not it affects the assets of the companies by extending the territoriality criterion to financial operations carried out abroad from which a certain profit is obtained. For a better understanding of the issue, it is necessary to mention that, in the base case for this action, the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), as a result of the audit action, made an adjustment to the income declared by the plaintiff bank for "income from demand deposits and investments in entities abroad," because it considered that the returns obtained by the bank were generated with capital of Costa Rican source. The adjustments made by the Fiscal Audit were confirmed by the Tax Administration through resolutions DT 10R-107-19 and AU10R-19. The Tax Administration makes it clear in resolution AU10R-19 that it is based on the jurisprudential criterion of the First Chamber, expressed, among others, in resolutions 000326-F-SI-2017 and 000976-F-S1-2016, which are the most recent rulings of said Chamber and which support the position of the Tax Administration that the principle of territoriality derived from the Income Tax Law does not refer solely to a geographical aspect. The jurisprudence of the First Chamber has been evident in resolutions from 2010 and 2011.

The plaintiff considers that the jurisprudence of the First Chamber violates the principle of constitutional legal reserve in tax matters enshrined in Article 121, subsection 13) of the Political Constitution, in that the returns obtained by companies that invest abroad form part of the taxable base (base imponible) of the income tax provided for in Article 1 of the Income Tax Law No. 7092, as argued in the appeal being processed before the Administrative Tax Tribunal, thereby changing, through interpretation, the concept of territoriality established by Law No. 7092 to the concept of worldwide income, invading powers that belong to the ordinary legislator.

Article 121, subsection 13 of the Political Constitution establishes the principle of legal reserve in tax matters, and Article 5, subsection a) of the Tax Code (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) develops it. According to this principle, only through a formal law can taxes be created, as well as their essential elements established, specifically: the passive subject, taxable base, taxable event (hecho generador), and tax rate. Ergo, the way in which the taxable base of a tax is determined cannot be varied by way of legal interpretation. In order to clarify the position of the Tax Administration and the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, it must be borne in mind that Article 1 of the Income Tax Law – in force at the date the modifications were made to the plaintiff company and when the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued its rulings – expressly defines what the essential elements of the tax on corporate profits are. Thus, the legislator establishes that the taxable event of the income tax is constituted by the receipt of income in cash or in kind, continuous or occasional, from any Costa Rican source, as well as continuous or eventual income from a Costa Rican source received or accrued by individuals or legal entities domiciled in Costa Rica, as well as any other income or benefit from a Costa Rican source not exempted by law. On the other hand, Chapter IV of the aforementioned law refers to the determination of the taxable base, while Articles 5, 6, 7, and 8 establish the procedure for its determination, so it is not the Tax Administration nor the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice that, through its jurisprudence, have included within the taxable base for the calculation of the income tax the income obtained by the appellant company from its investments abroad, as rightly argued by the Attorney General's Office (Procuraduría General de la República). It is evident, then, that if the plaintiff company is a company domiciled in Costa Rica, its income-producing source is Costa Rican, and the capital invested abroad is Costa Rican, the returns obtained form part of the company's taxable income in Costa Rica, since there is an economic link (vinculación económica) between the income produced abroad and the producing source of the company domiciled in Costa Rica, which does not in itself entail a change from the concept of territorial income – in force at the time of the audit actions – to the worldwide income criterion, because the legislator expressly provided what the taxable income was. Therefore, without a doubt, the criterion of economic link derives from the law itself by considering income linked to the income-producing source as taxable. It should be pointed out that in Article 1 of the aforementioned law, the legislator expressly provides that any income or benefit from a Costa Rican source not exempted by law is taxable, and it is a fact that the legislator establishes no exception in this regard.

The exception that the petitioner claims in order to not declare income from foreign investments as taxable, and to argue that the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is taxing them via case law, is based on an interpretation that this Court does not share, since subparagraph ch) of Article 6 of Law No. 7092, which establishes the exclusions from gross income (renta bruta), refers to income generated by virtue of contracts, agreements, or negotiations on goods or capital located abroad. In this regard, the Advisory Body tells us that, insofar as the returns that the petitioner company obtains abroad are not from goods or capital located abroad, but rather derive from capital domiciled in Costa Rica, which is where the petitioner’s income-producing source is located, they are therefore taxable with the income tax. The Office of the Attorney General of the Republic adds, moreover, that the action of the Tax Administration cannot be considered arbitrary and contrary to law, much less to the case law of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, and, therefore, the constitutional principle of tax legality is not violated, since the determination of the taxable base (base imponible) of a tax such as the one imposed on profits, in accordance with the principle of legality that governs tax matters, is nothing other than the application of the substantive legal rules that circumscribe it to specific facts, such that the activity to be carried out by the Tax Administration is, on the one hand, a simple verification of those facts necessary to determine the obligation and, on the other, the application of the substantive rules. Therefore, the cases that gave rise to the case law of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice and that are accused of violating the constitutional principle of legality are limited to the correct application and interpretation of the substantive rules regarding the determination of the taxable base (base imponible). Thus, in the case of taxes, the principle of legal reserve requires that the substantive legal norms of the base (base) be contained in a legal provision, as occurs with Articles 1, 5, and subparagraph ch) of Article 6 of the Income Tax Law, which prevents them from being created for the specific case by mere administrative or judicial will. Therefore, following the arguments provided by the Office of the Attorney General of the Republic, it is concluded that the principle of tax legality is not violated, and it is appropriate to declare this action without merit (…).” **V.-** **REGARDING THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY (SEGURIDAD JURÍDICA).** In full consonance with the foregoing, in vote no. 2023-000357 of 9:20 a.m. on January 11, 2023, this Chamber resolved -in relation to that same jurisprudential line- that:

"**VII.- REGARDING THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY (SEGURIDAD JURÍDICA).** The petitioners also accuse an infraction of the principle of legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), since, they allege -again- that the case law of the First Chamber stems from an erroneous and extensive interpretation of the law. They particularly accuse an 'expansion via interpretation of the taxable event (hecho generador) of a tax established in the law' and that 'those administered (taxpayers) have no reason to be in a situation of legal uncertainty (incerteza jurídica) regarding the determination of the elements of the taxable bases (bases imponibles) of the taxes; it is thus held that the actions of the First Chamber in its repeated rulings on the criterion of "linkage with the country's economic structure" dismantles legal certainty (certeza jurídica) regarding the interpretation of the norm.' However, on this point, reference must be made to what was already decided in vote no. 2022-023955, in the sense that the questioned jurisprudential line is limited to the correct application and interpretation of the substantive rules regarding the determination of the taxable base (base imponible). Ergo, it is also appropriate to reject the action regarding this reproach." **VI.- REGARDING THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 7 OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION AND DOUBLE TAXATION.** The petitioner also questions whether the challenged case law could generate a scenario of double taxation (doble imposición) and mentions the existence of various international agreements signed by Costa Rica precisely to avoid such a situation. He maintains that from those same agreements it can be derived that Costa Rica pursues a criterion of territorial income subjection that, contrary to the thesis upheld by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, is strictly limited to geographical space and has no relation whatsoever to the supposed "economic linkage." Regarding this point, in the aforementioned vote no. 2023-000355 of 9:20 a.m. on January 11, 2023, this Court resolved that:

VI.- ON THE ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF ECONOMIC CAPACITY. On the other hand, the representative of the plaintiff company alleges that the challenged jurisprudence violates the principle of economic capacity (principio de capacidad económica), enshrined in article 18 of the Political Constitution. He states that the taxing power must be directed toward the real capacity of each taxpayer. The reclassification of the income tax entails an impact on the patrimonial sphere of his client, which affects their ability to pay. Regarding this aspect, in judgment no. 2022-023955 of 4:42 p.m. on October 12, 2022, the Constitutional Court unanimously ruled to dismiss the actions regarding the claims of violation of the principles of economic capacity and double taxation, given that the plaintiff party omitted to indicate parameters that would allow for the determination of a true economic impact that would make it impossible for them to fulfill the tax obligation, nor did it provide appropriate elements so that this Chamber could assess whether the alleged double taxation, if it existed, would seriously diminish its gross income. In this regard, it was ordered as follows:

"XIII.- Doctrinally, the principle of ability to pay (principio de capacidad contributiva) is understood as that capacity of the taxpayer to be the subject of tax obligations, a capacity that is established by the presence of facts revealing wealth that, after being subjected to a valuation by the legislator and reconciled with political, social, and economic purposes, are elevated to the rank of taxable category; thus, this Court has indicated. In judgment number 4788-93, of eight forty-eight in the morning on September thirtieth, nineteen ninety-three, this Chamber considered:

"Article 18 of the Political Constitution states 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 in any case, they must be based on the general principles of Tax Law, which are implicit in that norm. Therefore, it is said that the tax must be just, based on the contribution of all according to their economic capacity and must respond to the principles of equality... and progressivity. This last principle responds to an aspiration of justice, which is reflected in the maxim that those with a higher level of income pay proportionally more taxes, which implicitly carries, of course, the principle of the prohibition of confiscatory taxes. In accordance with the foregoing, the call to contribute to the support of public expenses must be made effective, according to the 'ability to pay or economic capacity,' through a just tax system, which must be informed by the principle of equality.

In this regard, in judgment number 5749-93, of two thirty-three in the afternoon on November ninth, nineteen ninety-three, THIS Court clarified that:

"Economic capacity is the magnitude upon which the amount of public payments is determined, a magnitude that takes into account the minimum levels of income that subjects must have for their subsistence and the amount of income subject to taxation... In accordance with said principle - that of economic capacity -, the tax must be appropriate to the capacity of the subject obligated to pay, and this determines the justice of the tax, hence those with a greater economic capacity contribute a greater amount than those who are situated at a lower level." In the same vein, judgments number 2001-02657, of three-fifteen in the afternoon on April fourth, two thousand one, and number 2012002510 of four o'clock and three minutes in the afternoon on February twenty-second, two thousand twelve." In light of the foregoing precedents, this Court considers that this aspect of the action must be rejected, because the arguments raised by the plaintiff are incomplete value judgments, as they omit to indicate parameters that would allow for the determination of a true economic impact that would make it impossible for them to fulfill the tax obligation.

Nor do they indicate that, based on the income taxed abroad, a disproportionate impact on their financial spheres has been caused, demonstrating that their right to property is being illegitimately limited by confronting the questioned tax burden. It should be noted that in each case where the violation of this principle is alleged, it is necessary for the plaintiff to prove such impact on the patrimony contrary to what is derived from Article 40 of the Constitution (judgment No. 2020020838 of 9:20 a.m. on October 28, 2020). Thus, lacking such elements of judgment, this Court cannot consider it proven that the economic capacity of the plaintiffs has been affected or that it is impossible for them to comply with it, due to their tax burden, as a consequence of the application of the challenged jurisprudential criterion, which they claim is contrary to the principle of economic capacity.

**VII.- ON THE VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 7, FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE POLITICAL CONSTITUTION, BECAUSE THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE FIRST CHAMBER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE OPPOSES INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS.** The plaintiff's representative also alleges that the challenged constitutional interpretation promotes double taxation (doble imposición), because in those cases where a double taxation treaty has not been signed, the national taxpayer who invests abroad and generates credits they assumed were not subject to tax would have to pay tax on them in the territory of the nation where the income was generated, without being able to apply any deduction in Costa Rica because Article 9, subsection d) of the Income Tax Law prevents it. In this regard, the Chamber considers that the grievance is not sufficiently substantiated, since the plaintiff merely states that the questioned jurisprudence promotes a double taxation scenario, without identifying the levies that fall on the same taxable object, nor are elements provided to prove them, so that the Court can assess whether the alleged double taxation, if it exists, seriously diminishes the gross income of the plaintiffs, by forcing them to contribute in an exorbitant or ruinous manner, that is, in a proportion that goes beyond their true economic capacity. In the scenario indicated, it is appropriate to dismiss the action also regarding double taxation with respect to the questioned jurisprudence.

Considerations that are applicable to the sub lite case, since the plaintiff also does not provide elements of judgment that allow proving that, if an effective double taxation scenario exists, it "seriously diminishes the gross income of the plaintiffs, by forcing them to contribute in an exorbitant or ruinous manner, that is, in a proportion that goes beyond their true economic capacity." Likewise, it must be reiterated what has already been indicated, in the sense that the challenged jurisprudential line was limited "to the correct application and interpretation of the substantive rules regarding the determination of the tax base (base imponible)," as "occurs with Articles 1, 5, 6 subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law," in force "on the date the modifications were made to the plaintiff company and when the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued the rulings." The foregoing without prejudice, of course, that if in the specific case of the plaintiff, any of the mentioned international agreements is effectively applicable, even preferentially to the Income Tax Law, it may be alleged in the underlying matter itself.

**VII- ON THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CHALLENGED JURISPRUDENCE AND THE DUE DELIMITATION OF ITS OBJECT.** In this way, it can be corroborated that this Court already concluded that the challenged jurisprudential line, far from implying an erroneous or extensive interpretation of the regulations in force at the time the rulings in question were issued by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, was limited to the correct application and interpretation of such regulations regarding the determination of the tax base (base imponible), which made it possible to rule out a violation of the principles of legal reserve, tax legality (legalidad tributaria), and legal certainty, in relation to Articles 6 and 7 of the Political Constitution.

It should be added, moreover, that in the aforementioned action No. 20-007518-0007-CO, this Chamber heard a request for addition and clarification, in which it was sought that this Court add to and clarify the operative part of judgment No. 2022-023955.

</p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub">It was expressly requested that this Chamber specify that the jurisprudential criterion (criterio jurisprudencial) set forth by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgments 617-F-S1-2010, 55-FS1-2011, 475-F-S1-2011, 976-F-S1-2016 and 326-F-S1-2017 made exclusive reference to articles 1, 5 and 6 subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) (Law No. 7092), in its version prior to the reform enacted through the Law for the Strengthening of Public Finances (Ley de Fortalecimiento de las Finanzas Públicas) (Law No. 9635), which occurred on July 1, 2019. It was indicated that such clarification and addition (adición) was imperative, in order to have the necessary legal certainty (seguridad jurídica) regarding the fiscal periods that could be affected by the jurisprudential criterion (criterio jurisprudencial) set forth by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice in judgments 617-F-S1-2010, 55-FS1-2011, 475-F-S1-2011, 976-F-S1-2016 and 326-F-S1-2017.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:35.5pt; text-align:justify; line-height:150%; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; vertical-align:sub">In response, this Chamber issued decision No. 2023-013388 of 9:50 a.m. on June 7, 2023, in which it resolved that: </span></p><p style="margin:0pt 46.15pt 0pt 35.5pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">I.-</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">Pursuant to Article 12 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law (Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional), the judgments issued by this Chamber may be clarified or added to, at the request of a party, if requested within three days, and on its own motion at any time, including in execution proceedings, to the extent necessary to give full compliance to the content of the ruling.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 46.15pt 0pt 35.5pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">In the</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">sub examine, this request was filed within the legally established period, since the judgment was notified in its entirety to the plaintiff last November 21, and the filing of this new brief occurred on November 24, 2022.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 46.15pt 0pt 35.5pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">II.-</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">Notwithstanding, this Court does not consider that judgment number 2022-23955, of 4:42 p.m. on October 12, 2022, is obscure or omitted regarding the points raised by the parties, since they were duly resolved and addressed. The petitioner’s claim is entirely inadmissible, not only because it is a judgment whose points were dismissed by the Majority, but also because, furthermore, the reasoning and resolution provided are framed within what was the subject of study in this proceeding.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 46.15pt 0pt 35.5pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">As was explained in that judgment, and as the plaintiff argues, what is challenged here is the legal opinion expressed by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, in judgments number 617-F-S1-2010 of 9:10 a.m. on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 of 8:50 a.m. on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 a.m. on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 of 1:05 p.m. on September 22, 2016 and 326-F-S1-2017 of 10:55 a.m. on March 23, 2017. Consequently, the pronouncement made by this Court in this action is limited solely to the analysis of the jurisprudential criterion (criterio jurisprudencial) therein issued by the jurisdictional authority, which was evidently resolved by that authority, in accordance with the legal system in force at that time. And thus, what was resolved was delimited in the recitals, by pointing out, for example, in recital IX the following:</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">“…In order to clarify the position of the Tax Administration and the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, it must be borne in mind that Article 1 of the Income Tax Law -</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">in force at the date the adjustments were made to the plaintiff company and when the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued its rulings</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">- expressly defines what the essential elements are of the tax levied on the profits of companies</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">…</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">It is evident, then, that if the plaintiff company is a company domiciled in Costa Rica, its income-producing source is Costa Rican and the capital invested abroad is Costa Rican, the returns obtained form part of the taxable income of the company in Costa Rica, since there is an economic link between the income produced abroad and the productive source of a company domiciled in Costa Rica, which does not in itself entail a change from the concept of territorial income</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> -in force at the time of the audit actions-</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> to the worldwide income criterion, because the legislator expressly provided what the taxable incomes were</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">…”</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">.</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">Thus, what is sought by the plaintiff in the sense that the operative part of a dismissal judgment expressly indicate that the jurisprudential criterion (criterio jurisprudencial) that was the subject of this unconstitutionality action refers solely and exclusively to the interpretation of articles 1, 5 and 6 subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta) No. 7092, in its version prior to the reform enacted through the entry into force of the Law for the Strengthening of Public Finances (Ley de Fortalecimiento de las Finanzas Públicas) No. 9635, which occurred on July 1, 2019, is inadmissible, since this Court was clear in the context of its pronouncement and did not incur in any omission that must be corrected.</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">Therefore, the request filed is dismissed.</span></p><p style="margin:0pt 46.15pt 12pt 35.5pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; widows:2; orphans:2; font-size:14pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">III.-</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">Dissenting vote of Judge Rueda Leal.</span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub"> </span><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:9.33pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:sub">In the sub examine, I clarify that I did not vote on the main resolution of this proceeding No. 2022-23955 of 4:42 p.m. on October 12, 2022; however, after analyzing its content, I concur with the minority position of Judge Garita Navarro.</span></p> In that sense, since I do not share the majority position of the main judgment in this case file, I do not subscribe to its eventual scope, omissions, or ambiguities. Consequently, I issue a dissenting vote (voto particular), given that, in my opinion, the action should have been partially granted, in the terms of the dissenting vote of Judge Garita Navarro: "Judge Garita Navarro dissents and partially grants the accumulated actions of unconstitutionality and, consequently, orders the annulment on constitutional grounds of the case law of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice contained in judgments 617-F-S1-2010 of 09:10 hours on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 of 08:50 hours on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 hours on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 of 13:05 hours on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 of 10:55 hours on March 23, 2017, for violating the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. Likewise, by connection, orders the annulment of all general directives or instructions of the tax administration, directed at taxpayers, that are covered by the norms now declared unconstitutional." Therefore, it was finally resolved that:

"The motion filed is dismissed. Judge Rueda Leal issues a dissenting vote (voto particular)." In this way, from the very beginning it was clear that: a) the analysis and pronouncement of this Chamber was circumscribed "solely to the analysis of the jurisprudential criterion issued therein by the jurisdictional authority, which was evidently resolved by that authority, in accordance with the legal system then in force" and b) that the challenged case law was restricted "to the correct application and interpretation of the substantive norms regarding the determination of the taxable base (base imponible)", in accordance with the regulations "in force at the date the modifications were made to the plaintiff company and when the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued the rulings." In which case, this Chamber finds no reason whatsoever to vary the criterion already expressed on that occasion.

VIII.- ON THE REFORM THROUGH LAW NO. 10,381. Now, in the present action, an attempt is made to argue that the aforementioned case law has become unconstitutional by reason of a subsequent legal reform, which has come to modify article 1 of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta), and it is therefore requested that the criterion already expressed by this Constitutional Court be varied. However, such allegation and claim are inadmissible. It must be reiterated what has already been indicated, in the sense that - from the very beginning - this Chamber clarified that the challenged case law was restricted "to the correct application and interpretation of the substantive norms regarding the determination of the taxable base (base imponible)", in accordance with the regulations "in force at the date the modifications were made to the plaintiff company and when the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued the rulings." In which case, if a subsequent legal reform has existed, which would justify varying the interpretation and application of such legal norm - by reason of modifications introduced to its normative text - then this, prima facie, must be discussed and resolved in the ordinary venue. Additionally, the plaintiff refers to an alleged violation of the principle of equality, as she maintains that if the challenged case law is not modified, some taxpayers will not be able to benefit from the aforementioned legal reform. The plaintiff expressly refers to her case and to the result of the audit (fiscalización) process conducted against her regarding the income tax (profits) for the 2017 fiscal period. However, determining the effects of said legal reform in relation to prior periods also constitutes an issue to be resolved in the ordinary venue. Regarding specifically the proper application of the law over time, in vote no. 2020-014224 of 9:15 hours on July 29, 2020, this Chamber - in what is relevant - resolved that:

"IV.- On the other hand, the plaintiff argues that his case should have been heard under the Civil Procedure Code that was in force in July 2016, the moment from which he filed his process and for which such exclusion provided for by the current code did not exist. In that sense, as noted in the underlying matter, the Administrative and Civil Treasury Court of the Second Judicial Circuit of San José based its decision on the provisions of Transitory Provision I of the current code which states: 'TRANSITORY I.- Processes that were pending upon the entry into force of this Code shall be processed, as far as possible, by adjusting them to the new legislation, seeking to apply the new provisions and harmonizing them, insofar as possible, with the acts already carried out.' Now, if the plaintiff considers that there is an erroneous application of the law over time, as he argues that the 1989 Civil Procedure Code should apply, and not the procedural code that entered into force as of October 2018, and by which he considers his injunction (interdicto) was declared inadmissible, this is a discussion that, in the terms proposed, is also exempt from being heard in this jurisdiction, as it is not a matter of constitutionality, but of legality." Let us examine the following precedents in this regard:

1- "...In addition to the foregoing, if the appellant considers that the regulations applied to him in the particular case were not the appropriate ones, since, in his opinion, his situation was covered by a prior regulation that allowed for the granting of a higher percentage for duties in the position, **what is raised is not a problem of retroactive application of the law but rather the application of the law over time, a task that falls to the judge of legality, in the broad sense**. Nor is it the jurisdiction of this Court to declare any acquired right (derecho adquirido) in favor of the protected party, as this also corresponds to the legality venue." (judgment 2020-2579 of 9:30 a.m. on February 7, 2020) 2- **"I.- On the inadmissibility of the action filed against the Jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice.** First, the Chamber notes that the plaintiff cites five judgments of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice to demonstrate the existence of the contested jurisprudential line, among which is number 00047-A-51-2009 of 11:05 a.m. on January 22, 2009, issued in the proceeding in which he appears as the defendant. The action is inadmissible on this point, first because Article 10 of the Political Constitution establishes that jurisdictional acts of the Judicial Branch are not contestable in the constitutional jurisdiction; likewise, Article 74 of the Law of Constitutional Jurisdiction determines that the unconstitutionality action (acción de inconstitucionalidad) shall not be admissible against jurisdictional acts of the Judicial Branch. One of the resolutions the plaintiff cites is the one issued in the proceeding in which he was a party, so he would be questioning a jurisdictional pronouncement issued in a specific case through this unconstitutionality action, which is improper. On the other hand, regarding the arguments put forth to attack the constitutionality of the jurisprudence, the Chamber considers that they are not of constitutional relevance, **since the plaintiff alleges that the jurisprudence has denied the cassation appeal (recurso de casación) in collection proceedings in which the statute of limitations (prescripción) was declared, proceedings that were served before the entry into force of that law, which in his opinion goes against the letter of Transitory Provision I of the Judicial Collection Law. What is raised amounts to a legality dispute, since disagreements about the application of the law over time are points that must be argued in the ordinary jurisdictional venue and not in an unconstitutionality action**." (Judgment No. 2012-7166 of 10:31 a.m. on May 30, 2012) 3- "...Note that the plaintiff seeks for this Court to tell him **'what the applicable labor legal regime is for labor proceedings where consolidated legal situations prior to the entry into force of the Labor Procedural Reform on July 25, 2017, are being judged'** ; in which case, the Constitutional Chamber must not issue any judgment regarding such point, as it is a purely legality conflict outside its scope of competence, which must be ventilated in the ordinary jurisdiction. This Court already indicated as much in the cited judgment No. 2018-008531, where it was resolved –in relevant part– the following: "(...) In the sub judice, the plaintiff states that he challenges Transitory Provision I of Law No. 9343 of January 25, 2016. Additionally, he indicates as challenged Articles 399, 404 to 408, 413, and 499 of the Labor Code, amended by that same law. In relation to Transitory Provision I, the rule regulates the application of the cited procedural reform regarding proceedings 'initiated before the entry into force' of Law No. 9343, that is, before July 26, 2017. However, in this case, the prior proceeding he cites was filed on August 10, 2017, that is, after the law had entered into force. It is clear, then, that regarding this rule, the action is not a reasonable means to protect the right deemed injured, since the proceeding in process does not fall under the assumption regulated by the provision for '(...) proceedings initiated before the entry into force of this law (...)'. That is, the Transitory Provision has no bearing on the main proceeding because it was filed after the law's entry into force. To which it must be added, moreover, that **this Chamber recently pointed out that resolving the following constitutes a conflict outside its scope of competence**: **'(...) a controversy over the validity of the law over time, or whether or not the retroactive application of the provisions of the Labor Procedural Reform is appropriate, in accordance with the transitory regime established by that regulation'** (Judgment No. 2017-016270 of 09:15 hrs. on October 11, 2017)." (See, to the same effect, judgment No. 2018-13139 of 9:30 a.m. on August 14, 2018, and 2018-11652, among others).

Thus, the action is inadmissible...".

Considerations applicable to the case under study, as there is no reason that justifies changing the criterion.

**IX.- IN CONCLUSION.** As a corollary to the foregoing, it is appropriate to dismiss the filed action on its merits, as is hereby ordered. Judge Rueda Leal dissents and partially grants the unconstitutionality action due to a violation of the principle of legal reserve in tax matters.

**X.- DISSENTING VOTE OF JUDGE RUEDA LEAL DUE TO VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL RESERVE.** First of all, I note that I partially dissented from the vote in judgments nos. 2023-000355, 2023-000357, and 2023-000359, all from 9:20 a.m. on January 11, 2023, which the Majority cites. Specifically, in judgment no. 2023-000355, together with Magistrate Garita Navarro, I dissented from the vote and partially granted the action for violation of the principle of legal reservation in tax matters, based on these considerations:

“VIII.- Dissenting vote of Magistrates Rueda Leal and Garita Navarro regarding the grievance related to the Principle of Legal Reservation, with the drafting of the latter. With the utmost respect and consideration, we disagree with the resolution of the majority of the Chamber regarding the alleged violation of the principle of legal reservation in tax matters, as we consider that the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice questioned here does injure that constitutional principle, based on the considerations set forth below:

• 1)On the principle of legal reservation in tax matters. Based on the constitutional norms and principles developed in Considerandos VII and VIII of judgment No. 2022-023955, the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios), Law 4755 of May 3, 1971, adopts the constitutional provision in its numeral 5, by expressly indicating that the creation, modification, and elimination of taxes is a matter reserved to the law issued by the Legislative Power, as follows:

“Article 5.- Matter exclusive to the law. In tax matters, only the law may: a) Create, modify or suppress taxes; define the taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax relationship; establish the tax rates and their calculation bases; and indicate the taxable person (sujeto pasivo); b) Grant exemptions, reductions, or benefits; c) Classify violations and establish the respective sanctions; d) Establish privileges, preferences, and guarantees for tax credits; and e) Regulate the modes of extinguishment of tax credits by means other than payment (…)." That is, it is determined that prior to demanding the tax obligation, the essential and structural elements of the tax -taxable event, rate, tax base, active subject and taxable person, fiscal period- must be established, which have to be expressly defined in the law and must conform to the constitutional principles of legal reservation, economic capacity, equality, non-confiscation, progressivity, among others. The foregoing is related to the constitutional principle, also of constitutional rank, of legal certainty, according to which, prior to the accrual of the tax obligation to make the respective payment, taxpayers must be aware of them.

For its part, Article 11 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures provides, in relation to the foregoing:

“Article 11.- Concept. The tax obligation arises between the State or other public entities and the taxable persons as soon as the taxable event provided for in the law occurs; and it constitutes a bond of a personal nature, even if its fulfillment is secured through a real guarantee or with special privileges.” In this regard, this Constitutional Court, in judgment 2003-06316 from 2:08 p.m. on July 3, 2003, cited judgment 10134-99 from 11:00 a.m. on December 23, 1999, which defined the figure of the tax and its different types as follows:

“«Costa Rican legal doctrine has traditionally followed the most generalized positions regarding the definition of the concept of tax and its tripartite classification (taxes (impuestos), levies (tasas), and special contributions (contribuciones especiales)). In a generic sense, it has been considered, from the perspective of financial law doctrine, that the tax is a mandatory payment, commonly in money, demanded by the State by virtue of its power of imperium and which gives rise to legal relationships of public law. National legislation followed the model of the Tax Code for Latin America and in Article 4 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Tax Code), it was based on the classic concept to express that "taxes are payments in money (taxes (impuestos), levies (tasas), and special contributions (contribuciones especiales)), which the State, in the exercise of its power of imperium, demands in order to obtain resources for the fulfillment of its purposes." Subsequently, it defined the three possible modalities of the tax, as follows:

"Tax (Impuesto) is the tax whose obligation has as its taxable event a situation independent of all state activity relative to the taxpayer.

Levy (Tasa) is the tax whose obligation has as its taxable event the effective or potential provision of an individualized public service to the taxpayer; and whose proceeds must not have a destination unrelated to the service that constitutes the reason for the obligation.

The consideration received from the user in payment for services not inherent to the State is not a tax.

**Special Contribution (Contribución Especial)** is the tax whose obligation has as its taxable event (hecho generador) benefits derived from the execution of public works or state activities, whether carried out in a decentralized manner or not; and whose proceeds must not be destined for purposes other than the financing of the works or activities that constitute the reason for the obligation (…).

From this perspective, once the Legislative Branch creates taxes and establishes their regulatory framework, defining their essential elements, the taxable event, the tax rate and its calculation bases, as well as the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) and its tax period, those responsible for applying the tax regime act, with the Ministry of Finance, through the Dirección General de Tributación, assuming tax administration through auditing and verification actions, for the purpose of collecting the taxes established in the current tax regulations, and the Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, which resolves administrative tax disputes between the taxpayer and the Dirección General de Tributación, a body of full jurisdiction and independent in its organization, functioning, and competence from the Executive Branch, whose rulings exhaust administrative remedies. Likewise, this power is assigned to the Decentralized Tax Administrations, by virtue of the provisions of canon 99 of the aforementioned Código Tributario, regarding the fiscal charges over which they have been assigned the power of tax management.

In this dynamic, it is insisted, the principle of legal reserve (reserva de ley) is a core component of the legal security and certainty of the tax system, principles that constitute guarantee schemes for the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo) and a parameter of validity for the various conducts of the Tax Administrations. As has been indicated, the tax obligation comes into legal existence when the taxable event (hecho generador) provided for by law and that typifies the respective tax is configured. It is from the materialization of the conduct that the legislator has defined as the objective element of the taxable event (hecho imponible), that the Legal System imposes on the respective subject, material duties (assessment and payment) and formal duties (registration, enrollment, deregistration, information, declaration, etc.) and therefore, at that moment, the set of competencies that are characteristic of the aforementioned fiscal power is attributed to the Administration, empowering it to require the fulfillment of those conducts that the normative plexus imposes on the taxpayer. More simply, the configuration of the conduct defined by law as the taxable event is the point of origin of the tax obligation and it is only from that moment that the legal-tax relationship arises and the person acquires the status of tax obligor, taxpayer, or taxpayer (sujeto pasivo). Such synergy imposes, without a doubt, an environment of certainty and security, so that individuals have clarity regarding the implications that their economic activities entail in the tax sphere. Hence, the clear and precise definition of the core and structural components of taxes, through formal law, is a pillar of the fiscal system, of its transparency and guarantee of tax justice, to the extent that it allows for objective and identifiable parameters regarding the various elements of tax categories and their elements. This is decisive in a fiscal system that presents tax structures that impose upon the obligated subject duties of self-assessment, self-declaration, and self-liquidation, which impose on them the burden of establishing which of their activities are subject to a particular tax, defining the tax base in their specific case, declaring their specific situation, and subsequently, paying the tax debt that, according to their analysis, they have established. Then, the Tax Administration, in the exercise of its determinative and auditing power, verifies the correct compliance with those obligations, requiring, as the case may be, the respective adjustments, or else, establishing the contributory duty for those who have not considered that those obligations apply to them. The foregoing is without prejudice to fiscal relationships that are satisfied through withholding-at-source figures, in which collection schemes such as the withholding agent or transfer agent are used. Hence, the legal reserve (reserva de ley) in the terms discussed is fundamental for an environment of security and neutrality in the management of fiscal relationships, preventing tax burdens from being imposed or modified based on criteria outside the law, generating risks of harm to the recipients of the tax power, and at the same time, it is insisted, it constitutes a parameter of control of the validity of administrative conduct, and an undoubted benchmark for the legitimacy of the obligations to be imposed on administered persons. For what is relevant in this case, as will be addressed below, the legal definition of the taxable event constitutes the cornerstone of said legal certainty, as it is the element from which the various legal obligations that a particular fiscal relationship entails become enforceable. It is not an element that can be left to interpretative liberality or the value judgment of the Administration, and must be clearly determined and fixed by law, as a consequence of the doctrine imposed by numeral 121 subsection 13 of the Constitución Política.

**2) Regarding the Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta.** The Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta (LISR) No. 7092 of April 21, 1988, is one of the most relevant laws in the Costa Rican tax system. This tax is characterized by having a schedular structure, to the extent that it establishes various tax manifestations according to the nature of the income upon which the rent falls, whether it involves income from profits derived from the economic activity of individuals (personas físicas) or legal entities (personas jurídicas), and on the other hand, a withholding-at-source scheme. Prior to the reform made by Law No. 9635, this regulation established the following tax schedules: taxes on the profits of individuals (personas físicas) or legal entities (personas jurídicas), and in the case of withholding at source: income from dependent personal work (salary tax), tax on disposable income, tax on securities and other financial instruments, tax on outward remittances, tax on withdrawals from complementary (voluntary) pension funds, and withholdings as advance payments of income tax (at 2% or 3%). With the reform introduced by Law No. 9635, said structural scheme is composed of the tax on the profits of individuals (personas físicas) and legal entities (personas jurídicas), and in the case of withholding at source, the manifestations of the salary tax, income from movable capital, income from immovable capital, income from securities, and outward remittances.

Within Chapter XI on capital income, regulations are adjusted regarding the various taxable situations, each with its respective tax treatment.

Now, it is pertinent to analyze the tax on profits, which taxes the income of individuals, legal entities, and collective entities without legal personality that carry out lucrative activities in the country from a Costa Rican source, as established in numeral 1 of the LISR, with the clarification that the following references are made in the context of the version of that regulation in force at the time the precedents that support the jurisprudential line of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, which constitutes the object of this action, were issued:

"Article 1.- Tax covered by the law, taxable event (hecho generador) and taxable matter. A tax is established on the profits of companies and individuals who carry out lucrative activities. (The preceding paragraph was thus added by Article 102 of the Extraordinary Budget Law, No. 7097 of August 18, 1988) The taxable event (hecho generador) of the tax on the profits referred to in the preceding paragraph is the receipt of income in cash or in kind, continuous or occasional, from any Costa Rican source. (The preceding paragraph was thus reformed and its numbering corrected by Article 102 of the Extraordinary Budget Law, No. 7097 of August 18, 1988, which transferred it from the first paragraph to the second) This tax also levies continuous or eventual income from a Costa Rican source, received or accrued by individuals or legal entities domiciled in the country; as well as any other income or benefit from a Costa Rican source not exempted by law, including income received by beneficiaries of export contracts for Tax Credit Certificates. The condition of being domiciled in the country shall be determined according to the regulation. The provisions of this law shall not be applicable to the environmental promotion and compensation mechanisms established in the Forest Law (Ley Forestal), No. 7575, of February 13, 1996. (The numbering of the preceding paragraph was corrected by Article 102 of the Extraordinary Budget Law, No. 7097 of August 18, 1988, which transferred it from the second paragraph to the third) (The preceding third paragraph was thus reformed by Article 1 of Law No. 7838 of October 5, 1998) For the purposes of the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, sales, income, or benefits from a Costa Rican source shall be understood as those coming from services rendered, goods located, or capital used in the national territory, which are obtained during the fiscal period in accordance with the provisions of this law." Based on the foregoing, to establish the existence and enforceability of the tax relationship between the taxpayer and the taxable event (hecho imponible), the criteria of subjection (criterios de sujeción), linkage, or connection are available, which are the determining elements for income to be affected by the Costa Rican tax system; that is, they are objective parameters for applying the tax regulations. Thus, the national tax regime, regarding income from profits, establishes the following criteria of subjection (criterios de sujeción):

• a)Income-product (renta producto) is understood as those incomes or benefits, continuous or occasional, coming from a Costa Rican source, that is, derived from goods located, services rendered, or capital used in the national territory. This concept seeks to impose the tax levy on the profit and not on the source producing the wealth, an economic component intended to remain intact. That is, the economic benefit (net) derived from the use of those factors of production (land, labor, and capital) is taxed, but not the value of those factors themselves. Hence, in accordance with that principle, Law No. 7092 itself establishes the figure of deductible expenses (Articles 8 and 9), which are applied to the gross income base to generate a diminishing or reducing effect on that reference, in order to obtain the net income, a concept which in turn constitutes the taxed income (see Articles 5 and 14 of the same law). The logic of this system is the tax recognition of expenses that are necessary to produce taxed income, provided they comply with the formal and substantial requirements imposed by Article 8 of the Income Tax Law. This means that the source producing the wealth is preserved and the profit is taxed, not the increase in equity itself.
• b)Schedularity (cedularidad) refers to the schedular (cedular) nature of the tax, which establishes different taxes, according to the types of income that will be taxed, based on the criteria chosen and established in the Law. As indicated, it entails the necessary distinction and differentiation of tax treatment according to the source of income production, which materializes in the definition (classification) of the respective taxable event (hecho generador).
• c)Territoriality (territorialidad), which only allows taxing income generated from a Costa Rican source. It is an objective link to the national territory, that is, income generated abroad cannot be taxed. This objective criterion is expressly found in the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, LISR) No. 7092, in its first article, a provision that specifies and details the objective parameters that allow establishing the relationship called "from a Costa Rican source." That precept states: "Article 1- (…) For the purposes of the provisions of the preceding paragraph, **income, revenues, or benefits from a Costa Rican source shall be understood as those generated in the national territory from services rendered, assets located, or capital utilized**, which are obtained during the fiscal period, in accordance with the provisions of this law (…)" (The bold highlighting does not belong to the original). In this way, the principle of territoriality arises, which constitutes a limitation directed at the Tax Administration (Administración Tributaria), so that it has a pre-established framework to be able to assess and demand contributions from persons or assets located within its territory.

Furthermore, the income tax (impuesto sobre las utilidades) is governed by the system of self-assessment (auto determinación), self-declaration (auto declaración), and self-settlement (auto liquidación) of the tax obligation, by virtue of which it is the taxpayer himself who is assigned the duty of initiative regarding the definition of the aspects that are inserted in his respective declaration and that have an impact on the settlement of the tax quota, under the requirements and on the dates established by the Tax Administration. However, said procedure, in the exercise of the sovereign powers of the Administration, is subject to review to determine the correct fulfillment of the tax burden, since if a difference is found, through the various determination mechanisms (on a certain basis, a presumptive basis, or an objective basis), it may impose a payment higher than that declared by the taxpayer, as well as establish any administrative sanctions that may correspond for potential infractions of tax regulations.

**3) Regarding the violation of the principle of legal reserve in tax matters with respect to the challenged jurisprudence.** The petitioner considers that the jurisprudence adopted by the First Chamber (Sala Primera) of the Supreme Court of Justice is unconstitutional, because it injures the principle of legal reserve, since, through an extensive interpretation of the concept of territoriality and the inclusion of the term called "economic link (vinculación económica)," it accepts that income generated abroad be taxed, considering them to be from a Costa Rican source because they were generated by a company located and domiciled in the country, or because Costa Rican capital is used.

Now, for the purposes of what is analyzed here, it is pertinent to cite Article 10 of the Civil Code, which provides that "Norms shall be interpreted according to the proper meaning of their words, in relation to the context, the historical and legislative background, and the social reality of the time in which they are to be applied, fundamentally attending to the spirit and purpose of them." In a similar sense, canon 10 of the General Law of Public Administration (Ley General de la Administración Pública) establishes teleological interpretation as a measure of protection of the public interest in the following sense:

"1. The administrative norm must be interpreted in the manner that best guarantees the realization of the public purpose to which it is directed, within due respect for the rights and interests of the individual.

2. It must be interpreted and integrated taking into account the other related norms and the nature and value of the conduct and facts to which it refers." In the sphere of tax law, Article 6 of the Code of Tax Norms and Procedures (Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios) imposes that the interpretation of those norms be subject to the rules and methods admitted by common law.

Thus, it regulates:

"**Article 6.- Interpretation of tax rules.** Tax rules must be interpreted in accordance with all methods admitted by Common Law. Analogy is an admissible procedure to 'fill legal gaps' but by virtue of it, taxes or exemptions cannot be created." (highlighting not in the original).

Likewise, article 8 of the same regulatory body establishes the following:

"**Article 8.- Interpretation of the rule regulating the taxable event of the tax obligation.** When the rule relating to the taxable event refers to situations defined by other legal branches, without expressly referring to or departing from them, the interpreter may assign it the meaning that best adapts to the reality considered by the law when creating the tax. The legal forms adopted by taxpayers do not bind the interpreter, who may attribute to the situations and acts that occurred a significance consistent with the facts, when it arises from the tax law that the taxable event of the respective obligation was defined attending to reality and not to legal form. When the legal forms are manifestly inappropriate to the reality of the taxed facts and this results in a decrease in the amount of the obligations, the tax law must be applied disregarding such forms." Based on the foregoing, it is clearly stated that the interpretation of tax regulations must be carried out respecting constitutional principles, in accordance with the purpose and spirit of the tax, that is, the interpretation must be declarative of the legislator's will at the time said tax was generated. Furthermore, the rule expressly *prohibits* analogy (a form of integration) as a means to create taxes or exemptions, as it is only permitted to fill possible legal gaps in tax rules.

Thus, the interpretation of the rules that regulate and govern fiscal activity must adhere to the logical procedure corresponding to each regulatory case. Moreover, in this exercise, it is necessary to consider that through interpretation it is not feasible to substitute the legislator's will regarding the configuration and specification of the fundamental elements of the tax, given that, it is reiterated, such basic structural components are a matter reserved for formal law. Otherwise, legitimizing through interpretation the creation, modification, or suppression of the elements of the tax that must be defined by law, injures the very basis of the democratic system and allows the Executive Branch to substitute the legislator, breaking the very logic of the principle of separation of functions established by precept 9 of the Fundamental Charter. Interpretation is a mechanism aimed at seeking the straightforward and correct application of the law, but by its virtue, the law cannot be surpassed, disregarded, or reformed.

Thus, the core point in this action revolves around defining whether the challenged jurisprudential standard constitutes an excess in defining the elements of the income tax on profits, by extending the scope of the material element of the taxable event to activities and income that, according to the plaintiff's claims, are not part of the taxable event. As has been indicated, this element must be expressly regulated by law, and it is unfeasible for that objective parameter—nuclear for a tax system that must guarantee legal certainty (seguridad jurídica), legitimate expectations (confianza legítima), and transparency as supporting rules for the rights and guarantees of the taxpayer (sujeto pasivo)—to be broadened through interpretation. Thus, it is necessary to examine whether the activity of investing funds abroad, carried out with capital generated in Costa Rican fiscal territory, forms part of the taxable event of the income category, given the application of the criterion of economic connection (vinculación económica) with the source, or if, on the contrary, that application transcends the territorial income scheme, as claimed by the petitioners.

On this particular matter, it is worth emphasizing the taxable event of the income tax on profits. Articles 1 and 2 of Law No. 7092, with the wording in effect at the time of the assessment procedures (procedimientos determinativos) by virtue of which the challenged jurisprudence was issued, define that element, indicating that this tax falls on the profits of individuals (personas físicas), legal entities (personas jurídicas), and collective entities without legal personality, domiciled in the country, that develop lucrative activities of Costa Rican source. Although the tax is defined on profits, it is conditioned on that economic product deriving from activities in which the factors of production (land, labor, and capital) that are of Costa Rican source are utilized. The taxation is established on all income received or accrued within the fiscal period, regardless of whether it is continuous or occasional, but, in addition, it falls on any patrimonial benefit that is not duly justified or supported. It should be noted that the taxation regime in question also falls on any patrimonial benefit that has not been expressly excluded from the tax, provided that said income or benefit derives from a Costa Rican source. Up to this point in the regulatory scheme, the relevance of the definition of the concept "of Costa Rican source" is observed, because it is this referent that allows the connection of the income to its respective tax charge.

Hence, immediately thereafter, the provision clarifies what is to be understood as Costa Rican-source income, specifying:

"For the purposes of the provisions in the preceding paragraphs, sales, income, or profits from Costa Rican sources shall be understood as those arising from services rendered, assets located, or capital utilized within the national territory, which are obtained during the tax period in accordance with the provisions of this law." The provision in question allows for establishing that, by express mandate of law, the concept of Costa Rican source refers to income or patrimonial profits that have been earned or received IN THE NATIONAL TERRITORY, from the rendering of services, the lease of assets, or the utilization of capital. Of course, in the context of the territorial element imposed by this normative scheme, the taxed income must be derived from the use of land or capital, as well as from the rendering of services within the Costa Rican fiscal territory. By logical derivation, the obtaining of income from the mere use of assets located in national territory imposes the duty to contribute, even for a party not domiciled in the country, since the material criterion allows that income to be considered Costa Rican-source. The same occurs with income associated with services rendered in Costa Rica, for, if the wealth is produced from that offering of services in national territory, the territorial criterion is imposed, and the party that rendered the activity becomes a liable subject, even if they are not a national fiscal resident. Of course, if the recipient of the income does not reside in the country, the remittance of the profits imposes upon the remitter the duty of withholding, under penalty of joint and several liability in that regard. Similarly, the use of capital in the country imposes a similar fiscal treatment, regardless of the origin of the funds or the capital utilized. The relevant factor is that the material activity of using capital from which an income, economic benefit, or credit right is obtained or produced occurs within the Costa Rican territorial jurisdiction, and to that extent, said income will be subject to the tax in question.

By contrast, when a Costa Rican fiscal resident obtains income derived from services rendered abroad, assets located abroad, or capital utilized outside the Costa Rican geographical limits, it cannot be considered Costa Rican-source and, to that extent, such income is excluded from the national fiscal power. Note that this is not a tax exemption (exención fiscal), since, as clearly established by numeral 61 in relation to 62 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, an exoneration (exoneración) supposes a legal dispensation from the material duty to contribute. That is, in exemptions, the taxable event (hecho generador) is configured, and therefore, a tax obligation exists; however, the legislator, expressly, imposes a liberation from the duty of payment (total or partial), either objectively or through the insertion of subjective conditions verifiable before the Tax Authority, as a requirement to enjoy the fiscal benefit. Precisely because a tax obligation exists, the non-exonerated duties persist, as is the case with formal obligations. The case alluded to configures, conversely, a non-subjection (no sujeción), a situation in which there is no fiscal duty whatsoever, since the activity is not included within the scope of the taxable event (which must be established by law). Thus, in non-subjections, it is not necessary for the law to define which income is excluded from the coverage parameter of the tax. Hence, non-subjections are defined through negative application or by discarding from the analysis of the taxable event; more simply, if the act or conduct of the subject is not included among those typified as a taxable act (hecho imponible), it is not taxed, without the need for an express norm to so indicate. Although Ley No. 7092 itself establishes in its numeral 6 cases of exclusion from gross income, this does not mean that any income not found within that list is subject to the tax. In essence, the subjection of wealth to the income tax (impuesto a las utilidades) is conditioned upon it deriving from a Costa Rican source, with the exceptions of unsupported income already alluded to, so that the patrimonial profits that the Costa Rican fiscal resident has not obtained from the use of the factors of production and situations defining Costa Rican-source income cannot be considered taxable income. Otherwise, extending the taxing power to those incomes not related to Costa Rican-source income would imply migrating toward a worldwide income system (renta mundial) (and not a territorial one), which imposes the duty of declaration and material contribution based on the totality of income generated by the passive subject, regardless of the place where they earned or received it. It would be a subjective subjection criterion, and not an objective territorial one, as is the one operating in the income scheme defined by Ley No. 7092. This is a fiscal vision that must be embodied in formal law; however, it is reiterated, this worldwide income system is not the one defining the national tax system for income tax (renta sobre las utilidades), which subjects them, it is reiterated, to the concept of Costa Rican source.

Thus, the fiscal treatment of those incomes that are not of Costa Rican source, in the case of territorial income tax systems, is subject to the tax regime of the country in which the income was produced. Once such income is repatriated, and the capital it represents is utilized in the country, the profits that such utilization may generate in Costa Rican territory are considered of national source, and to that extent, the profits—not the primary capital produced extra-territorially, from the fiscal standpoint—would be taxed.

In this sense, it is the criterion of the undersigned that the position established in the case law that is the subject of debate considers that the income generated by the use of national capital in foreign placement or temporary investment markets of monetary values, that is, that are placed in financial investment activities, is taxed in Costa Rica. The foregoing is based on the estimation that the concept of "appurtenance" ("pertenencia") or "linkage to the economic structure" ("vinculación a la estructura económica") applies in these stock exchange transactions. At its core, the logic of this position rests on the fact or circumstance that the primary capital used in the transaction with a foreign entity is of Costa Rican source, because that investment wealth was generated in the country and is held in Costa Rican accounts. Therefore, the mere placement in international securities does not imply a disconnection from the exercise of activities taxed by the income schedule.

As has been indicated, the use of capital that is taxed in these cases is that which has been utilized in Costa Rican territory. For this, the analysis does not fall upon the origin of the capital, but upon the place where that capital is used and the benefit is produced. From this angle of examination, although the base capital might have been generated in Costa Rica, the truth of the matter is that those items are placed in transitory investments of financial entities that are domiciled in other countries, and it is at the location of those entities that the legal transaction is concluded, by virtue of which the financial yield is produced. It is clear that, given the investment model, those resources are later repatriated to the original bank accounts from which the investments were made; however, that does not mean that those profits obtained from the use of national capital in foreign territory can be considered Costa Rican-source income.

The mere circumstance that the investing entities use that business model as a means of boosting profits through the use of available capital in order to maximize liquidity or obtain better returns, or that the investments in question are temporary and short-term, as in the case of so-called "overnight" investments, does not introduce a concrete element into the case file from which it could be affirmed that the income in question is Costa Rican source and, therefore, subject to the profits tax. Moreover, the regularity or otherwise of the use of this economic option also does not introduce an element of taxability, since the chargeable event defined by the legislator does not provide for a tax based on the habitual nature of that income model. The economic benefit that those financial entities may obtain by way of investment placement fees charged to clients is a different matter, since that activity derives from services provided in national territory, but the profit itself, which is obtained—it must be reiterated—from the use of capital abroad, is a different matter entirely. On this point, it is appropriate to cite the provisions of Article 6, subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law, which states:

"ch) Income generated by virtue of contracts, agreements, or negotiations regarding assets or capital located abroad, even if they were entered into and executed wholly or partially in the country." Note that this mandate excludes from taxation income generated from assets or capital located abroad, or services provided abroad, even if contracted in the country. This regulation is entirely consistent with the Costa Rican source income principle that has been referenced, in that it does not consider as subject to the tax, profits derived from services provided, capital located, or assets situated abroad, because those factors of production have not been used within national territory. Contrary to the position held by the public bodies that have participated in this process and what is expressed in the jurisprudential line of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice, it is our view that said provision does not constitute the legal basis for the taxation that has been imposed on the aforementioned income obtained from the temporary placement of Costa Rican capital in investments abroad. On one hand, regardless of the site where the legal transaction is considered perfected, the fact of the matter is that the capital involved is, ultimately, used abroad, and it is from that placement of securities that a profit is obtained. But that profit is based on the use of that capital in the investment accounts of entities domiciled abroad, not on the use of the capital in Costa Rica. Otherwise, the censured thesis would imply that every use of domestically sourced capital to obtain profits in other tax jurisdictions would be subject to national tax, under the consideration of an alleged economic link, leading to a worldwide income assumption that finds no provision or support in the letter of the norms regulating that tax relationship.

Similarly, we deem it necessary to clarify that the origin of the accounts from which funds are taken to be placed in temporary investments in foreign countries does not constitute an element upon which the taxation in question can be supported. Indeed, the concepts of location and placement to which the tax authorities allude, fundamentally seek to justify the thesis they have applied at the administrative level and which was adopted by the precedents of the high instance of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice. However, it is evident that the investment business entails displacement of account values and implies an unavailability of those funds for the period or time the investment lasts. The investor cannot dispose of those funds until they are released and made available by the international financial entity. Therefore, it cannot be said that those amounts continue to be located in Costa Rica, despite having been placed in international accounts. It involves a transfer of values for the purpose of placing them in an investment regime, agreed upon by the parties, in order to obtain a projected profit, in accordance with the risk and profitability analysis that characterize the business. Viewed thus, these are not profits generated in Costa Rica, nor can they be considered to fit within the legal concept of "Costa Rican source income," as they do not derive from capital used within national territory, but rather, on the contrary, are profits from the use of that capital in foreign securities markets.

The territoriality criterion endorsed by the First Chamber leads to the taxation of income forged with domestic capital produced in relation to an economic activity, regardless of where it is generated, an application that this Chamber deems broadens the chargeable event established by law, without having a normative basis that so enables it. Ergo, the income from investments made abroad with domestic capital cannot be considered Costa Rican source; therefore, under that concept, its taxation is not covered by the provisions of articles 1, 2, and 6 subsection ch) of Law No. 7092.

Thus, it is the view of the undersigned that the challenged jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is contrary to the principle of legal reserve in tax matters, developed in Article 121 subsection 13) of the Constitution, by establishing the possibility that the Tax Administration may tax income generated abroad through the profits tax. The foregoing, because the jurisprudential norm under analysis has broadened the chargeable event of the law, by including the figure of "belonging" or "link to the economic structure," which are neither defined nor established in the Income Tax Law (LISR) No. 7092. Thereby, it can be evidenced that, contrary to what was expressed by both the Administrative Tax Tribunal and the Attorney General's Office of the Republic, when establishing the chargeable event of the profits tax, the legislator did not contemplate the possibility of being able to tax income from abroad, much less established any taxation in relation to foreign income, based on it being produced by a company domiciled in the country or that Costa Rican source capital was used, in order to be taxed. On the contrary, in the third paragraph of Section 1 of the LISR, the legislator emphasized what should be understood as Costa Rican source income, benefits, or profits, within which, the type of income that has given rise to this action is not inferred.

Hence, contrary to what was argued by the Attorney General's Office of the Republic and the Administrative Tax Tribunal, we the undersigned magistrates consider that the interpretation contained in the challenged jurisprudential norm, according to which, by a criterion of economic link, income obtained from investments abroad made by companies domiciled in Costa Rica is included within the tax base for the calculation of the profits tax, on the grounds that the income-producing source is Costa Rican and the capital invested abroad is Costa Rican, and that therefore the returns obtained form part of the taxable income of the company in Costa Rica, has no basis in the legal provisions analyzed.

This constitutes an extensive legal interpretation of articles 1, 5, and 6, subsection ch) of the Income Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto Sobre la Renta), which alters the way the taxable base of a tax is determined, and therefore, in our opinion, the challenged jurisprudence is contrary to the Law of the Constitution.

This position contradicts the nature and spirit of the legislator at the time the essential elements of the income tax were generated. It is evident that the legislator did not contemplate within the income tax the possibility of taxing income originating from abroad, nor did it establish any imposition in relation to foreign income based on it being produced by a company domiciled in the country or on the use of capital from Costa Rican sources for it to be taxed.

Based on the foregoing, we consider that the interpretation made by the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is not in accordance with the provisions of the tax regulations, since what it is doing through its jurisprudence is taxing income that is not defined by law, which is contrary to Article 121, subsection 13) of the Political Constitution and generates legal uncertainty, because, as developed above, the Legislative Branch is the only body with the authority to create tax legal norms. Finally, we estimate that the interpretation of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice is also incompatible with the tax regulations, as it follows the subjective criterion, under which income is taxed regardless of where it was generated, considering only who produced the income to thus determine whether it is taxed or not. In this regard, it is important to remember that the Costa Rican tax system is applied based on the objective criterion of territoriality, meaning that, for the tax obligation to arise, it is essential that the income be generated on national soil, to thus be considered a Costa Rican source based on the principle of territoriality, which takes as its subject the place where the income was generated, to determine whether it can be taxed or not, in accordance with the legal system.

For the reasons stated, we estimate that the action of unconstitutionality should be declared partially granted regarding this point, because the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice challenged herein, through an extensive interpretation, subjects extraterritorial income to the income tax, which is not set forth in the taxable event (hecho generador) of the income tax and is contrary to the objective territorial criterion followed by the Costa Rican tax system. Consequently, we order the annulment of the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice contained in rulings 617-F-S1-2010 of 09:10 hours on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 of 08:50 hours on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 hours on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 of 13:05 hours on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 of 10:55 hours on March 23, 2017, for violating the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. Furthermore, as provided in Article 89 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, this unconstitutionality extends, by connection (conexidad), to all directives or general instructions of the tax administration directed at taxpayers that are covered by the jurisprudential norm we declare unconstitutional." The aforementioned reasoning was reiterated in rulings no. 2023-000357 and 2023-000359, both at 9:20 hours on January 11, 2023. Therefore, in the sub lite, I partially grant the action and order the annulment of the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice contained in rulings no. 617-F-S1-2010 of 09:10 hours on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 of 08:50 hours on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 hours on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 of 13:05 hours on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 of 10:55 hours on March 23, 2017, for violating the principle of legal reserve in tax matters. In addition, based on Article 89 of the Constitutional Jurisdiction Law, I declare that this unconstitutionality extends by connection (conexidad) to all directives or general instructions of the tax administration directed at taxpayers that are covered by the jurisprudential norm I deem unconstitutional.

**XI.- DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED TO THE CASE FILE (EXPEDIENTE)**. The parties are warned that if they have submitted 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 office within a maximum period of 30 business days counted from the notification of this judgment. Otherwise, all material not withdrawn within this period will be destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the "Regulation on the Electronic Judicial File before the Judiciary (Reglamento sobre Expediente Electrónico ante el Poder Judicial)", approved by the Full Court in Session No. 27-11 on August 22, 2011, article XXVI and published in Judicial Bulletin number 19 of January 26, 2012, as well as the agreement approved by the Superior Council of the Judiciary, in Session No. 43-12 held on May 3, 2012, article LXXXI.

**Por tanto:** The action is rejected on the merits. Judge Rueda Leal issues a dissenting vote and partially grants the action of unconstitutionality and, consequently, orders the annulment for being unconstitutional of the jurisprudence of the First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice contained in rulings 617-F-S1-2010 of 09:10 hours on May 20, 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 of 08:50 hours on January 27, 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 of 11:20 hours on April 7, 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 of 13:05 hours on September 22, 2016, and 326-F-S1-2017 of 10:55 hours on March 23, 2017, for violating the principle of legal reserve in tax matters.

Likewise, by connection, it orders the annulment of all general directives or instructions of the tax administration, directed at taxpayers, which are covered by the rules that are now declared unconstitutional.

Considerando III.—That on October 21, 2010, through minute 309-GO-2010, SINAC approved the updating of the environmental impact assessment (evaluación de impacto ambiental, EIA) of the Reventazón Hydroelectric Project, where compliance with the General Regulation on Procedures for EIA (Decreto N° 31849-MINAE) is stated.

Por tanto: Article 1.—To modify Article 19 of the Environmental Viability granted to ICE for the Reventazón Hydroelectric Project, specifically clause c), to read as follows:

• c)Compensation Payment for Environmental Services (Pago de Servicios Ambientales, PSA). The Developer, through the Forestry Engineer specializing in the PSA, shall serve as the technical liaison with FONAFIFO in coordinating the development of the PSA contract for the lands acquired, so that the Program for Payment of Environmental Services (PSA) is effectively implemented on the protected lands identified in the acquisition map of the Reventazón Hydroelectric Project (Anexo 2) and in compliance with Anexo 1 of the Resolution that granted the environmental viability (viabilidad ambiental), under the activities of Forest Protection (one hundred seventy-four hectares) and Forest Management (sixty-eight hectares), in the following sub-areas of the PSA Program of the Reventazón Hydroelectric Project identified by FONAFIFO, which are part of Anexo 1 of the Resolution and whose bounds and cartographic location are contained in Anexo 2, both annexed to this resolution.

The document of *** including coordinates in Annex 2 documents the Official Survey Map No. A-1106324-2010 associated with Plan G-726067-1995, which locates the spring (naciente). However, based on a technical visit, it was determined that the D-1 project is not located within the lifetime tenure (irreductibilidad) area of the spring (naciente) (see image).

<p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub">Luis Fdo.

Salazar A.</span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub; -aw-import:ignore">&nbsp;</span></p></td><td style="padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; 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" data-mce-src=""></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10.5pt; background-color:#ffffff"><span style="font-family:'TIMES NEW ROMAN'; font-size:7pt; vertical-align:sub">Jorge Araya G.</span></p></td></tr><tr><td style="padding-right:5.4pt; padding-left:5.4pt; 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\" data-mce-src=\" Ingrid Hess H.

Digitally Signed Document -- Verification code -- FILE No. 23-030920-0007-CO

Revisión del Documento  Res. Nº 2024003887 SALA CONSTITUCIONAL DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA. San José, a las nueve horas veinticinco minutos del catorce de febrero de dos mil veinticuatro .

Acción de inconstitucionalidad promovida por Anayansi Mora Palma, en su condición de apoderada especial judicial de Pan-American Life Insurance de Costa Rica S.A., cédula de persona jurídica nro. 3-101- 601884, contra la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, contenida en sentencias nro. 617-F-S1-2010 de las 9:10 horas del 20 de mayo de 2010, nro. 55-F-S1-2011 de las 8:50 horas del 27 de enero de 2011, nro. 475-F-S1-2011 de las 11:20 horas del 7 de abril de 2011, nro. 976-F-S1-2016 de las 13:05 horas del 22 de setiembre de 2016 y nro. 326-A-S1-2017 de las 10:45 horas del 23 de marzo de 2017.

Resultando:

1.- Por escrito recibido en esta Sala el 13 de diciembre de 2023, la accionante solicita que se declare inconstitucional la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, contenida en sentencias nro. 617-F-S1-2010 de las 9:10 horas del 20 de mayo de 2010, nro. 55-F-S1-2011 de las 8:50 horas del 27 de enero de 2011, nro. 475-F-S1-2011 de las 11:20 horas del 7 de abril de 2011, nro. 976-F-S1-2016 de las 13:05 horas del 22 de setiembre de 2016 y nro. 326-A-S1-2017 de las 10:45 horas del 23 de marzo de 2017, por estimar que infringe los principios constitucionales de reserva de ley, seguridad jurídica e igualdad, así como los artículos 6 y 7 de la Constitución Política. La accionante indica que, en cada una de esas sentencias, la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia analizó el artículo 1 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta (LISR), a partir del cual, concluyó que los ingresos generados u obtenidos fuera del territorio costarricense se encuentran gravados con el impuesto sobre las utilidades en Costa Rica debido a que mantienen una estrecha conexión o relación con la estructura económica costarricense. Señala, además, que tiene pleno conocimiento de las sentencias nro. 23955-2022, nro. 355-2023 y nro. 359-2023, emitidas todas por este Tribunal Constitucional, por las cuales, se declaró sin lugar -por mayoría- una serie de acciones inconstitucionalidad presentadas precisamente contra la misma jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. No obstante, estima que ha existido un cambio sobreviniente en las circunstancias que debe motivar a la Sala Constitucional a mutar de criterio. Afirma que ese cambio sobreviniente de las circunstancias es la reciente discusión y aprobación por el Poder Legislativo de la Ley nro. 10.381 del 14 de setiembre de 2023, denominada "Modificación a la ley N° 7092, Ley de impuesto sobre la renta, para lograr la exclusión de Costa Rica de la lista de países no cooperantes en materia fiscal de la Unión Europea", que modificó parcialmente el texto del artículo 1 de la LISR y que confirmó el sistema territorial de imposición que ha regido en Costa Rica. Sostiene que el 13 de febrero de 2023, el Gobierno de la República informó que el país había ingresado a la lista de países no cooperantes en materia fiscal de la Unión Europea, debido al incumplimiento de un compromiso adquirido el año anterior de reformar el sistema de imposición para gravar las rentas pasivas extraterritoriales antes del 31 de diciembre de 2022. En virtud de lo anterior, el 21 de febrero de 2023 se presentó en la Asamblea Legislativa un proyecto de ley tendiente a excluir al país de dicha lista. El proyecto también propuso una modificación al artículo 1 de la LISR, con el objetivo de precisar el criterio de imposición territorial que rige en nuestro país. Asevera que si bien, desde la versión original de la LISR, el país se ha caracterizado por tener un sistema de renta territorial, durante años la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia extendió dicho criterio de sujeción a una vinculación con la estructura económica de los contribuyentes para permitir el gravamen sobre ingresos extraterritoriales. Criterio que posteriormente validó la Sala Constitucional con los tres antecedentes antes citados. Sin embargo, con la aprobación de la reforma al artículo 1 de la LISR, mediante la Ley nro. 10.381, la Asamblea Legislativa se encargó de aclarar y armonizar de una vez por todas el criterio de sujeción vigente en Costa Rica. La versión reformada del citado artículo 1 expresamente dice que deberá entenderse por rentas, ingresos o beneficios de fuente costarricense los obtenidos dentro del territorio nacional según los límites geográficos establecidos en los artículos 5 y 6 de la Constitución Política, con independencia del origen de los bienes o capitales, el lugar de negociación sobre estos o su vinculación a la estructura económica en el territorio nacional. Dicha reforma no solo reafirma el sistema de imposición territorial que siempre ha regido en nuestro país, sino, también, que las rentas generadas de capitales localizados en el exterior, aunque se hubieren celebrado y ejecutado total o parcialmente en Costa Rica, no están sujetas al impuesto sobre las utilidades. Esta situación deja de lado cualquier vínculo que se pretenda enlazar con la estructura económica. Señala que el estudio del expediente legislativo nro. 23.581, que posteriormente se convirtió en la Ley nro. 10.381, deja claro que es potestad exclusiva de la Asamblea Legislativa la creación, modificación y supresión de los tributos, así como definir el hecho generador de la relación tributaria. Además, al tratarse de una ley posterior a las sentencias nro. 23955-2022, nro. 355-2023 y nro. 359-2023 de este Tribunal, que en su texto y discusión legislativa vino aclarar el alcance del artículo 1 original de la LISR, es plausible aseverar que nos encontramos ante un cambio sobreviniente en las circunstancias del ordenamiento jurídico. Manifiesta que este Tribunal Constitucional había indicado que “si la empresa accionante es una empresa domiciliada en Costa Rica, su fuente productora de renta es costarricense y el capital invertido en el extranjero es costarricense, los rendimientos obtenidos forman parte de los ingresos gravables de la empresa en Costa Rica, pues existe una vinculación económica entre los ingresos producidos en el extranjero y la fuente productora de empresa domiciliada en Costa Rica (...) Por ello, sin lugar a dudas, el criterio de vinculación económica deriva de la ley misma al considerar gravables los ingresos vinculados a la fuente productora de renta” (El resaltado no pertenece al original). Asevera que este criterio de vinculación económica ha sido superado al haber sido aclarado el alcance, actual y original, del principio de territorialidad, tras la aprobación y entrada en vigencia de la Ley nro. 10.381; por lo que evidentemente existe un cambio de circunstancias que puede motivar a este Tribunal a mutar de criterio y con ello declarar la inconstitucionalidad de las sentencias de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia que se impugnan, con el fin de salvaguardar los derechos fundamentales de los contribuyentes. Sostiene que ese cambio fundamental en las relaciones de la vida de los administrados no solo se manifiesta tras la aprobación de la Ley nro. 10.381, sino también a través de las afirmaciones hechas por el mismo Poder Ejecutivo en su solicitud de veto parcial, por las cuales reconoce que, con la aprobación del proyecto de ley, quedaría claro que el principio de territorialidad del artículo 1 de la LISR ha estado limitado exclusivamente a los ingresos obtenidos en el territorio costarricense bajo el ámbito geográfico. Agrega que en el oficio PR-P-071-2023 del 14 de setiembre de 2023, firmado por el ministro de Hacienda y el presidente de la República, relativo al veto parcial del proyecto de ley aprobado en segundo debate y que está incorporado en el expediente legislativo de folio 1674 a 1685, se indica: "Sobre las implicaciones de la reforma del párrafo tercero del artículo 1. Esta modificación elimina por completo la aplicación del principio de territorialidad basado en la pertenencia económica y lo limita exclusivamente a ingresos que se obtengan dentro del territorio nacional bajo el ámbito geográfico, aspecto que impediría gravar con el impuesto sobre las utilidades aquellas rentas que tuvieron un origen directo en el país y fueron localizadas fuera para continuar incrementando el capital de las personas, sean físicas o jurídicas (...) La aplicación de un principio de territorialidad basado exclusivamente en el ámbito geográfico de un país, como lo establece el Decreto Legislativo de referencia, implica una debilitamiento del sistema tributario costarricense (...) Uno de los aspectos principales para la presentación del presente veto parcial es el posible impacto económico que esto podría significar (...) De la información señalada, la Administración estaría perdiendo ingresos por más de treinta y seis mil millones de colones, considerando los casos en proceso en sede administrativa y judicial. En este sentido, es importante aclarar que estos ingresos se estarían perdiendo debido a que los casos al estar en proceso y entrar en vigencia el Decreto Legislativo No. 10.381, las determinaciones realizadas por la Administración podrían ser dejadas sin efecto.” El proyecto de ley fue finalmente resellado por la Asamblea Legislativa y se convirtió en Ley de la República. La accionante estima que, con fundamento en los artículos 9 y 13 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, este cambio normativo debe motivar a este Tribunal Constitucional a mutar su criterio respecto a la situación fáctica inicial en procura de salvaguardar la seguridad jurídica y el interés público. De lo contrario, la vulneración de principios y normas constitucionales puede mantenerse en el tiempo y con ello se provocaría una dislocación en el ordenamiento jurídico entre lo resuelto previamente por esta Sala Constitucional y lo expresada por el propio legislador y el Poder Ejecutivo, generando incluso una desigualdad entre administrados en idénticas circunstancias. En cuanto al fondo, acusa una infracción al principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria resguardado en el inciso 13 del artículo 121 de la Constitución Política, por interpretación extensiva del principio de territorialidad y, consecuentemente, del artículo 6 de la Constitución Política y del principio de seguridad jurídica. Indica que el artículo 35 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios (CNPT) define al hecho generador o hecho imponible como el "presupuesto establecido por la ley para tipificar el tributo y cuya realización origina el nacimiento de la obligación". Agrega que dicho hecho generador debe analizarse desde el plano subjetivo y objetivo y este último desde un aspecto temporal, cuantitativo y espacial. En lo referente específicamente a la dimensión espacial del hecho imponible, se trata de un criterio de sujeción que refiere al ámbito geográfico de vigencia de la norma en el que el hecho imponible produce su efecto o, en otras palabras, el aspecto espacial precisa el lugar donde se materializa el hecho generador. Asevera que, en nuestro ordenamiento jurídico, ese aspecto espacial se localiza en el artículo 1 de la LISR, del cual se desprende que Costa Rica prosigue un sistema de renta territorial, es decir, únicamente estarán gravados los ingresos obtenidos dentro de la jurisdicción costarricense. Alega que si bien dicho criterio de sujeción quedó plasmado normativamente en la versión original de la LISR desde 1999, durante años la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia lo extendió a uno relacionado con la vinculación a la estructura económica del contribuyente. Indica que debe remitirse a los criterios de sujeción que diseñan la política fiscal, es decir, a los elementos que determinan si un ingreso o un sujeto están afectos o no a determinado tributo. Los criterios de sujeción pueden ser personales o subjetivos (refieren a situaciones en las que existe un vínculo relacionado con la propia naturaleza del individuo o del contribuyente, que se definen por ejemplo en virtud de la condición de nacional o de residente fiscal) y reales u objetivos (aquel que no toma en consideración al individuo, sino al origen de la renta en determinado territorio). La aplicación de un criterio de sujeción personal da lugar al principio de renta mundial, mientras que la aplicación de un criterio real u objetivo desemboca en el principio de territorialidad. El sistema de renta mundial busca gravar la renta o beneficios de los residentes y/o nacionales de determinada jurisdicción, indistintamente del lugar donde se encuentran o hayan obtenido los ingresos, que es el caso de los países exportadores de capital. Este modelo es principalmente utilizado en las jurisdicciones desarrolladas y se sustenta en que quien ostente la consideración de residente, deberá tributar en su país de residencia por el total de ingresos obtenidos en el desarrollo de su actividad, sin importar el lugar en que se obtuvieron los mismos. Dicho sistema permitiría gravar los ingresos obtenidos en el exterior, ya que el mismo modelo busca justamente otorgarle al Estado en el cual el contribuyente es residente el poder soberano de recaudar impuestos con independencia del lugar de percepción. De manera lógica, quienes opten por implementar este modelo de tributación, deberán garantizarles a sus residentes que el sistema fiscal cuenta con las medidas internas de alivio fiscal para evitar que una misma renta sea sometida al pago de impuestos doblemente. Esto se logra estableciendo dentro de las normas tributarias la posibilidad que el residente fiscal pueda deducir el impuesto aplicado en el país fuente o bien permitir un crédito fiscal sobre el impuesto que fue retenido en el exterior. De esta forma, para mantener lo que en comercio se denomina la neutralidad en las exportaciones e importaciones y evitar que asimetrías en el tratamiento fiscal puedan generar problemas de competitividad del país, es lógico que el país de residencia del contribuyente grave la renta mundial, pero reconozca el impuesto que el contribuyente pagó en el país fuente. Sostiene que, con base en esta explicación, es viable arribar a la primera conclusión: Costa Rica no posee un sistema de renta mundial y, por tanto, tampoco posee normas internas que permitan acreditar el impuesto pagado en el país fuente. Nuestro país no sigue el criterio de sujeción personalista y tampoco contempla el ordenamiento jurídico medidas internas -típicas en este tipo de jurisdicciones- para aliviar la doble imposición. Por otro lado, el criterio o principio de territorialidad, de aplicación mayoritaria en países receptores de capital como lo es Costa Rica, busca gravar las rentas generadas por los contribuyentes en un determinado territorio. De esta forma, corresponde a un criterio de sujeción a partir del cual la vinculación a un sistema fiscal está determinada por la fuente de la renta, es decir, se gravarán las rentas en el lugar de generación de las mismas. A diferencia de lo que sucede con el criterio de renta mundial, este otro atiende a una relación entre el elemento objetivo del hecho imponible y el sujeto activo de la imposición (criterio de vinculación objetiva); sistema que no rige en Costa Rica. Así, es necesario precisar que la territorialidad en nuestro país responde a que el elemento objetivo espacial del hecho generador se circunscribe a los "provenientes de cualquier fuente costarricense", "en territorio nacional" o "actividades o negocios de carácter lucrativo en el país", excluyendo expresamente el inciso ch) del artículo 6 las rentas generadas fuera de territorio costarricense, incorporando inclusive la frase "aunque se hubieren celebrado y ejecutado total o parcialmente en el país". Es decir, aun cuando esto último ocurra, esos ingresos han de considerarse extraterritoriales por escapar del elemento espacial del tributo. Lo anterior se refuerza aún más con la reforma que sufrió el artículo 1 de la LISR, mediante Ley nro. 10.381, en la que se aclaró, afianzó y consolidó el sistema territorial que rige en Costa Rica con el propósito de brindar seguridad jurídica a los contribuyentes. Con ello, la interpretación esgrimida por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia y que fue avalada por este Tribunal Constitucional, queda absolutamente desfasada y su existencia implica una vulneración al principio de reserva legal en materia tributaria y al principio de seguridad jurídica. Señala que el principio de reserva de ley implica que la regulación de ciertas materias queda expresamente sometida a la existencia de una ley formal. En materia tributaria, encuentra fundamento constitucional en el inciso 13) del artículo 121 de la Carta Política, el cual reconoce que será la Asamblea Legislativa, mediante el procedimiento previsto por ley, la encargada de "establecer los impuestos y contribuciones nacionales, y autorizar los municipales". Dicha disposición constitucional debe leerse concomitantemente con el numeral 5 del CNPT. Por esta razón, cuando se habla de creación de tributos debe entenderse como aquella potestad tributaria que ostenta el Estado para establecerlos. Este Tribunal Constitucional ha definido al citado principio como aquel que garantiza que la creación, modificación o supresión de tributos, la definición del hecho generador de la relación tributaria, así como el otorgamiento de exenciones o beneficios, solo pueda disponerse por ley formal. La exigencia de intervención de ley formal para la creación del tributo y la regulación de sus elementos esenciales puede y debe explicarse desde la perspectiva del derecho del contribuyente a la certeza y a la seguridad jurídica. Es plausible aseverar que el principio constitucional de reserva de ley en materia tributaria establece que el hecho generador del impuesto debe ser determinado por el Legislador, siendo improcedente que otro poder del Estado, como lo sería el Ejecutivo o el Judicial (en el presente asunto), pueda modificar a través de una interpretación cualquiera de sus elementos (como sucede con el elemento objetivo espacial). No obstante, la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en la jurisprudencia objeto de esta acción, amplió tal hecho generador para gravar rentas generadas en el exterior o capitales localizados fuera de nuestra jurisdicción en clara contravención del citado principio de reserva de ley. El criterio de "vinculación con la estructura económica costarricense" que sigue la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia amplía de forma inconstitucional el elemento espacial del hecho generador para que un ingreso obtenido fuera del territorio nacional pueda ser gravado como "fuente costarricense", aún y cuando por mandato expreso del Legislador se prohíbe. Es ante esa interpretación que se vulnera el principio constitucional de reserva de ley que resguarda el inciso 13) del artículo 121 de la Constitución, pues con ella la Sala Primera asume una competencia que es exclusiva del Poder Legislativo. La interpretación de la Sala Primera introduce un criterio subjetivo de imposición, puesto que a partir de esta se estaría gravando a los contribuyentes por el simple hecho de ser domiciliados en Costa Rica, aunque sus rentas sean obtenidas en el extranjero. Lo anterior es propio en un sistema de renta mundial, como se dijo previamente, no territorial como el que impera en Costa Rica. Sin embargo, la infracción constitucional no se queda únicamente ahí, sino que su reiterado razonamiento también se ha encargado de violentar el artículo 6 de la Constitución Política que dispone: "El Estado ejerce la soberanía completa y exclusiva en el espacio aéreo de su territorio, en sus aguas territoriales en una de doce millas a partir de la línea de baja mar a lo largo de sus costas, en su plataforma continental y en su zócalo insular de acuerdo con los principios del Derecho Internacional. Ejerce además, una jurisdicción especial sobre los mares adyacentes a su territorio en una extensión de doscientas millas a partir de la misma línea a fin de proteger, conservar y explotar con exclusividad todos los recursos y riquezas naturales existentes en las aguas, el suelo y el subsuelo de esas zonas, de conformidad con aquellos principios". Véase que la norma es clara, el Estado ejercerá su soberanía sobre el espacio aéreo, territorial y marítimo del país, límites restringidos claramente a aspectos geográficos. De ahí que, pretender gravar ingresos obtenidos fuera de nuestra jurisdicción por una aparente "vinculación económica" indudablemente irrespeta el artículo 6 traído a colación, debido a que el Estado costarricense (concretamente la Administración Tributaria) estaría ejerciendo su soberanía sobre espacios fuera de Costa Rica. De hecho, nótese que la reforma operada al artículo 1 de la LISR, mediante Ley nro. 10.381, es diáfana en indicar que por rentas, ingresos, o beneficios de fuente costarricense deberán entenderse los obtenidos en territorio nacional según los límites geográficos de los artículos 5 y 6 de la Carta Magna, con independencia del origen de sus bienes o capitales, el lugar de negociación sobre estos o su vinculación a la estructura económica en el territorio nacional. Insiste que al reformarse el artículo 1 de la LISR, el Poder Legislativo reafirmó el sistema de imposición territorial que siempre ha regido en Costa Rica. Basta con revisar las actas del expediente legislativo nro. 23.581 para corroborar que los (as) señores (as) diputados (as) de la República, al momento de discutir la reforma comentada en el Plenario, dejaron en manifiesto que el sistema territorial es el que siempre ha imperado en nuestro país y la necesidad de aclararlo a nivel normativo es llanamante para acabar con las irregularidades que por años ha cometido la Administración Tributaria, amparada en los antecedentes de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. Tras la aprobación y posterior publicación de la Ley nro. 10.381 en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta nro. 180 del 2 de octubre de 2023, está más que claro que es potestad exclusiva de la Asamblea Legislativa la creación, modificación y supresión de los tributos, así como definir el hecho generador de la relación tributaria. Indica, nuevamente, que la aprobación de la comentada ley es la base para que este Tribunal pueda modificar el criterio vertido en las sentencias nro. 23955-2022, nro. 355-2023 y nro. 359-2023, pues, a partir de lo anterior, queda demostrado que es indudable que la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera violenta el principio de reserva de ley. Afirma que de mantenerse en vigor el razonamiento de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia se estaría ante una manifiesta infracción del principio de seguridad jurídica. Señala que el principio de seguridad jurídica debe entenderse como la confianza que los ciudadanos depositan en el ordenamiento jurídico con el propósito de observar y respetar normas válidas y vigentes para diversas situaciones. Si bien en Costa Rica la seguridad jurídica como principio constitucional no encuentra sustento exclusivo en alguna norma de la Carta Fundamental, este sí se infiere de la lectura de un conjunto de normas constitucionales y de los pronunciamientos emitidos por este Tribunal. La jurisprudencia de esta Sala Constitucional ha señalado que la seguridad jurídica es la garantía que brinda el ordenamiento jurídico a las personas para que sepan a qué atenerse. Este Tribunal también ha mencionado que el principio de seguridad jurídica está vinculado con el principio de reserva de ley. Por tal razón, al infringir la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia el principio de reserva de ley, consecuentemente se violenta también el principio de seguridad jurídica. Ello se refuerza todavía más con el simple hecho que mantener la interpretación errada de la Sala de Casación, tras la entrada en vigencia de la Ley nro. 10.381, crearía un ambiente de inseguridad e incerteza jurídica para miles de contribuyentes. También reclama una infracción al articulo 7 de la Constitución Política, por oponerse la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia a convenios internacionales, en particular, a los convenios para evitar la doble imposición del impuesto sobre la renta y sobre el patrimonio celebrados por Costa Rica con los Estados de Alemania, España, México y Emiratos Árabes Unidos. Como se ha indicado, existen dos criterios de sujeción distintos, uno de renta mundial y otro de renta territorial, este último el que sigue nuestro país a partir de lo dispuesto expresamente por el legislador. En igual sentido, en líneas atrás se mencionó que el sistema de renta mundial busca gravar la renta o beneficios de los residentes y/o nacionales de determinada jurisdicción indistintamente del lugar donde se encuentren o hayan obtenido los ingresos, que es el caso de los países exportadores de capital. Por tal motivo, quienes opten por implementar un criterio de sujeción de renta mundial deben garantizarles a sus residentes medidas internas de alivio fiscal para evitar que una misma renta sea sometida al pago de impuestos doblemente. Una herramienta para lograrlo, son los convenios internacionales para evitar la doble imposición que se celebran entre Estados y que contienen una serie de disposiciones normativas para evitar la doble imposición jurídica internacional que puede surgir como producto de operaciones transfronterizas. Costa Rica ha celebrado convenios para evitar la doble imposición con Alemania, España, México y Emiratos Árabes Unidos, conteniendo cada de ellos, así como los respectivos protocolos (aplica únicamente para el caso de Alemania y España), disposiciones que refieren al citado principio de territorialidad aplicable para el caso de Costa Rica. De lo dispuesto en tales instrumentos se deriva que Costa Rica prosigue un criterio de sujeción de renta territorial que, contrario a la tesis sostenida por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, se limita estrictamente al espacio geográfico y no tiene relación alguna con la supuesta "vinculación económica". En concordancia con los artículos 1, 2, 5 y ch) 6 de la LISR, los convenios citados son lúcidos en indicar que las rentas serán de fuente costarricense cuando se obtengan dentro de nuestros límites geográficos, los cuales, en atención al artículo 6 de la Constitución Política, comprenden el territorio, el espacio aéreo, las áreas marítimas (incluyendo el subsuelo y el fondo marino adyacente al límite exterior del mar territorial). Por lo anterior, se insiste en que todo aquel ingreso, renta o beneficio que se obtenga fuera de tales límites, será una renta de carácter extraterritorial y por ende estará no sujeta al impuesto a las utilidades en Costa Rica. De ahí que, la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia es contraria a las disposiciones normativas contenidas en los convenios para evitar la doble imposición celebrados con Alemania, España, México y Emiratos Árabes Unidos. Alega, adicionalmente, que la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia actualmente también estaría violentando el principio de igualdad tributaria. Si bien en el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense no existe norma constitucional que precise o fije un principio de igualdad tributaria de forma expresa, como sí sucede por ejemplo en España, este se desprende de la lectura conjunta de los artículos 18 y 33 de la Carta Magna. A partir de tales disposiciones constitucionales, es plausible aseverar que todos los ciudadanos deben estar sujetos a las mismas cargas públicas sin crear discriminación alguna. Sin embargo, es este Tribunal Constitucional quien realmente se ha encargado de desarrollar ampliamente el principio de igualdad tributaria. Cita las sentencias nro. 5749-93 y nro. 8196-1999. Asevera que bajo este contexto, actualmente, tras la aprobación de la Ley nro. 10.381, que reformó el artículo 1 de la LISR, se evidenció que el razonamiento esgrimido por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en las sentencias nro. 617-F-S1-2010, nro. 55-F-S1-2011, nro. 475-F-S1-2011, nro. 976-F-Sl-2016 y nro. 326-A-S1-2017 es inconstitucional y, de mantenerla vigente, se estaría tratando desigualmente a contribuyentes en igual situación. Verbigracia, en el caso de su representada, la Administración Tributaria le siguió un proceso de fiscalización para el impuesto sobre la renta (utilidades) del período fiscal 2017 en el que recalificó ingresos obtenidos fuera de la jurisdicción costarricense como gravables a partir del criterio de "vinculación económica" prohijado por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. Es probable que muchos otros contribuyentes hayan pasado por la misma situación, en el sentido de que antes de octubre de 2023 la Administración Tributaria haya iniciado procesos de auditoría contra sujetos pasivos en los que acudió a la jurisprudencia de la Sala de Casación para justificar ajustes por ingresos obtenidos fuera de Costa Rica. No obstante, de la discusión legislativa queda claro que el principio de territorialidad, tal cual fue entendido por la Sala Primera, no era coincidente con la intención del legislador, y si en la actualidad la Administración Tributaria le iniciara a un contribuyente un proceso de auditoría, tras la aprobación de la Ley nro. 10.381, no podrá recurrir a esa jurisprudencia para justificar un ajuste fiscal por ingresos extraterritoriales debido a que el Poder Legislativo aclaró el sistema de renta territorial que rige nuestro ordenamiento tributario. Esa imposibilidad material de valerse de esa jurisprudencia indudablemente crea un escenario de desigualdad tributaria, pues mientras cientos de contribuyentes se enfrentan a procesos litigiosos en los que tienen o tendrán que defenderse del criterio de vinculación económica adoptado por la Sala Primera que extiende el principio de territorialidad, como es el caso de su representada, otros cientos de contribuyentes fueron beneficiados y contra estos la Administración Tributaria no podrá aplicar tal criterio de vinculación económica, sino que únicamente se podrán gravar aquellas rentas obtenidas en territorio costarricense de acuerdo con los límites geográficos del artículo 6 de la Carta Magna. Es decir, se está en presencia de situaciones de hecho diferentes en las que se trata desigualmente a iguales. Así las cosas, es plausible aseverar que la desigualdad acusada carece de una justificación objetiva y razonable, este es: no hay razones de fondo para que unos puedan ser fiscalizados prosiguiendo un criterio de vinculación económica y otros no. Por tal motivo, ante el cambio sobreviniente de circunstancias (la entrada en vigencia de la Ley nro. 10.381), la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia genera un estado de desigualdad tributaria en el ordenamiento jurídico costarricense y así debe ser reconocido por este Tribunal. Solicita se acoja la presente acción de inconstitucionalidad.

2.- A efectos de sustentar su legitimación, la accionante indica que el artículo 75 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional exige, para efectos de admisibilidad de una acción de inconstitucionalidad, la existencia de un asunto previo de resolver sea en vía judicial o administrativa, en el cual debe invocarse la inconstitucionalidad como medio razonable para defender los derechos o intereses que se consideren lesionados. En el caso concreto, dicho asunto previo lo constituye el proceso jurisdiccional tramitado ante el Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, bajo expediente judicial nro. [Valor 001]; el cual, actualmente, se encuentra pendiente de sentencia. Asevera que en tan proceso, en el líbelo de demanda, se invocó la inconstitucionalidad de la jurisprudencia de Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, que ha sido aplicada en su caso concreto, por parte de la Administración Tributaria.

3.- Por medio de oficio del 11 de enero de 2024, se solicitó al Tribunal Procesal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, que remitiera a esta Sala el expediente judicial que se tramita con el número [Valor 001], que es proceso de conocimiento de Pan-American Life Insurance de Costa Rica S.A. contra el Estado.

4.- El 25 de enero de 2024 se asoció a este expediente, copia del expediente que se tramita con el número [Valor 002].

5.- El artículo 9 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional faculta a la Sala a rechazar de plano o por el fondo, en cualquier momento, incluso desde su presentación, cualquier gestión que se presente a su conocimiento que resulte ser manifiestamente improcedente, o cuando considere que existen elementos de juicio suficientes para rechazarla, o que se trata de la simple reiteración o reproducción de una gestión anterior igual o similar rechazada.

Redacta el Magistrado Castillo Víquez; y,

Considerando:

I.- SOBRE LA LEGITIMACIÓN. La parte accionante se tiene como legitimada para interponer esta acción, con base en el artículo 75, párrafo 1°, de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, por existir un asunto previo pendiente de resolver que se tramita en expediente nro. [Valor 001], que es proceso de conocimiento de Pan-American Life Insurance de Costa Rica S.A. en contra del Estado, en el que se invocó la inconstitucionalidad de la jurisprudencia aquí impugnada, por haber sido aplicada en el caso de la accionante por parte de la Administración Tributaria.

II.- OBJETO DE ESTA ACCIÓN. La parte accionante interpone esta acción de inconstitucionalidad contra la línea jurisprudencial de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, contenida -específicamente- en las sentencias nro. 617-F-S1-2010, nro. 55-F-S1-2011, nro. 475-F-S1-2011, nro. 976-F-S1-2016 y nro. 326-F-S1-2017, atinente a la interpretación del artículo 1 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta. Se alega, en concreto, que la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia incurrió en una interpretación extensiva de la ley, por medio de la cual amplió el hecho generador del impuesto sobre las utilidades, para gravar ingresos generados u obtenidos fuera del territorio costarricense, con el criterio que mantienen una estrecha conexión o vinculación con la estructura económica costarricense. Alega una infracción a los principios constitucionales de reserva de ley y de seguridad jurídica, en relación con los artículos 6 y 7 de la Constitución Política. La parte accionante indica que sabe de la existencia de precedentes de esta Sala en que se desestimaron sendas acciones de inconstitucionalidad interpuestas contra esa misma línea jurisprudencial, pero alega que existe un hecho nuevo que justifica modificar el criterio de este Tribunal Constitucional, como lo es la promulgación de la Ley nro. 10.381 del 14 de setiembre de 2023, denominada "Modificación a la ley N° 7092, Ley de impuesto sobre la renta, para lograr la exclusión de Costa Rica de la lista de países no cooperantes en materia fiscal de la Unión Europea", que modificó parcialmente el texto del artículo 1 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta y que confirmó el sistema territorial de imposición que ha regido en Costa Rica, que está limitado exclusivamente a los ingresos obtenidos en el territorio costarricense bajo el ámbito geográfico. Asegura que, con tal reforma legal, tanto la interpretación esgrimida por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, como por este Tribunal Constitucional, queda absolutamente desfasada.

III.- SOBRE EL FONDO. La propia parte accionante reconoce que este Tribunal se pronunció, recientemente, sobre la constitucionalidad de la referida línea jurisprudencial. Lo anterior, en la acción de inconstitucionalidad nro. 20-007518-0007-CO, en la cual se impugnó la jurisprudencia emitida por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, plasmada en los citados votos números 326-F-S1-2017, 976-F-S1-2016, 475-F-S1-2011, 55-F-S1-2011 y 617-F-S1-2010, tocante a la interpretación de los artículos 1, 5 y 6, inciso ch), de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta (Ley nro. 7092), en relación con el principio de territorialidad en materia tributaria, por estimarse que tal pauta jurisprudencial resultaba contraria a la literalidad de los citados artículos de la Ley nro. 7902, vulnerando así los principios de reserva de ley, capacidad económica y doble imposición. La mencionada acción de inconstitucionalidad fue declarada sin lugar, por voto de mayoría, mediante sentencia nro. 2022-023955 de las 16:42 horas del 12 de octubre de 2022. Luego, mediante voto nro. 2022-023958 de las 9:20 horas del 14 de octubre de 2022, se dispuso corregir el error material de la parte dispositiva de la citada sentencia nro. 2022-023955, para que se leyera de la siguiente manera:

“Por unanimidad, se rechaza la gestión de coadyuvancia incoada por Antonio Vargas Villalobos, en su condición de apoderado generalísimo sin límite de suma de Coca-Cola Industrias Ltda. Por mayoría, se declaran sin lugar las acciones de inconstitucionalidad acumuladas en cuanto al agravio de infracción al principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria. El magistrado Garita Navarro salva el voto y declara parcialmente con lugar las acciones de inconstitucionalidad acumuladas y, en consecuencia, dispone anular por inconstitucional la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia contenida en las sentencias 617-F-S1-2010 de las 09:10 horas del 20 de mayo de 2010, 55-FS1-2011 de las 08:50 horas del 27 de enero de 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 de las 11:20 horas del 07 de abril de 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 de las 13:05 horas del 22 de setiembre de 2016 y 326-F-S1-2017 de las 10:55 horas del 23 de marzo de 2017, por vulnerar el principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria. De igual manera, por conexidad, dispone la anulación de todas las directrices o instrucciones generales de la administración tributaria, dirigidas a los contribuyentes, que tienen cobertura en las normas que ahora se declaran inconstitucionales. Por unanimidad, se declaran sin lugar las acciones acumuladas en cuanto a los alegatos de infracción a los principios de capacidad económica y de doble imposición. Notifíquese este pronunciamiento a las partes y a la autoridad judicial que conoce del asunto previo.” Criterio reiterado, luego, en los votos 2023-000355, 2023-000357 y 2023-000359, al conocer de diversas acciones de inconstitucionalidad interpuestas contra la misma línea jurisprudencial, en las que se acusaba -al igual que en el sub lite- una infracción a los principios constitucionales de reserva de ley y seguridad jurídica, así como de los artículos 6 y 7 de la Constitución Política. Por lo que ahora se procede a resolver la presente acción, con base en las consideraciones expuestas en las sentencias ya mencionadas.

IV.- SOBRE LA ALEGADA VIOLACIÓN AL PRINCIPIO DE RESERVA DE LEY Y LOS ARTÍCULOS 6 Y 121, INCISO 13, DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA. La parte accionante reclama que el criterio jurisprudencial de la Sala Primera -aquí impugnado- quebranta el principio de reserva de ley, debido a que, vía interpretación jurisdiccional, se establece un alcance ampliado del principio de territorialidad, que no se corresponde con lo dispuesto por el legislador en la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta y que supone la adopción de un concepto de renta mundial, contraviniendo el concepto de renta territorial que sigue el sistema de imposición sobre la renta costarricense, con el fin de gravar, sin sustento jurídico, rentas pasivas extraterritoriales con el impuesto sobre las utilidades. En cuanto a este aspecto, en la citada sentencia nro. 2022-023955, la mayoría de los integrantes del Tribunal Constitucional dispuso declarar sin lugar la acción y consideró que la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera acusada se circunscribía a la aplicación e interpretación correcta de las normas materiales vigentes "a la fecha que se practicaron las modificaciones a la empresa accionante y al emitir los fallos la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia", en cuanto a la determinación de la base imponible y, por ende, no se vulneraban los principios de reserva de ley y de legalidad tributaria. En este sentido, se indicó lo siguiente:

“(…) V.- El objeto de la acción. Los accionantes impugnan el criterio jurídico expresado por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, contenido en los votos números 617-F-S1-2010 de las 09:10 horas del 20 de mayo de 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 de las 08:50 horas del 27 de enero de 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 de las 11:20 horas del 07 de abril de 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 de las 13:05 horas del 22 de setiembre de 2016 y 326-F-S1-2017 de las 10:55 horas del 23 de marzo de 2017. Alegan que la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en su jurisprudencia adopta una interpretación extensiva del concepto de territorialidad, para establecer un gravamen vía interpretativa. Para determinar la sujeción de un ingreso generado en el exterior, y así ser gravado por el impuesto sobre las utilidades, considera que es un ingreso de fuente costarricense por haber tenido su origen en capital costarricense, porque el contribuyente utiliza una empresa localizada y domiciliada en el país y capital costarricense para generar la renta extraterritorial. Estiman que los elementos subjetivos adoptados en la jurisprudencia impugnada son propios de un sistema impositivo que se rige por el criterio de renta mundial, pese a que en Costa Rica el sistema que rige es un criterio objetivo a partir del principio de territorialidad. Por ello, indican que el criterio emanado resulta contrario a la literalidad de los artículos 1, 5 y 6 inciso ch) de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta n.° 7092, vulnerando así el principio de reserva de ley; el de capacidad económica y doble imposición.

VI.- Sobre la metodología de análisis de la acción. Para facilitar el estudio de la acción de inconstitucionalidad planteada, en los considerandos siguientes se analizarán en forma general las normas y principios constitucionales invocados, para, de seguido, analizar los agravios de inconstitucionalidad expuestos por los accionantes contra la jurisprudencia impugnada.

VII.- Sobre el poder tributario del Estado. Este Tribunal Constitucional en la sentencia n°1341-93 de las 10:30 horas del 29 de marzo de 1993, indicó lo siguiente respecto al poder tributario:

"II).- EL PODER TRIBUTARIO- El llamado "Poder Tributario"- potestad soberana del Estado de exigir contribuciones a personas o bienes que se hallan en su jurisdicción o bien conceder exenciones- no reconoce más limitaciones que las que se originan en la propia Constitución Política. Esa potestad de gravar, es el poder de sancionar normas jurídicas de las que se derive o pueda derivar la obligación de pagar un tributo o de respetar un límite tributario y entre los principios constitucionales de la Tributación, se encuentran inmersos el Principio de Legalidad o bien, Reserva de Ley, el de Igualdad o de Isonomía, de Generalidad y de No Confiscación. Los tributos deben emanar de una Ley de la República, no crear discriminaciones en perjuicio de sujetos pasivos, deben abarcar integralmente a todas las personas o bienes previstos en la ley y no solo a una parte de ellas y debe cuidarse de no ser de tal identidad, que viole la propiedad privada (artículos 33, 40, 45, 121 inciso 13 de la Constitución Política)".

Igualmente en la sentencia Nº2020020838 de las 9:20 horas del 28 de octubre de 2020, la Sala reiteró tales consideraciones, y en lo conducente señaló:

“El artículo 18 de la Constitución Política dispone:

“Artículo 18.- Los costarricenses deben observar la Constitución y las leyes, servir a la Patria, defenderla y contribuir para los gastos públicos.” Se constata, así, la obligación de rango constitucional de contribuir con los gastos públicos, sin excepciones o privilegios injustificados o arbitrarios (artículo 33 de la Constitución Política). Asimismo, la Constitución Política le confiere al legislador la potestad tributaria, según la cual le corresponde establecer los impuestos y contribuciones nacionales y autorizar los municipales (artículo 121, inciso 13). Respecto al contenido y ejercicio de la potestad tributaria, esta Sala ha indicado:

“(…) El legislador puede crear discrecionalmente los tributos que considere necesarios conforme a los parámetros que estime convenientes, a fin de satisfacer las necesidades públicas, con los únicos límites que establece la Constitución Política. En ese sentido, reiteradamente se ha señalado:

“V.- Competencia legislativa en materia tributaria. La Constitución Política, en su artículo 121 inciso 13), da a la Asamblea Legislativa la potestad de crear los impuestos y contribuciones nacionales, y autorizar los municipales. Este amplio –aunque no ilimitado- poder, permite a la Asamblea no solo crear los tributos, determinando sus elementos esenciales (sujeto pasivo, hecho generador, base imponible y monto o porcentaje del gravamen), sino que además puede exceptuar a ciertos individuos, bienes o actividades de la aplicación de los mismos (exención), puede eliminar los tributos existentes e incluso puede modificarlos, variando alguno de los ya referidos elementos de la obligación tributaria. Dicho poder de modificación de los tributos existentes le da al Estado la posibilidad de disminuir, modificar o aumentar la carga impuesta, ya sea como instrumento de política fiscal o para cumplir cualesquiera otros fines lícitos.” (Voto No. 2014-000852 de las 14:30 horas del 22 de enero de 2014) Esta Sala también ha reconocido que tal potestad tributaria, que se encuentra consagrada en la propia Constitución, obedece a la necesidad inexorable del Estado de captar recursos para el cumplimiento de sus fines. Incluso, este Tribunal ha señalado que resultan absolutamente consustanciales al Estado Social y Democrático de Derecho la potestad tributaria (artículo 121, inciso 13, de la Constitución Política) y el principio de igualdad en el sostenimiento de las cargas públicas (artículos 18 y 33 constitucionales), pues:

“(…) Sin la potestad tributaria y el deber correlativo de toda persona de contribuir con los gastos públicos, los diversos entes públicos que brindan prestaciones positivas a los habitantes para erradicar las desigualdades reales y efectivas -propios y típicos de un Estado Social de Derecho-, no podrían ejercer sus funciones, cumplir con sus competencias y satisfacer el interés público, puesto que, les resultaría imposible contar con recursos públicos para tal efecto”. (Voto No. 2008-011210 de las 15 horas del 16 de julio de 2008).

De esta forma, la razón de la potestad tributaria no solo encuentra debida justificación en la necesidad que tiene el Estado de obtener ingresos para financiar las funciones y servicios que presta a la colectividad, sino también en el hecho de que la persona se beneficia de esos servicios y de la función social del Estado. Como ha aclarado esta Sala:

“(…) Si bien desde el punto de vista tradicional la finalidad del tributo es recaudatoria, hoy día se le conceptualiza como un instrumento fundamental del Estado para la satisfacción de necesidades públicas. Sobre este aspecto, el Tribunal Constitucional Español ha señalado que el deber constitucional de colaboración coloca al ciudadano en una situación de sujeción y de colaboración con la Administración Tributaria en orden al sostenimiento de los gastos públicos, -revestidos de un incuestionable interés público-, que justifica la imposición de ciertas limitaciones legales al ejercicio de los derechos individuales.” (Voto No. 2005-4704 de las 15 hrs del 27 de abril de 2005)” De lo anterior, se determina que el poder tributario configura la potestad de crear e imponer tributos y exigir contribuciones a personas o bienes que se encuentren en el territorio del Estado, con las excepciones y limitaciones establecidas en la Constitución Política y las leyes, las cuales son aplicadas tanto a los ciudadanos costarricenses, como a los extranjeros que viven en el país, así como a toda persona que desarrolle actividades que formen parte de las estructuras impositivas que ha definido el Estado mediante ley formal, indistintamente de su residencia (territorial o fiscal). Esta potestad supone, además, la de gestión tributaria, que incluye la determinación, fiscalización, control del debido cumplimiento de las obligaciones tributarias de orden formal y material, así como la adopción de las medidas correctivas y de sanción que dimanen del incumplimiento de dichos deberes y cargas impositivas, a la vez que le habilita para el ejercicio interpretativo de las normas que componen el sistema jurídico fiscal, mediante la adopción de criterios interpretativos, consultas tributarias, entre otros. El artículo 121 inciso 13) de la Carta Magna dota a la Asamblea Legislativa la potestad de establecer impuestos, tasas y contribuciones nacionales, es decir limita su ejercicio, creación y aprobación a través del legislador, para resguardar la seguridad jurídica y el interés colectivo de la población, respetando los principios constitucionales tributarios.

VIII.- Sobre el principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria. El principio de reserva de ley, de raigambre constitucional, tiene conexión con otros principios constitucionales, como el principio de jerarquía normativa y el de seguridad jurídica, cuya consecución a su vez supone el respeto al principio de reserva de ley. En materia tributaria, el referido principio está llamado a desempeñar funciones esenciales, como la de servir de vehículo a diversas exigencias de carácter sustancial, asegurando un tratamiento uniforme a diversos grupos de ciudadanos (garantía de igualdad de los ciudadanos ante la ley tributaria). Por otra parte, el principio constitucional de reserva de ley constituye el eje de las relaciones entre el poder ejecutivo y el poder legislativo en lo referente a la producción de normas; presupone la separación de poderes y excluye que la regulación de ciertas materias se realice por cauces distintos a la ley. Además, constituye un límite, no sólo para el poder ejecutivo, sino también para el propio poder legislativo, que no puede renunciar a una función que le ha sido atribuida con el fin de que se ejerza obligatoriamente. La delimitación más precisa del principio de reserva de ley se da en el campo de las obligaciones tributarias, como consecuencia de la clara individualización y singularidad de los tributos en el campo de las prestaciones patrimoniales de carácter público. El contenido del principio de reserva legal en materia tributaria, implica la necesidad de que sea el poder legislativo el que determine los elementos esenciales del tributo, núcleo de materias que deben ser precisados por ley.

Reiteradamente, esta Sala Constitucional ha señalado que el principio de reserva de ley se desprende de lo dispuesto por el artículo 121 inciso 13 de la Constitución Política. En virtud de tal disposición, corresponde exclusivamente a la Asamblea Legislativa establecer los impuestos y contribuciones nacionales, potestad que, además, resulta indelegable en el Poder Ejecutivo y que se erige como una garantía para los administrados el que su imposición deba seguir el trámite formal de una ley. Sobre el particular, este Tribunal apuntó en la sentencia n.° 4785-93, de las 8:39 horas del 30 de setiembre de 1993:

"VI.- El alegado principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria, fue desarrollado por la Corte Suprema de Justicia, entonces en sus funciones de jurisdicción constitucional, en Resolución de las ocho horas del veintinueve de noviembre de mil novecientos setenta y tres, al expresar en lo que interesa:

"II.- El principio de "reserva de ley" en materia tributaria resulta de lo dispuesto en el artículo 121 inciso 13 de la Constitución Política, a cuyo tenor corresponde exclusivamente a la Asamblea Legislativa "establecer los impuestos y contribuciones nacionales"; atribución que, con arreglo al artículo 9° ibídem, no podría la Asamblea delegar en el Poder Ejecutivo, al que tampoco sería lícito invadir la esfera del legislador en ejercicio de las facultades reglamentarias que le otorga el artículo 140 inciso 3° de la misma Constitución. El problema consiste, pues, en definir qué se debe entender por "establecer los impuestos", para determinar por allí si la Ley de Reforma Tributaria delegó o no en el Poder Ejecutivo, del modo que se alega en el recurso, la potestad exclusiva que le confiere el artículo 121 inciso 13 de la Constitución Política.

III.- Establecer significa "instituir", y también "ordenar, mandar, decretar", de acuerdo con el Diccionario de la Lengua. Establecer un impuesto es, por lo tanto, ordenar o decretar una cierta carga tributaria; o sea, dicho con más amplitud, crear el tributo y determinar "los objetos imponibles, las bases y los tipos...” Asimismo, en la sentencia 2006-009170 de las 16:36 del 28 de junio del 2006, la Sala se refirió al principio de reserva legal y sus alcances, en los siguientes términos:

“V.- A) La jurisprudencia constitucional referida al principio de reserva legal como uno de los principios constitucionales que rigen la imposición tributaria.- Con anterioridad y en forma constante la jurisprudencia constitucional ha hecho referencia a los principios que rigen la actividad tributaria del Estado. Así por ejemplo se ha dicho que el Estado tiene la potestad soberana dentro de su jurisdicción de exigir contribuciones a las personas o de gravar sus bienes. Esa potestad de gravar, es el poder de promulgar normas jurídicas de las que se derive la obligación de pagar un tributo. Nuestro ordenamiento jurídico reconoce la potestad tributaria del Estado a nivel constitucional, de manera que corresponde a la Asamblea Legislativa la facultad de “Establecer los impuestos y contribuciones nacionales, ..." (artículo 121 inciso 13 de la Constitución Política), constituyendo así, obligación para los costarricenses de pagar las cargas públicas establecidas por el Estado para contribuir con los gastos públicos, obligación que tiene rango constitucional en los términos del artículo 18 constitucional, correspondiendo por su lado al Poder Ejecutivo disponer la recaudación de las rentas nacionales, artículo 140 inciso 7 de nuestra Carta Magna. Sin embargo, el ejercicio de esa potestad tributaria debe respetar los principios constitucionales de la Tributación, referidos al Principio de Reserva de Ley, al Principio de Igualdad o Isonomía, al Principio de Generalidad y al Principio de No Confiscación. En otras palabras, los tributos deben emanar de una Ley de la República (reserva legal), no deben crear discriminaciones en perjuicio de sujetos pasivos (igualdad), deben abarcar integralmente a todas las personas o bienes previstas en la ley y no sólo a una parte de ellas (generalidad) y debe cuidarse de no ser de tal identidad, que viole la propiedad privada (no confiscación), según los artículos 33, 40, 45 y 121 inciso 13 de la Constitución Política (ver al respecto la sentencia número 6455-94). Con fundamento en lo anterior, y respecto del principio de reserva legal, únicamente mediante ley aprobada por la Asamblea Legislativa pueden imponerse legítimamente los tributos, en virtud de lo dispuesto en el artículo 121 inciso 13) constitucional, atribución que se le confiere al Poder Legislativo y que no puede ser delegada en el Poder Ejecutivo. La doctrina más importante en la materia, en forma generalizada, ha señalado que el «poder tributario» - potestad tributaria, potestad impositiva, poder de imposición entre otros- es inherente al Estado y no puede ser suprimido, delegado ni cedido (sentencia número 1687-96, y en similar sentido, las sentencias número 4072-95, 5544-95, 0730-95, 4949- 94, 2947-94 y 4785-93). Entonces, el principio de reserva legal en materia tributaria constituye uno de los pilares fundamentales de nuestro Estado de Derecho, de manera tal que la definición de los elementos constitutivos de la obligación tributaria están reservados exclusivamente a la ley (sujetos activo y pasivo, objeto de la obligación, causa, tarifa del impuesto), aunque mediante la jurisprudencia constitucional se ha admitido la delegación relativa en esta materia únicamente en lo que respecta a la determinación del monto a pagar, y siempre y cuando en la ley de creación del impuesto se establezcan con claridad los elementos o parámetros sobre los que debe definirse (véase la sentencia número 0730-95, de las 15 horas del 03 de febrero de 1995, y entre otras las sentencias número 1426-95, 1427-95, y 0687-96). Asimismo, este Tribunal ha señalado la posibilidad que tiene el Poder Ejecutivo para establecer el mecanismo de recaudación de un tributo, sin que ello implique una violación a los principios de reserva de ley en materia tributaria y potestad reglamentaria contenidos en los artículos 11, 121 inciso 13) y 140 inciso 3) de la Constitución Política, ni tampoco de derecho fundamental alguno, en el tanto no se establezca un nuevo tributo o modifique el establecido en la ley (sentencias número 3016-95, de las 11 horas 36 minutos del 09 de junio de 1995 y 3449-96, de las 15 horas 27 minutos del 09 de julio de 1996). En síntesis, el principio constitucional de reserva legal en materia tributaria está referido a que la potestad de creación de tributos es exclusiva del legislador. (…)” Puede concluirse entonces que es únicamente la Asamblea Legislativa, quien, a través del procedimiento para la creación de la ley formal, puede establecer los elementos esenciales de los tributos, siendo estos: la base imponible, el hecho generador, la tarifa, el sujeto pasivo y sujeto activo, así como el período fiscal. De ahí, que no puede haber tributo sin previa ley que lo establezca -nullum tributum sine lege-.

IX.- Por mayoría, se declaran sin lugar las acciones de inconstitucionalidad acumuladas en cuanto al agravio de infracción al principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria. Redacta el Magistrado Castillo Víquez. Hay que tener claro que a la Sala de Casación le corresponde la interpretación y aplicación de las normas jurídicas en el caso concreto -al igual que al resto de los jueces-; es el intérprete último, no el único, de la normativa ordinaria. Está llamada a establecer el recto sentido de la ley. Siguiendo la doctrina del derecho viviente – la interpretación y aplicación de la norma al caso concreto y no la visión abstracta de cuando el legislador promulga la ley-, la Sala Casación, así como los tribunales ordinarios, adoptando como marco de referencia la intención del legislador -la ratio legis-, están llamados a resolver la controversia jurídica, de forma tal que las partes encuentren una solución al conflicto. En caso de la materia tributaria esta no es la excepción, empero, a causa del principio de legalidad tributaria, el juez -el a-quo, el ad-quem y el magistrado-tienen una serie de vallas infranqueables o impedimentos constitucionales y legales. En efecto, por vía de la interpretación y aplicación de la normativa tributaria no se pueden crear, modificar o extinguir los tributos – impuestos, tasas y contribuciones especiales-, exoneraciones, no sujeciones, etc. Ni mucho menos establecer o ampliar los elementos esenciales o estructurales del tributo, ni tampoco se puede recurrir a la analogía para crear o modificar los tributos. Ahora bien, lo que sí puede hacer el juez ordinario es recurrir a los métodos tradicionales de interpretación jurídica previsto en la legislación ordinaria -el literal, el histórico, el teleológico, el sistemático, etc.-. Adoptando como parámetro lo anterior, tal y como se explica a continuación, el meollo de la cuestión, en esta controversia jurídica, consiste en el hecho de si la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia -fallos idénticos de los cuales se extrae una regla de derecho-, amplía la base tributaria del impuesto a las utilidades al incluir como ingresos de las empresas las utilidades que obtienen de operaciones realizadas en el exterior. Es decir, si afecta o no el patrimonio de las empresas al extender el criterio de territorialidad a operaciones financieras que se realizan en el exterior de las que se obtiene una determina utilidad. Para una mejor compresión de la cuestión, es necesario traer a colación que, en el caso base de esta acción, la Administración Tributaria, a consecuencia de la actuación fiscalizadora, realizó un ajuste en los ingresos declarados por el banco accionante por concepto de “ingresos por depósitos a la vista e inversiones en entidades en el exterior”, por cuanto consideró que los rendimientos obtenidos por el banco fueron forjados con capital de fuente costarricense. Los ajustes practicados por la Auditoria Fiscal fueron confirmados por la Administración Tributaria mediante las resoluciones DT 10R-107-19 y AU10R-19. La Administración Tributaria deja de manifiesto en la resolución AU10R-19, que se sustenta en el criterio jurisprudencial de la Sala Primera, expresado, entre otras, en las resoluciones 000326-F-SI-2017 y 000976-F-S1-2016, que son los fallos más recientes de dicha Sala y que avalan la posición de la Administración Tributaria en cuanto a que el principio de territorialidad que deriva de la Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta, no se refiere sólo a un aspecto geográfico. La jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera se ha venido poniendo de manifiesto en resoluciones del 2010 y 2011.

El accionante considera que la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera lesiona el principio de reserva legal constitucional en materia tributaria consagrado en artículo 121 inciso 13) de la Constitución Política, en cuanto que los rendimientos obtenidos por empresas que invierten en el extranjero forman parte de la base imponible del impuesto de las utilidades previsto en el artículo 1° de la Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta n.° 7092, según lo discute en el recurso de apelación que se tramita ante Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, mutando con esto el concepto de territorialidad que establece la Ley n.°7092 por el concepto de renta mundial vía interpretación, invadiendo competencias que son propias del legislador ordinario.

El artículo 121 inciso 13 de la Constitución Política establece el principio de reserva legal en materia tributaria, y el artículo 5 inciso a) del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, lo desarrolla. Según dicho principio, sólo mediante ley formal se pueden crear los tributos, así como establecer sus elementos esenciales, concretamente: sujeto pasivo, base imponible, hecho generador y tarifa del gravamen. Ergo, no se puede, por la vía interpretativa jurídica, variar la forma como se determina la base imponible de un tributo. Con el fin de precisar la postura de la Administración Tributaria y de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia hay que tener presente que el artículo 1° de la Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta -vigente a la fecha que se practicaron las modificaciones a la empresa accionante y al emitir los fallos la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia- expresamente define cuáles son los elementos esenciales del impuesto que pesa sobre las utilidades de las empresas. Así, establece el legislador que el hecho generador del impuesto a las utilidades está constituido por la percepción de rentas en dinero o en especie, continuas u ocasionales provenientes de cualquier fuente costarricense, así como los ingresos continuos o eventuales de fuente costarricense percibidos o devengados por personas físicas o jurídicas domiciliadas en Costa Rica, así como cualquier otro ingreso o beneficio de fuente costarricense no exceptuado por ley. Por otra parte, el Capítulo IV de la citada ley, está referido a la determinación de la base imponible, en tanto los artículos 5, 6, 7 y 8 establecen el procedimiento para su determinación, de manera que no es la Administración Tributaria ni la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia la que mediante su jurisprudencia han incluido dentro de la base imponible para el cálculo del impuesto de las utilidades los ingresos obtenidos por la empresa recurrente producto de sus inversiones en el extranjero, tal y como acertadamente lo sostiene la Procuraduría General de la República. Es evidente, entonces, que si la empresa accionante es una empresa domiciliada en Costa Rica, su fuente productora de renta es costarricense y el capital invertido en el extranjero es costarricense, los rendimientos obtenidos forman parte de los ingresos gravables de la empresa en Costa Rica, pues existe una vinculación económica entre los ingresos producidos en el extranjero y la fuente productora de empresa domiciliada en Costa Rica, lo que no lleva en sí mismo un cambio del concepto de renta territorial -vigente al momento de las actuaciones fiscalizadoras- por el criterio de renta mundial, por cuanto el legislador expresamente dispuso cuáles eran los ingresos gravables. Por ello, sin lugar a dudas, el criterio de vinculación económica deriva de la ley misma al considerar gravables los ingresos vinculados a la fuente productora de renta. Hay que puntualiza que en el artículo 1° de la citada ley, el legislador expresamente dispone que son gravables cualquier ingreso o beneficio de fuente costarricense no exceptuado por la ley, y es lo cierto que el legislador no establece ninguna excepción al respecto. La excepción que aduce el accionante para no declarar como gravables los ingresos derivados de inversiones en el exterior y aducir que Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia los está gravando vía jurisprudencia, se basa en una interpretación que no comparte este Tribunal, ya que el inciso ch) del artículo 6 de la Ley N°7092, que establece las exclusiones de la renta bruta, está referida a las rentas generadas en virtud de contratos, convenios o negociaciones sobre bienes o capitales localizados en el exterior. En esta dirección, el Órgano Asesor nos expresa que en tanto que los rendimientos que obtiene la empresa accionante en el exterior no son de bienes o capitales localizados en el exterior, sino que derivan de capital domiciliado en Costa Rica, que es donde se encuentra la fuente productora de ingresos de la accionante, por lo que resultan gravables con el impuesto a las utilidades. Agrega, además la Procuraduría General de la República, que no se puede considerar que la actuación de la Administración Tributaria sea antojadiza y contraria a derecho, y menos aún la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia y, por lo tanto, no se vulnera el principio de legalidad tributaria constitucional, por cuanto la determinación de la base imponible de un tributo como el que pesa sobre las utilidades, de conformidad con el principio de legalidad que impera en materia tributaria, no es otra cosa que la aplicación de las normas jurídicas materiales que la circunscribe a unos hechos concretos, de suerte tal que la actividad a desarrollar por la Administración Tributaria es, por una parte, una simple constatación de aquellos hechos necesarios para determinar la obligación y, por otra, la aplicación de las normas materiales. Es por ello, que los casos que motivaron la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia y que se acusa violatoria del principio de legalidad constitucional, se circunscriben a la aplicación e interpretación correcta de las normas materiales en cuanto a la determinación de la base imponible. Así las cosas, tratándose de tributos, el principio de reserva de ley lo que impone es que las normas jurídico-materiales de la base estén comprendidas en una disposición legal como sucede con los artículos 1, 5, 6 inciso ch) de la Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta que impida que puedan ser creadas para el caso concreto por mera voluntad administrativa o judicial. Por lo anterior, y siguiendo los argumentos que da la Procuraduría General de la República, se concluye que no se vulnera el principio de legalidad tributaria y lo que corresponde es declarar sin lugar esta acción (…)” V.- SOBRE LA ALEGADA VIOLACIÓN AL PRINCIPIO DE SEGURIDAD JURÍDICA. En plena consonancia con lo anterior, en el voto nro. 2023-000357 de las 9:20 horas del 11 de enero de 2023, esta Sala resolvió -en relación con esa misma línea jurisprudencial- que:

“VII.- SOBRE LA ALEGADA VIOLACIÓN AL PRINCIPIO DE SEGURIDAD JURÍDICA. Los accionantes también acusan una infracción al principio de seguridad juridica, pues, alegan -nuevamente- que la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera obedece a una interpretación errónea y extensiva de la ley. Se acusa, en particular, una “ampliación vía interpretación al hecho generador de un impuesto establecido en la ley” y que “los administrados (contribuyentes) no tienen por qué encontrarse en una situación de incerteza jurídica en cuanto a la determinación de los elementos de la base imponibles de los tributos, se tiene entonces; que el actuar de la Sala Primera en sus fallos reiterados sobre el criterio de “vinculación con la estructura económica del país” desmantela la certeza jurídica respecto a la interpretación de la norma”. Sin embargo, respecto a este extremo, debe remitirse a lo ya resuelto en el voto nro. 2022-023955, en el sentido que la línea jurisprudencial cuestionada se circunscribe a la aplicación e interpretación correcta de las normas materiales en cuanto a la determinación de la base imponible. Ergo, también procede rechazar la acción en cuanto a este reproche.” VI.- SOBRE LA ALEGADA VIOLACIÓN AL ARTÍCULO 7 DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA Y LA DOBLE IMPOSICIÓN. El accionante también cuestiona que la jurisprudencia impugnada podría generar un escenario de doble imposición y menciona la existencia de diversos convenios internacionales suscritos por Costa Rica justamente para evitar tal situación. Sostiene que de esos mismos convenios se puede derivar que Costa Rica prosigue un criterio de sujeción de renta territorial que, contrario a la tesis sostenida por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, se limita estrictamente al espacio geográfico y no tiene relación alguna con la supuesta "vinculación económica". En cuanto a este punto, en el citado voto nro. 2023-000355 de las 9:20 horas del 11 de enero de 2023, este Tribunal resolvió que:

VI.- SOBRE LA ALEGADA VIOLACIÓN AL PRINCIPIO DE CAPACIDAD ECONÓMICA. Por otra parte, el representante de la empresa actora alega que la jurisprudencia impugnada infringe el principio de capacidad económica, consagrado en el artículo 18 de la Constitución Política. Manifiesta que la potestad impositiva debe dirigirse hacia la capacidad real de cada sujeto pasivo. La recalificación en el impuesto sobre las utilidades, conlleva una afectación en la esfera patrimonial de su representante, que afecta su capacidad contributiva. Sobre este aspecto, en la sentencia n.° 2022-023955 de las 16:42 horas del 12 de octubre de 2022, por unanimidad, el Tribunal Constitucional dispuso declarar sin lugar las acciones en cuanto a los alegatos de infracción a los principios de capacidad económica y de doble imposición, toda vez que la parte accionante omitió indicar parámetros que permitieran determinar una verdadera afectación económica que les imposibilitara cumplir la obligación tributaria ni aportó elementos apropiados a fin de que esta Sala pudiera valorar si la supuesta doble imposición, de existir, disminuiría en forma grave su ingreso bruto. En este sentido, se dispuso lo siguiente:

“XIII.- Doctrinalmente, el principio de capacidad contributiva se entiende como aquella aptitud del contribuyente para ser sujeto pasivo de obligaciones tributarias, aptitud que viene a ser establecida por la presencia de hechos reveladores de riqueza que luego de ser sometidos a una valorización por el legislador y conciliados con los fines de naturaleza política, social y económica, son elevados al rango de categoría imponible; así lo ha señalado este Tribunal. En sentencia número 4788-93, de las ocho horas con cuarenta y ocho minutos del treinta de setiembre de mil novecientos noventa y tres, esta Sala consideró:

“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 en todo caso, deben fundamentarse en los principios generales del Derecho Tributario, que están implícitos en esa norma. Por ello se dice que el tributo debe ser justo, basado en la contribución de todos según su capacidad económica y debe responder a los principios de igualdad… y progresividad. Este último principio responde a una aspiración de justicia, que se refleja en la máxima de que paguen proporcionalmente más impuestos quienes cuentan con un mayor nivel de renta, lo que lleva implícito, desde luego, el principio de la interdicción del tributo confiscatorio. De conformidad con lo anterior, la llamada a contribuir al sostenimiento de los gastos públicos, debe hacerse efectiva, de acuerdo con la "capacidad contributiva o económica”, mediante un sistema tributario justo, que debe estar informado por el principio de igualdad.

Al respecto, en la sentencia número 5749-93, de las catorce horas con treinta y tres minutos del nueve de noviembre de mil novecientos noventa y tres, ESTE Tribunal precisó que:

"La capacidad económica, es la magnitud sobre la que se determina la cuantía de los pagos públicos, magnitud que toma en cuenta los niveles mínimos de renta que los sujetos han de disponer para su subsistencia y la cuantía de las rentas sometidas a imposición... Con arreglo a dicho principio -el de la capacidad económica-, el tributo debe ser adecuado a la capacidad del sujeto obligado al pago, y esto determina la justicia del tributo, de allí que los titulares de una capacidad económica mayor contribuyan en mayor cuantía que los que están situados a un nivel inferior”. En el mismo sentido sentencias número 2001-02657, de las quince horas con quince minutos del cuatro de abril del dos mil uno, y número 2012002510 de las dieciséis horas y tres minutos del veintidós de febrero del dos mil doce.” En atención a lo expuesto en los precedentes citados, estima este Tribunal que este extremo de la acción debe rechazarse, por cuanto los argumentos planteados por la actora son juicios de valor incompletos, ya que omiten indicar parámetros que permitan determinar una verdadera afectación económica que les imposibilite cumplir la obligación tributaria. Tampoco indican que, a partir de la renta gravada en el exterior, se haya provocado una afectación desproporcionada en sus esferas patrimoniales, demostrando que su derecho a la propiedad se está viendo limitado ilegítimamente por hacerle frente a la carga tributaria cuestionada. Cabe advertir que en cada caso en que se alegue la infracción de este principio, es necesaria la acreditación –de parte del accionante– de esa afectación del patrimonio en forma contraria a lo derivado del artículo 40 constitucional (sentencia Nº 2020020838 de las 9:20 horas del 28 de octubre de 2020). De ese modo, al no contar con tales elementos de juicio, este Tribunal no puede tener por demostrado que se haya visto afectada la capacidad económica de los accionantes o la imposibilidad de cumplir con la misma, por su carga impositiva, como consecuencia de la aplicación del criterio jurisprudencial impugnado, y que señalan como contrario al principio de capacidad económica.

VII.- SOBRE LA INFRACCIÓN AL ARTICULO 7, PÁRRAFO PRIMERO DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN POLÍTICA, POR OPONERSE LA JURISPRUDENCIA DE LA SALA PRIMERA DE LA CORTE SUPREMA DE JUSTICIA A CONVENIOS INTERNACIONALES. El representante de la actora alega, además, que la interpretación constitucional impugnada promueve la doble imposición, por cuanto en aquellos casos en que no se ha firmado un tratado de doble imposición, el contribuyente nacional que invierta en el exterior y genere créditos que suponía no sujetos, tendría que tributar sobre los mismos en el territorio de la nación en que se generó la renta, sin que pueda aplicarse ninguna deducción en Costa Rica porque así lo impide la Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta, en su artículo 9, inciso d). Al respecto, estima la Sala que el agravio no está lo suficientemente fundamentado, pues el accionante se limita a afirmar que la jurisprudencia cuestionada promueve un escenario de doble imposición, sin identificar las exacciones que recaen sobre el mismo objeto impositivo, ni se aporten elementos que los acrediten, de manera que el Tribunal pueda valorar si la supuesta doble imposición, de existir, disminuye en forma grave el ingreso bruto de las accionantes, al obligarles a contribuir de una manera exorbitante o ruinosa, es decir, en una proporción que va más allá de su verdadera capacidad económica. En el escenario indicado, lo procedente es desestimar la acción también en cuanto a la doble imposición respecto de la jurisprudencia cuestionada.

Consideraciones que son aplicables al sub lite, pues el accionante tampoco aporta elementos de juicio que permitan acreditar que, de existir un efectivo escenario de doble imposición, este “disminuye en forma grave el ingreso bruto de las accionantes, al obligarles a contribuir de una manera exorbitante o ruinosa, es decir, en una proporción que va más allá de su verdadera capacidad económica”. Asimismo, debe reiterarse lo ya indicado, en el sentido que la línea jurisprudencial impugnada se circunscribía "a la aplicación e interpretación correcta de las normas materiales en cuanto a la determinación de la base imponible", como "sucede con los artículos 1, 5, 6 inciso ch) de la Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta", vigentes "a la fecha que se practicaron las modificaciones a la empresa accionante y al emitir los fallos la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia". Lo anterior sin perjuicio, claro está, que si en el caso específico de la accionante, resulta de efectiva aplicación alguno de los convenios internacionales mencionados, incluso de forma preferente a la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, así se pueda alegar en el propio asunto base.

VII- SOBRE LA CONSTITUCIONALIDAD DE LA JURISPRUDENCIA IMPUGNADA Y LA DEBIDA DELIMITACIÓN DE SU OBJETO. De esta forma, puede corroborarse que este Tribunal ya concluyó que la línea jurisprudencial impugnada, lejos de implicar una interpretación errónea o extensiva de la normativa vigente al momento de emitirse los fallos en cuestión, por parte de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, se circunscribía a la aplicación e interpretación correcta de tal normativa en cuanto a la determinación de la base imponible, lo que permitía descartar una infracción a los principios de reserva de ley, de legalidad tributaria y seguridad jurídica, en relación con los artículos 6 y 7 de la Constitución Política.

Debe añadirse, por lo demás, que en la citada acción nro. 20-007518-0007-CO, esta Sala conoció de una gestión de adición y aclaración, en la que se pretendía que este Tribunal adicionara y aclarara la parte dispositiva de la sentencia nro. 2022-023955. Se solicitaba, expresamente, que esta Sala especificara que el criterio jurisprudencial vertido por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en las sentencias 617-F-S1-2010, 55-FS1-2011, 475-F-S1-2011, 976-F-S1-2016 y 326-F-S1-2017, hacía referencia exclusiva a los artículos 1, 5 y 6 inciso ch) de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta (Ley nro. 7092), en su versión previa a la reforma operada mediante la Ley de Fortalecimiento de las Finanzas Públicas (Ley nro. 9635), que acaeció el 1° de julio de 2019. Se indicaba que tal aclaración y adición era imperiosa, para así contar con la seguridad jurídica necesaria, respecto a los períodos fiscales que podrían verse afectados por el criterio jurisprudencial vertido por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia en las sentencias 617-F-S1-2010, 55-FS1-2011, 475-F-S1-2011, 976-F-S1-2016 y 326-F-S1-2017.

Ante ello, esta Sala emitió el voto nro. 2023-013388 de las 9:50 horas del 7 de junio de 2023, en el que se resolvió que:

“I.- De conformidad con el artículo 12 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, las sentencias que dicte esta Sala pueden ser aclaradas o adicionadas, a petición de parte, si se solicitare dentro de tercero día, y de oficio en cualquier tiempo, incluso en los procedimientos de ejecución, en la medida en que sea necesario para dar cabal cumplimiento al contenido del fallo.

En el sub examine, esta gestión fue planteada en el plazo legalmente establecido, toda vez que la sentencia fue notificada de forma íntegra a la accionante el pasado 21 de noviembre, y la interposición de este nuevo escrito se produjo el 24 de noviembre de 2022.

II.- No obstante, este Tribunal no considera que la sentencia número 2022-23955, de las 16:42 horas del 12 de octubre de 2022, resulte obscura u omisa respecto de los extremos planteados por las partes, toda vez que fueron debidamente resueltos y atendidos. La pretensión de la gestionante es del todo improcedente, no solo por tratarse de una sentencia cuyos extremos fueron desestimados por la Mayoría, sino porque, además, la fundamentación y resolución dada se enmarca en lo que fue objeto de estudio en este proceso.

Según se explicitó en esa sentencia, y como aduce la accionante, lo aquí impugnado es el criterio jurídico expresado por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, en las sentencias números 617-F-S1-2010 de las 09:10 horas del 20 de mayo de 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 de las 08:50 horas del 27 de enero de 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 de las 11:20 horas del 07 de abril de 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 de las 13:05 horas del 22 de setiembre de 2016 y 326-F-S1-2017 de las 10:55 horas del 23 de marzo de 2017. En consecuencia, el pronunciamiento que hizo este Tribunal en esta acción, se circunscribe únicamente al análisis del criterio jurisprudencial ahí emitido por la autoridad jurisdiccional, lo cual evidentemente fue resuelto por esa autoridad, conforme al ordenamiento jurídico vigente para entonces. Y así se delimitó lo resuelto en los considerandos, al señalar, por ejemplo, en el considerando IX lo siguiente: “…Con el fin de precisar la postura de la Administración Tributaria y de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia hay que tener presente que el artículo 1° de la Ley de Impuesto sobre la Renta -vigente a la fecha que se practicaron las modificaciones a la empresa accionante y al emitir los fallos la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia- expresamente define cuáles son los elementos esenciales del impuesto que pesa sobre las utilidades de las empresas… Es evidente, entonces, que si la empresa accionante es una empresa domiciliada en Costa Rica, su fuente productora de renta es costarricense y el capital invertido en el extranjero es costarricense, los rendimientos obtenidos forman parte de los ingresos gravables de la empresa en Costa Rica, pues existe una vinculación económica entre los ingresos producidos en el extranjero y la fuente productora de empresa domiciliada en Costa Rica, lo que no lleva en sí mismo un cambio del concepto de renta territorial -vigente al momento de las actuaciones fiscalizadoras- por el criterio de renta mundial, por cuanto el legislador expresamente dispuso cuáles eran los ingresos gravables…”. De manera que, lo pretendido por la accionante en el sentido de que se indique expresamente en la parte dispositiva de una sentencia desestimatoria, que el criterio jurisprudencial que fue objeto de la presente acción de inconstitucionalidad, se refiere única y exclusivamente a la interpretación de los artículos 1, 5 y 6 inciso ch) de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta nro. 7092, en su versión previa a la reforma operada mediante la entrada en vigencia de la Ley de Fortalecimiento de las Finanzas Públicas nro. 9635, que acaeció el 1° de julio de 2019, es improcedente, pues este Tribunal fue claro en el contexto de su pronunciamiento y no incurrió en omisión alguna que deba ser subsanada. Por consiguiente, no ha lugar a la gestión formulada.

III.- Voto particular del magistrado Rueda Leal. En el sub examine, aclaro que no voté la resolución principal de este proceso nro. 2022-23955 de las 16:42 horas de 12 de octubre de 2022; sin embargo, luego de analizar su contenido comulgo con la posición de minoría del magistrado Garita Navarro. En ese sentido, al no compartir la posición de mayoría de la sentencia principal de este expediente, no suscribo sus eventuales alcances, omisiones o ambigüedades. En consecuencia, emito voto particular, toda vez que, según mi criterio, la acción tuvo que haber sido declarada parcialmente con lugar, en los términos del voto salvado del magistrado Garita Navarro: “El magistrado Garita Navarro salva el voto y declara parcialmente con lugar las acciones de inconstitucionalidad acumuladas y, en consecuencia, dispone anular por inconstitucional la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia contenida en las sentencias 617-F-S1-2010 de las 09:10 horas del 20 de mayo de 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 de las 08:50 horas del 27 de enero de 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 de las 11:20 horas del 07 de abril de 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 de las 13:05 horas del 22 de setiembre de 2016 y 326-F-S1-2017 de las 10:55 horas del 23 de marzo de 2017, por vulnerar el principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria. De igual manera, por conexidad, dispone la anulación de todas las directrices o instrucciones generales de la administración tributaria, dirigidas a los contribuyentes, que tienen cobertura en las normas que ahora se declaran inconstitucionales”.

Por lo que, finalmente, se resolvió que:

“No ha lugar a la gestión formulada. El magistrado Rueda Leal emite voto particular.” De esta forma, desde un primer momento quedó claro que: a) el análisis y pronunciamiento de esta Sala se circunscribía "únicamente al análisis del criterio jurisprudencial ahí emitido por la autoridad jurisdiccional, lo cual evidentemente fue resuelto por esa autoridad, conforme al ordenamiento jurídico vigente para entonces" y b) que la jurisprudencia impugnada se restringía "a la aplicación e interpretación correcta de las normas materiales en cuanto a la determinación de la base imponible", conforme a la normativa "vigente a la fecha que se practicaron las modificaciones a la empresa accionante y al emitir los fallos la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia". En cuyo caso, esta Sala no encuentra motivo alguno para variar el criterio ya vertido en tal ocasión.

VIII.- DE LA REFORMA MEDIANTE LEY N.° 10.381. Ahora, en la presente acción se pretende argumentar que la referida jurisprudencia deviene inconstitucional en razón de una posterior reforma legal, que ha venido a modificar el artículo 1 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta, por lo que se solicita que se varíe el criterio ya vertido por este Tribunal Constitucional. Sin embargo, tal alegato y pretensión resultan improcedentes. Debe reiterarse lo ya indicado, en el sentido que -desde un primer momento- esta Sala aclaró que la jurisprudencia impugnada se restringía "a la aplicación e interpretación correcta de las normas materiales en cuanto a la determinación de la base imponible", conforme a la normativa "vigente a la fecha que se practicaron las modificaciones a la empresa accionante y al emitir los fallos la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia". En cuyo caso, si ha existido una reforma legal posterior, que justificaría variar la interpretación y aplicación de tal norma legal -en razón de modificaciones introducidas a su texto normativo-, pues ello, prima facie, deberá discutirse y resolverse en la sede ordinaria. Adicionalmente, la accionante hace referencia a una presunta infracción al principio de igualdad, en tanto sostiene que si no se modifica la jurisprudencia impugnada, algunos contribuyentes no podrán verse beneficiados con la referida reforma legal. La accionante hace expresa referencia a su caso y al resultado del proceso de fiscalización que se le siguió respecto del impuesto sobre la renta (utilidades) del período fiscal 2017. Sin embargo, determinar los efectos de dicha reforma legal en relación con los períodos anteriores, también constituye un tema a resolverse en la vía ordinaria. En lo atinente específicamente a la debida aplicación de la ley en el tiempo, en el voto nro. 2020-014224 de las 9:15 horas del 29 de julio de 2020, esta Sala -en lo que interesa- resolvió que:

“IV.- Por otro lado, aduce el accionante que su caso debió haber sido conocido por el Código Procesal Civil que estaba vigente en julio de 2016, momento a partir del cual presentó su proceso y para el cual no existía tal exclusión que dispone el actual código. En ese sentido, según se advierte del asunto base, el Juzgado Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda del Segundo Circuito Judicial de San José, basó su decisión en lo dispuesto en el transitorio I del código vigente que dice: “TRANSITORIO I.- Los procesos que estuvieran pendientes a la entrada en vigencia de este Código se tramitarán, en cuanto sea posible, ajustándolos a la nueva legislación, procurando aplicar las nuevas disposiciones y armonizándolas, en cuanto cupiera, con las actuaciones ya practicadas.” Ahora bien, si el accionante considera que existe una errónea aplicación de la ley en el tiempo, pues aduce que debería aplicarse el Código Procesal Civil de 1989, y no el código procesal que entró en vigencia a partir de octubre de 2018, y por el cual considera que su interdicto fue declarado inadmisible, es una discusión que, en los términos planteados, también está exento de ser conocido en esta jurisdicción, por no tratarse de un asunto de constitucionalidad, sino de legalidad. Veamos al respecto los siguientes precedentes:

1- “…Aunado a lo anterior, si el recurrente considera que la normativa que se le aplicó en el caso particular, no es la que correspondía, pues, a su juicio, su situación estaba amparada por una normativa anterior que posibilitaba el otorgamiento de un porcentaje superior por labores en el puesto, lo así planteado no es un problema de aplicación retroactiva de la ley sino de la aplicación de la ley en el tiempo, labor que corresponde al juez de legalidad, en sentido amplio. Tampoco es competencia de este Tribunal declarar algún derecho adquirido a favor del tutelado, pues ello también corresponde a la vía de legalidad.” (sentencia 2020-2579 de las 9:30 horas del 7 de febrero de 2020” 2- “I.- Sobre la inadmisibilidad de la acción planteada contra la Jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. En primer término la Sala aprecia que el accionante cita cinco sentencias de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, para demostrar la existencia de la línea jurisprudencial impugnada, entre las cuales está la número 00047-A-51-2009 de las 11:05 horas del 22 de enero del 2009, dictada en el proceso en que figura como parte demandada. La acción resulta inadmisible en este extremo, en primer término porque el artículo 10 de la Constitución Política establece que en la jurisdicción constitucional no resultan impugnables los actos jurisdiccionales del Poder Judicial; de igual forma, el artículo 74 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional determina que no cabrá la acción de inconstitucionalidad contra los actos jurisdiccionales del Poder Judicial. Una de las resoluciones que el accionante cita es la dictada en el proceso en el que figuró como parte, de manera que cuestionaría en esta acción de inconstitucionalidad un pronunciamiento jurisdiccional dictado en un caso concreto, lo que resulta improcedente. Por otra parte, los argumentos esgrimidos para atacar la constitucionalidad de la jurisprudencia, estima la Sala que no son de relevancia constitucional, pues el actor alega que la jurisprudencia ha negado el recurso de casación en procesos cobratorios en los que se declaró la prescripción, en los cuales se le dio curso a la demanda antes de la vigencia de esa ley, lo cual a su juicio va en contra de la letra del transitorio I de la Ley de Cobro Judicial. Lo planteado resulta un diferendo de legalidad, pues las discrepancias sobre la aplicación de la ley en el tiempo, son extremos que deben ser alegados en la vía jurisdiccional ordinaria y no en una acción de inconstitucionalidad.” (Sentencia n.° 2012-7166 de las 10:31 horas del 30 de mayo de 2012) 3- “…Nótese que el accionante pretende que este Tribunal le indique “cuál es el régimen legal laboral aplicable a los procesos laborales donde se están juzgando situaciones jurídicas consolidadas anteriores a la entrada en vigencia de la Reforma Procesal Laboral el 25 de julio del año 2017 ”; en cuyo caso, la Sala Constitucional no debe emitir juicio alguno con respecto a tal extremo, por cuanto, se trata de un conflicto de franca legalidad ajeno a su ámbito de competencia, que debe ser ventilado en la jurisdicción ordinaria. Así lo indicó ya este Tribunal en la citada sentencia No. 2018-008531, en tanto se resolvió –en lo que interesa- lo siguiente:

“(…) En el sub judice, el actor manifiesta que impugna el Transitorio I de la Ley No. 9343 del 25 de enero de 2016. Adicionalmente, señala como impugnados los artículos 399, 404 a 408, 413 y 499 del Código de Trabajo, reformados mediante la misma ley. En relación con el Transitorio I, la norma regula la aplicación de la citada reforma procesal respecto de los procesos “iniciados antes de la entrada en vigencia” de la Ley No. 9343, sea, antes del 26 de julio de 2017. Sin embargo, en este caso, el proceso que cita como previo fue presentado el 10 de agosto de 2017, esto es, luego de haber entrado en vigencia la ley. Es claro, entonces que, en cuanto a esta norma, la acción no es medio razonable de amparar el derecho que se estima lesionado, pues el proceso en trámite no cae dentro del supuesto que regula la disposición de “(…) procesos iniciados antes de la entrada en vigencia de esta ley (…)”. Es decir, el Transitorio, en nada incide en el proceso principal por haberse presentado este con posterioridad a la entrada en vigencia de la ley. A lo que debe agregarse, por lo demás, que esta Sala señaló, recientemente, que constituye un conflicto ajeno a su ámbito de competencia el resolver:

“(…) una controversia sobre la vigencia de la ley en el tiempo, o si cabe o no la aplicación retroactiva de las disposiciones de la Reforma Procesal Laboral, acorde con el régimen transitorio que prevé esa normativa” (Sentencia No. 2017-016270 de las 09:15 hrs. del 11 de octubre de 2017).” (Ver en igual sentido la sentencia n.° 2018-13139 de las 9:30 horas del 14 de agosto de 2018, y la 2018-11652, entre otras).

Así las cosas, la acción resulta inadmisible...”.

Consideraciones aplicables al caso en estudio, por no existir motivo que justifique variar de criterio.

IX.- EN CONCLUSIÓN. Como corolario de lo anterior, procede rechazar por el fondo la acción interpuesta, como así se dispone. El magistrado Rueda Leal salva el voto y declara parcialmente con lugar la acción de inconstitucionalidad por vulneración al principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria.

X.- VOTO SALVADO DEL MAGISTRADO RUEDA LEAL POR VIOLACIÓN AL PRINCIPIO DE RESERVA DE LEY.

De primero, advierto que salvé parciamente el voto en las sentencias nros. 2023-000355, 2023-000357 y 2023-000359, todas de las 9:20 horas de 11 de enero de 2023, que la Mayoría cita. En particular, en la sentencia nro. 2023-000355, en conjunto con el magistrado Garita Navarro, salvé el voto y de manera parcial declaré con lugar la acción por infracción al principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria con sustento en estas consideraciones:

“VIII.- Voto salvado de los magistrados Rueda Leal y Garita Navarro en cuanto al agravio relacionado con el Principio de Reserva de Ley, con redacción del segundo. Con el respeto y consideración de siempre, discrepamos de lo resuelto por la mayoría de la Sala en cuanto a la acusada infracción al principio de reserva legal en materia tributaria, ya que consideramos que la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia aquí cuestionada sí lesiona ese principio constitucional, con fundamento en las consideraciones que de seguido se exponen:

• 1)Sobre el principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria. A partir de las normas y principios constitucionales desarrollados en los considerandos VII y VIII de la sentencia n.° 2022-023955, es que el Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, Ley 4755 de 3 de mayo de 1971 adopta la disposición constitucional en su numeral 5, al indicar expresamente que la creación, modificación y eliminación de los tributos es materia reservada a la ley emanada por el Poder Legislativo, de la siguiente manera:

“Artículo 5º.- Materia privativa de la ley. En cuestiones tributarias solo la ley puede: a) Crear, modificar o suprimir tributos; definir el hecho generador de la relación tributaria; establecer las tarifas de los tributos y sus bases de cálculo; e indicar el sujeto pasivo; b) Otorgar exenciones, reducciones o beneficios; c) Tipificar las infracciones y establecer las respectivas sanciones; d) Establecer privilegios, preferencias y garantías para los créditos tributarios; y e) Regular los modos de extinción de los créditos tributarios por medios distintos del pago (…)”.

Es decir, se determina que previo a exigir la obligación tributaria, se deben establecer los elementos esenciales y estructurales del tributo -hecho generador, tarifa, base imponible, sujeto activo y sujeto pasivo, período fiscal-, los cuales tienen que estar expresamente definidos en la ley y deberán ajustarse a los principios constitucionales de reserva de ley, capacidad económica, igualdad, no confiscación, progresividad, entre otros. Lo anterior tiene relación con el principio constitucional, también de rango constitucional, de seguridad jurídica, según el cual, previo a que se produzca la obligación tributaria de cumplir con el pago respectivo, los contribuyentes tengan conocimiento de los mismos.

Por su parte, el artículo 11 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios dispone, en relación con lo anterior:

“Artículo 11.- Concepto. La obligación tributaria surge entre el Estado u otros entes públicos y los sujetos pasivos en cuanto ocurre el hecho generador previsto en la ley; y constituye un vínculo de carácter personal, aunque su cumplimiento se asegure mediante garantía real o con privilegios especiales.” Al respecto, este Tribunal Constitucional en la sentencia 2003-06316 de las 14:08 horas del 03 de julio de 2003, citó la sentencia 10134-99 de las 11:00 del 23 de diciembre de 1999, que definió la figura del tributo y sus distintos tipos de la siguiente forma:

“«La doctrina jurídica costarricense ha seguido, tradicionalmente, las posiciones más generalizadas en torno a la definición del concepto de tributo y a su clasificación tripartita (impuestos, tasas y contribuciones especiales). En sentido genérico, se ha considerado, desde la óptica de la doctrina del Derecho financiero, que el tributo es una prestación obligatoria, comúnmente en dinero, exigida por el Estado en virtud de su potestad de imperio y que da lugar a relaciones jurídicas de Derecho público. La legislación nacional siguió el modelo de Código Tributario para América Latina y en el Artículo 4 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios (Código Tributario), se basó en el concepto clásico para expresar que los "tributos son prestaciones en dinero (impuestos, tasas y contribuciones especiales), que el Estado en ejercicio de su poder de imperio, exige con el objeto de obtener recursos para el cumplimiento de sus fines". Luego, definió las tres modalidades posibles del tributo, de la siguiente manera:

"Impuesto es el tributo cuya obligación tiene como hecho generador una situación independiente de toda actividad estatal relativa al contribuyente.

Tasa es el tributo cuya obligación tiene como hecho generador la prestación efectiva o potencial de un servicio público individualizado en el contribuyente; y cuyo producto no debe tener un destino ajeno al servicio que constituye la razón de ser de la obligación. No es tasa la contraprestación recibida del usuario en pago de servicios no inherentes al Estado.

Contribución Especial es el tributo cuya obligación tiene como hecho generador beneficios derivados de la realización de obras públicas o de actividades estatales, ejercidas en forma descentralizada o no; y cuyo producto no debe tener un destino ajeno a la financiación de las obras o de las actividades que constituyen la razón de ser de la obligación (…)".

Desde ese plano, se tiene que una vez que el Poder Legislativo crea los tributos y establece su marco normativo, definiendo sus elementos esenciales, el hecho generador, la tarifa del tributo y sus bases de cálculo, así como el sujeto pasivo del tributo y su período fiscal, actúan los encargados de aplicar el régimen tributario, siendo el Ministerio de Hacienda, quien a través de la Dirección General de Tributación, asume la administración tributaria por medio de actuaciones fiscalizadoras y de comprobación, con la finalidad de recaudar los tributos establecidos en la normativa tributaria vigente, y el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, que dirime las controversias tributarias administrativas entre el contribuyente y la Dirección General de Tributación, órgano de plena jurisdicción e independiente en su organización, funcionamiento y competencia del Poder Ejecutivo, cuyos fallos agotan la vía administrativa. De igual modo, esta potestad se asigna a las Administraciones Tributarias Descentralizadas, por virtud de lo estatuido en el canon 99 del citado Código Tributario, respecto de las cargas fiscales sobre las cuales se les ha asignado la potestad de gestión tributaria.

En esa dinámica, se insiste, el principio de reserva de ley es componente medular de la seguridad y certeza jurídica del sistema tributario, principios que se constituyen en esquemas de garantía para el sujeto pasivo y en parámetro de validez de las diversas conductas de las Administraciones Tributarias. Como se ha indicado, la obligación tributaria nace a la vida jurídica cuando se configura el hecho generador previsto por la ley y que tipifica el tributo respectivo. Es a partir de la concreción de la conducta que el legislador ha definido como elemento objetivo del hecho imponible, que el Ordenamiento Jurídico impone al sujeto respectivo, deberes de orden material (liquidación y pago) y formal (inscripción, registro, desinscripción, información, declaración, etc.) y por ende, en ese instante, se atribuye a la Administración el conjunto de competencias que son propias de la potestad fiscal aludida, que le empodera para requerir el cumplimiento de esas conductas que impone el plexo normativo al sujeto pasivo. Más simple, la configuración de la conducta definida por la ley como hecho generador, es el punto de origen de la obligación tributaria y es solo a partir de ese momento que surge la relación jurídica tributaria y la persona adquiere la condición de obligado tributario, contribuyente o sujeto pasivo. Tal sinergia impone, sin lugar a duda, un ambiente de certidumbre y seguridad, a efectos de que las personas tengan claridad en cuanto a las implicaciones que sus actividades económicas componen en el ámbito tributario. De ahí que la definición diáfana y precisa de los componentes medulares y estructurales de los tributos, mediante ley formal, sea un pilar del sistema fiscal, de su transparencia y garantía de justicia tributaria, en la medida en que permite tener parámetros objetivos e identificables respecto de los diversos elementos de las categorías tributarias y sus elementos. Esto es determinante en un sistema fiscal que presenta estructuras impositivas que imponen al sujeto obligado deberes de auto determinación, auto declaración y auto liquidación, que le imponen la carga de establecer cuáles de sus actividades se encuentran sujetas a determinado tributo, definir la base imponible en su caso concreto, declarar su situación específica y posteriormente, cancelar la deuda fiscal que, de conformidad con sus análisis, ha establecido. Luego, la Administración Tributaria en el ejercicio de la potestad determinativa y fiscalizadora, verifica el correcto cumplimiento de esas obligaciones, requiriendo, de ser el caso, los ajustes respectivos, o bien, estableciendo el deber contributivo a quienes no han considerado que esas obligaciones le son aplicables. Lo anterior sin perjuicio de las relaciones fiscales que se satisfacen a partir de figuras de retención en la fuente, en las cuales, se utilizan esquemas de recaudación como el agente retenedor o agente de traslación. De ahí que la reserva de ley en los términos comentados, resulta fundamental para un ambiente de seguridad y neutralidad en el manejo de las relaciones fiscales, evitando que por criterios ajenos a la ley, se impongan o modifiquen cargas fiscales, generando riesgos de afectación a los destinatarios del poder tributario, y a la vez, se insiste, constituye parámetro de control de validez de las conductas administrativas, y un referente indudable de la legitimidad de las obligaciones a imponer a las personas administradas. Para lo relevante en este caso, según se abordará infra, la definición legal del hecho generador constituye piedra angular de dicha certeza jurídica, en tanto es el elemento a partir del cual, resultan oponibles las diversas obligaciones legales que supone una determinada relación fiscal. No es un elemento que pueda dejarse a la liberalidad interpretativa o al juicio de valor de la Administración, debiendo estar claramente determinado y fijado por la ley, como consecuencia de la doctrina que impone el numeral 121 inciso 13 de la Constitución Política.

• 2)Sobre la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta. La Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta (LISR) n.° 7092 del 21 de abril de 1988, es una de las leyes con mayor relevancia en el sistema tributario costarricense. Este tributo se caracteriza por tener una estructura cedular, en la medida en que establece diversas manifestaciones impositivas según la naturaleza de los ingresos sobre los cuales recae la renta, según se trate de ingresos por utilidades derivadas del ejercicio económico de personas físicas o jurídicas, y por otro, un esquema de retención en la fuente. De previo a la reforma realizada por la Ley No. 9635, esta normativa establecía las siguientes cédulas impositivas: impuestos sobre las utilidades de personas físicas o jurídicas, y en el caso de la retención en la fuente: renta por trabajo personal dependiente (impuesto al salario), impuesto sobre la renta disponible, impuesto sobre títulos valores y otros instrumentos financieros, impuesto sobre remesas al exterior, impuesto sobre retiros de fondos de pensiones complementarias (voluntarias) y las retenciones como pagos a cuenta del impuesto sobre la renta (del 2% o del 3%). Con la reforma introducida por la Ley No. 9635, dicho esquema estructural se compone del impuesto sobre las utilidades de personas físicas y jurídicas, y en el caso de la retención en la fuente, las manifestaciones del impuesto al salario, rentas de capital mobiliario, rentas de capital inmobiliario, rentas por títulos valores y remesas al exterior. Dentro del capítulo XI de rentas de capital se reajustan regulaciones en cuanto a los diversos supuestos gravados, cada uno con su respectivo tratamiento fiscal.

Ahora, resulta procedente analizar el impuesto sobre las utilidades, el cual, grava las rentas de las personas físicas, jurídicas y entes colectivos sin personalidad jurídica que desarrollan actividades lucrativas en el país de fuente costarricense, tal y como lo establece el numeral 1 de la LISR, con la aclaración que las siguientes referencias se realizan en el contexto de la versión vigente de esa normativa al momento de emitirse los precedentes que sustentan la línea jurisprudencial de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia que constituye el objeto de esta acción:

“Artículo 1.- Impuesto que comprende la ley, hecho generador y materia imponible. Se establece un impuesto sobre las utilidades de las empresas y de las personas físicas que desarrollen actividades lucrativas. (Así adicionado el párrafo anterior por el artículo 102 de la Ley de Presupuesto Extraordinario, N° 7097 del 18 de agosto de 1988) El hecho generador del impuesto sobre las utilidades referidas en el párrafo anterior, es la percepción de rentas en dinero o en especie, continuas u ocasionales, provenientes de cualquier fuente costarricense. (Así reformado y corrida la numeración del párrafo anterior por el artículo 102 de la Ley de Presupuesto Extraordinario, N° 7097 del 18 de agosto de 1988, que lo traspaso del párrafo primero al segundo) Este impuesto también grava los ingresos, continuos o eventuales, de fuente costarricense, percibidos o devengados por personas físicas o jurídicas domiciliadas en el país; así como cualquier otro ingreso o beneficio de fuente costarricense no exceptuado por ley, entre ellos los ingresos que perciban los beneficiarios de contratos de exportación por certificados de abono tributario. La condición de domiciliado en el país se determinará conforme al reglamento. Lo dispuesto en esta ley no será aplicable a los mecanismos de fomento y compensación ambiental establecidos en la Ley Forestal, N° 7575, del 13 de febrero de 1996. (Corrida la numeración del párrafo anterior por el artículo 102 de la Ley de Presupuesto Extraordinario, N° 7097 del 18 de agosto de 1988, que lo traspaso del párrafo segundo al tercero) (Así reformado el párrafo tercero anterior por el artículo 1° de la ley N° 7838 del 5 de octubre de 1998) Para los efectos de lo dispuesto en los párrafos anteriores, se entenderá por ventas, ingresos o beneficios de fuente costarricense, los provenientes de servicios prestados, bienes situados, o capitales utilizados en el territorio nacional, que se obtengan durante el período fiscal de acuerdo con las disposiciones de esta ley.” A partir de lo expuesto, para establecer la existencia y exigencia de la relación tributaria entre el contribuyente y el hecho imponible, se cuenta con los criterios de sujeción, de vinculación o de conexión, los cuales son los elementos determinantes para que una renta pueda ser afectada por el sistema tributario costarricense, es decir, son parámetros objetivos para aplicar la normativa tributaria. De ese modo, se tiene que el régimen tributario nacional, en lo que se refiere a la renta por utilidades, establece los siguientes criterios de sujeción:

• a)renta producto se entiende como aquellos ingresos o beneficios, continuos u ocasionales, provenientes de fuente costarricense, sea, la derivada a partir de bienes situados, servicios prestados o capitales utilizados en el territorio nacional. Dicho concepto procura imponer el gravamen fiscal sobre la utilidad y no sobre la fuente productora de la riqueza, componente económico que pretende mantenerse incólume. Es decir, se grava el beneficio económico (neto) derivado del uso de aquellos factores de producción (tierra, trabajo y capital), pero no el valor de dichos factores en sí mismos. De ahí que, al tenor de ese principio, la misma Ley No. 7092 establece la figura de los gastos deducibles (artículos 8 y 9), los cuales, se aplican a la base bruta de ingresos para generar un efecto disminutivo o reductor de ese referente, a efectos de obtener la renta neta, concepto que se constituye a su vez en la renta gravada (ver artículos 5 y 14 ejusdem). La lógica de este sistema es el reconocimiento fiscal de los gastos que sean necesarios para producir ingresos gravados, a reserva de que cumplan con las exigencias formales y sustanciales que impone el canon 8 de la Ley de Renta. Esto supone que se conserva la fuente productora de la riqueza y se grava la utilidad, que no el incremento patrimonial en sí.
• b)cedularidad se trata del carácter cedular del tributo, que establece distintos impuestos, según los tipos de renta que serán gravados, a partir de los criterios escogidos y establecidos en la Ley. Como se ha indicado, supone la necesaria distinción y diferenciación del trato tributario según la fuente de producción de la renta que se concreta en la definición (tipificación) del respectivo hecho generador.
• c)territorialidad, lo cual solamente permite gravar las rentas generadas de fuente costarricense. Se trata de una vinculación objetiva al territorio nacional, es decir, no podrán ser gravadas las rentas generadas en el exterior. Este criterio objetivo, se encuentra expresamente en la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta (LISR) n.° 7092, en su artículo primero, norma que precisa y detalla los parámetros objetivos que permiten establecer la relación denominada “de fuente costarricense”. Señala ese precepto: “Artículo 1- (…) Para los efectos de lo dispuesto en el párrafo anterior, se entenderá por rentas, ingresos, o beneficios de fuente costarricense, los generados en el territorio nacional provenientes de servicios prestados, bienes situados o capitales utilizados, que se obtengan durante el periodo fiscal, de acuerdo con las disposiciones de esta ley (…)” (El destacado en negrita no pertenece al original). De esa manera, es que surge el principio de territorialidad, el cual constituye una limitación dirigida a la Administración Tributaria, a efecto de que tenga previamente establecido el marco para poder establecer y exigir las contribuciones a personas o bienes que se encuentren en su territorio.

Por otra parte, el impuesto sobre las utilidades se rige por el sistema de auto determinación, auto declaración y auto liquidación de la obligación tributaria, en virtud de lo cual, es al propio contribuyente a quien se asigna el deber de iniciativa en torno a la definición de los aspectos que se insertan en su respectiva declaración y que tienen incidencia en la liquidación de la cuota fiscal, bajo los requisitos y en las fechas establecidas por la Administración Tributaria. No obstante, dicho procedimiento, en el ejercicio de las potestades de imperio de la Administración, está sujeto a revisión para determinar el correcto cumplimiento de la carga tributaria, pues de encontrar una diferencia, mediante los diversos mecanismos de determinación (sobre base cierta, base presunta o base objetiva), podrá imponer un pago superior al declarado por el contribuyente, así como a establecer eventuales sanciones administrativas que puedan corresponder por potenciales infracciones a la normativa tributaria.

• 3)Sobre la violación del principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria respecto a la jurisprudencia impugnada. El accionante considera que la jurisprudencia adoptada por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia es inconstitucional, por cuanto lesiona el principio de reserva de ley, ya que, a través de una interpretación extensiva del concepto de territorialidad y la inclusión del término denominado “vinculación económica”, acepta que se graven ingresos generados en el extranjero, por considerarlos fuente costarricense al haberse generado por una empresa localizada y domiciliada en el país, o por utilizarse capital costarricense.

Ahora bien, para los efectos de lo que aquí se analiza, resulta pertinente citar el artículo 10 del Código Civil, que dispone que “Las normas se interpretarán según el sentido propio de sus palabras, en relación con el contexto, los antecedentes históricos y legislativos y la realidad social del tiempo en que han de ser aplicadas, atendiendo fundamentalmente al espíritu y finalidad de ellas”. En similar sentido, el canon 10 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública establece la interpretación finalista como medida de protección del interés público en el siguiente sentido:

“1. La norma administrativa deberá ser interpretada en la forma que mejor garantice la realización del fin público a que se dirige, dentro del respeto debido a los derechos e intereses del particular.

2. Deberá interpretarse e integrarse tomando en cuenta las otras normas conexas y la naturaleza y valor de la conducta y hechos a que se refiere.” En el plano del derecho tributario, el artículo 6 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, impone la sujeción de la interpretación de esas normas a las reglas y métodos admitidos por el derecho común. Así, regula:

“Artículo 6º.- Interpretación de las normas tributarias. Las normas tributarias se deben interpretar con arreglo a todos los métodos admitidos por el Derecho Común.

La analogía es procedimiento admisible para "llenar los vacíos legales" pero en virtud de ella no pueden crearse tributos ni exenciones.” (resaltado no corresponde al original).

Asimismo, el artículo 8 del mismo cuerpo normativo, establece lo siguiente:

“Artículo 8º.- Interpretación de la norma que regula el hecho generador de la obligación tributaria.

Cuando la norma relativa al hecho generador se refiera a situaciones definidas por otras ramas jurídicas, sin remitirse ni apartarse expresamente de ellas, el intérprete puede asignarle el significado que más se adapte a la realidad considerada por la ley al crear el tributo.

Las formas jurídicas adoptadas por los contribuyentes no obligan al intérprete, quien puede atribuir a las situaciones y actos ocurridos una significación acorde con los hechos, cuando de la ley tributaria surja que el hecho generador de la respectiva obligación fue definido atendiendo a la realidad y no a la forma jurídica.

Cuando las formas jurídicas sean manifiestamente inapropiadas a la realidad de los hechos gravados y ello se traduzca en una disminución de la cuantía de las obligaciones, la ley tributaria se debe aplicar prescindiendo de tales formas.” Partiendo de lo anterior, se expone de forma clara que la interpretación de la normativa tributaria se debe realizar respetando de los principios constitucionales, de acuerdo con la finalidad y el espíritu del tributo, es decir la interpretación debe ser declarativa de la voluntad del legislador al momento en que se generó dicho tributo. Además, la norma prohíbe expresamente la analogía (forma de integración) como medio para crear tributos o exenciones, pues es únicamente permitida para llenar los posibles vacíos legales de las normas tributarias.

De ese modo, la interpretación de las normas que regulan y rigen el quehacer fiscal, debe sujetarse al procedimiento lógico que corresponde frente a cada caso normativo. Por demás, en ese ejercicio, es necesario considerar que por la vía de la interpretación no es factible sustituir la voluntad del legislador en cuanto a la configuración y precisión de los elementos fundamentales del tributo, dado que, se reitera, tales componentes estructurales básicos, es materia reservada a la ley formal. De otro modo, legitimar por la vía de la interpretación la creación, modificación o supresión de los elementos del tributo que han de ser definidos por ley, lesiona la base misma del sistema democrático y permite al Poder Ejecutivo sustituir al legislador, quebrantando la lógica misma del principio de distribución de funciones que estatuye el precepto 9 de la Carta Fundamental. La interpretación es un mecanismo direccionado a procurar la recta y correcta aplicación de la ley, pero en su virtud no puede superarse la ley, desconocerla o reformarla.

De ese modo, el punto medular en esta acción gravita en torno a definir si la pauta jurisprudencial cuestionada, constituye un exceso en la definición de los elementos del tributo de renta a las utilidades, al extender el alcance del elemento material del hecho imponible, a actividades e ingresos que, según alega el accionante, no forman parte del hecho generador. Como se ha indicado, este elemento debe venir expresamente regulado por la ley, siendo inviable que por la vía de la interpretación se pueda ensanchar ese parámetro objetivo, nuclear para un sistema tributario que ha de garantizar la seguridad jurídica, la confianza legítima y la transparencia como reglas de soporte de los derechos y garantías del sujeto pasivo. Así, es menester examinar si la actividad de inversiones de fondos en el extranjero, realizada con capital generado en territorio fiscal costarricense, forma parte del hecho imponible de la cédula de renta, dada la aplicación del criterio de vinculación económica con la fuente, o si, por el contrario, esa aplicación trasciende el esquema territorial de renta, tal y como alegan los promoventes.

Sobre ese particular, cabe recalcar en el hecho generador del impuesto a las utilidades. Los numerales 1 y 2 de la Ley No. 7092, con la redacción vigente al momento de los procedimientos determinativos en virtud de los cuales se emitió la jurisprudencia reprochada, definen ese elemento, señalando que ese tributo recae sobre las utilidades de las personas físicas, jurídicas y entes colectivos sin personalidad jurídica, domiciliados en el país, que desarrollen actividades lucrativas de fuente costarricense. Si bien el tributo se define sobre las utilidades, se condiciona a que ese producto económico derive de actividades en las cuales se utilicen los factores de producción (tierra, trabajo y capital) que sean de fuente costarricense. La imposición se establece sobre todo ingreso percibido o devengado dentro del período fiscal, indistintamente que el mismo sea continuo o eventual, pero, además, recae sobre cualquier beneficio patrimonial que no se encuentre debidamente justificado o respaldado. Cabe hacer notar que el régimen de imposición de marras recae, igualmente, sobre todo beneficio patrimonial que no haya sido expresamente excluido del tributo, siempre que dicho ingreso o beneficio derive de fuente costarricense. Hasta este punto del esquema normativo, se observa la relevancia de la definición del concepto “de fuente costarricense”, debido a que es dicho referente el que permite la vinculación del ingreso a su respectiva afectación tributaria. De ahí que, de seguido, la norma aclara qué ha de entenderse como ingresos de fuente costarricense, precisando:

“Para los efectos de lo dispuesto en los párrafos anteriores, se entenderá por ventas, ingresos o beneficios de fuente costarricense, los provenientes de servicios prestados, bienes situados, o capitales utilizados en el territorio nacional, que se obtengan durante el período fiscal de acuerdo con las disposiciones de esta ley.” La norma en cuestión permite establecer que, por mandato expreso de ley, el concepto de fuente costarricense alude a ingresos o beneficios patrimoniales que se hayan devengado o percibido EN EL TERRITORIO NACIONAL, a partir de la prestación de servicios, locación de bienes o utilización de capitales. Desde luego que en el contexto del elemento territorial que impone dicho esquema normativo, la renta gravada debe ser derivación del uso de la tierra o el capital, así como de la prestación de servicios en el territorio fiscal costarricense. Por derivación lógica, la obtención de rentas a partir del solo uso de bienes ubicados en territorio nacional, impone el deber de contribuir, aún para una parte no domiciliada en el país, por cuanto el criterio material permite tener ese ingreso como de fuente costarricense. Lo mismo acontece con rentas asociadas a servicios prestados en Costa Rica, pues, si la riqueza se produce a partir de esa oferta de servicios en territorio nacional, se impone el criterio territorial y quien ha prestado la actividad, se constituye en sujeto obligado, pese a que no sea residente fiscal nacional. Desde luego que, si el sujeto receptor de la renta no reside en el país, la remesa de las utilidades impone al remesante el deber de retención, so pena de responsabilidad solidaria en cuanto a ese particular. De igual manera, el uso de capitales en el país impone semejante tratamiento fiscal, indistintamente del origen de los fondos o el capital que se utilice. Lo relevante es que la actividad material de uso de capital a partir del cual se obtiene o produce un ingreso, beneficio económico o derecho de crédito, se realice dentro de la jurisdicción territorial costarricense, y en ese tanto, dicho ingreso se encontrará afecto al tributo en cuestión.

Por contraste, cuando un residente fiscal costarricense obtenga rentas derivadas de servicios prestados en el extranjero, bienes situados en el exterior o capitales utilizados fuera de los límites geográficos costarricenses, no pueden ser considerados como de fuente costarricense y en esa medida, son ingresos que están excluidos del poder fiscal nacional. Nótese que no se trata de una exención fiscal, ya que, como claramente lo estatuye el numeral 61 en relación al 62 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, la exoneración supone una dispensa legal del deber material de contribuir. Es decir, en las exenciones, se configura el hecho generador y por ende, existe obligación tributaria, sin embargo, el legislador, de manera expresa, impone una liberación del deber de pago (total o parcial), se de manera objetiva o mediante la inserción de condiciones subjetivas verificables ante el Fisco, como requisito para gozar del beneficio fiscal. Justamente por la existencia de obligación tributaria, perviven los deberes no exonerados, como es el caso de las obligaciones formales. El caso aludido configura, por contrario, una no sujeción, supuesto en el cual, no existe deber fiscal alguno, pues la actividad no se encuentra inserta dentro del alcance del hecho generador (que debe establecer la ley). De ese modo, en las no sujeciones, no es necesario que la ley defina cuáles ingresos están excluidos del parámetro de cobertura del tributo. De ahí que las no sujeciones se definan a partir de una aplicación negativa o por descarte del análisis del hecho generador; más simple, si el acto o conducta del sujeto no se encuentra incluido dentro de las que se han tipificado como hecho imponible, no se encuentra gravada, sin necesidad de norma expresa que así lo indique. Si bien la misma Ley No. 7092 establece en su numeral 6 supuestos de exclusión de la renta bruta, ello no supone que cualquier ingreso que no se encuentre dentro de esa lista se encuentra afecto al impuesto. En esencia, la sujeción de riqueza en el impuesto a las utilidades se condiciona a que derive de fuente costarricense, con las excepciones de ingresos no sustentados a los que ya se ha hecho alusión, de manera que los beneficios patrimoniales que el residente fiscal costarricense no haya obtenido del uso de los factores de producción y supuestos que definen las rentas de fuentes costarricense, no se podrían considerar como rentas sujetas. De otro modo, extender el poder tributario a esos ingresos que no guardan relación con rentas de fuente costarricense, implicaría migrar hacia un sistema de renta mundial (y no territorial), que impone el deber de declaración y de contribución material sobre la base de la totalidad de ingresos generados por el sujeto pasivo, indistintamente del lugar en que los haya devengado o percibido. Sería un criterio de sujeción subjetivo, y no objetivo territorial, como el que opera en el esquema de renta definido por la Ley No. 7092. Se trata de una visión fiscal que debe plasmarse en ley formal, empero, se insiste, este sistema de renta mundial no es el que define el sistema tributario nacional de renta sobre las utilidades, las que sujeta, se reitera, al concepto de fuente costarricense.

De ese modo, el tratamiento fiscal de esas rentas que no son de fuente costarricense, en el caso de los sistemas tributarios de renta territorial, queda supeditado al régimen tributario del país en el cual se ha producido la renta. Una vez que dichas rentas sean repatriadas, y el capital que suponen sea utilizado en el país, las utilidades que esa utilización pueda generar en territorio costarricense son consideradas como de fuente nacional y en ese tanto, estarían gravadas las utilidades, que no el capital primario que fue producido de manera extra territorial, desde el plano fiscal.

En ese sentido, es criterio de los suscritos que la postura asentada en la jurisprudencia que es objeto de debate considera que las rentas que son generadas por el uso de capitales nacionales en mercados extranjeros de colocación o inversión temporal de valores monetarios, es decir, que son colocados en actividades financieras de inversión, se encuentran gravadas en Costa Rica. Lo anterior al estimar que aplica en esos negocios bursátiles la figura de “pertenencia” o “vinculación a la estructura económica”. En lo medular, la lógica de esta postura descansa en el hecho o circunstancia que el capital primario que se utiliza en la transacción con una entidad extranjera es de fuente costarricense, pues esa riqueza de inversión se ha generado en el país y se encuentra en cuentas costarricenses. Por ende, la sola colocación en títulos internacionales no supone una desvinculación con el ejercicio de actividades gravadas por la cédula de renta.

Como se ha indicado, el uso de capital que se encuentra gravado en estos casos es el que se haya utilizado en territorio costarricense. Para ello, el análisis no recae sobre el origen del capital, sino en el lugar en el que se use ese capital y se produzca el beneficio. Desde esa arista de examen, si bien el capital base pudo haberse generado en Costa Rica, lo cierto del caso es que esas partidas son colocadas en inversiones transitorias de entidades financieras que se residencian en otros países, y es en la locación de esas entidades que se celebra el negocio jurídico en virtud del cual se produce el rédito financiero. Es claro que, dado el modelo de inversión, luego esos recursos son repatriados a las cuentas bancarias originarias, desde las cuales se realizaron las inversiones, sin embargo, ello no dice que esas utilidades que se obtienen a partir del uso de capital nacional en territorio extranjero puedan ser tenidas como rentas de fuente costarricense. La sola circunstancia que las entidades inversionistas utilicen ese esquema de negocios como medio de potenciar utilidades por el uso del capital disponible en orden a maximizar liquidez u obtener mejores réditos, o bien, que las inversiones aludidas sean transitorias y a corto plazo, como es el caso de las denominadas “overnight”, no incluye a los autos un elemento concreto a partir del cual pueda afirmarse que esas rentas en cuestión sean de fuente costarricense y que, por ende, se encuentren afectas al impuesto de utilidades. Por otro lado, la regularidad o no del uso de esa opción económica tampoco introduce un elemento de sujeción, pues dentro del hecho imponible definido por el legislador, no se prevé un tributo por la habitualidad de ese modelo de ingresos. Cosa distinta es el beneficio económico que por concepto de comisiones de colocación de inversiones que cobran a clientes, pueden tener esas entidades financieras, pues esa actividad deriva de servicios prestados en territorio nacional, pero cosa distinta es la utilidad en sí misma, la que se obtiene, se insiste, a partir del uso de capitales en el extranjero. En este punto, cabe traer a colación lo preceptuado por el artículo 6 inciso ch) de la Ley de Renta, en cuanto señala:

“ch) Las rentas generadas en virtud de contratos, convenios o negociaciones sobre bienes o capitales localizados en el exterior, aunque se hubieren celebrado y ejecutado total o parcialmente en el país.” Véase que ese mandato excluye de la renta los ingresos que se hayan generado a partir de bienes o capitales localizados en el extranjero, o bien, servicios prestados en el exterior, aunque se hayan celebrado en el país. Esta regulación es totalmente congruente con el principio de renta de fuente costarricense al que se viene haciendo alusión, en la medida en que no considera como objeto del gravamen, ganancias derivadas de servicios prestados, capitales localizados o bienes situados en el extranjero, debido a que esos factores de producción no han sido utilizados en el territorio nacional. A diferencia de la postura que sostienen las instancias públicas que han participado en este proceso y lo expresado en la línea jurisprudencial de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia, es nuestro criterio que dicha norma no se constituye como base legal de la imposición que se ha establecido en cuanto a las aludidas rentas obtenidas por colocación temporal de capital costarricense en inversiones en el extranjero. Por un lado, al margen del sitio en que se considere perfeccionado el negocio jurídico, lo cierto del caso es que se trata de capitales que, en definitiva, son utilizados en el extranjero y a partir de esa colocación de valores, se obtiene una utilidad. Pero esa utilidad tiene sustento en el uso de ese capital en las cuentas de inversión de las entidades que se residencian en el extranjero, que no en el uso del capital en Costa Rica. De otro modo, la tesis reprochada supondría que todo uso de capital de fuente nacional para obtener ganancias en otras jurisdicciones fiscales, se encontraría afecto al impuesto nacional, bajo la consideración de una supuesta vinculación económica, llevado a un supuesto de renta mundial que no encuentra previsión o sustento en la literalidad de las normas que regulan esa relación fiscal.

De igual manera consideramos necesario precisar que el origen de las cuentas desde las cuales se toman los fondos para colocar en inversiones temporales en países extranjeros, no se constituye como elemento sobre el cual pueda sostenerse la imposición que se reprocha. En efecto, los conceptos de localización y colocación a que aluden las autoridades tributarias, en el fondo, pretenden justificar la tesis que han aplicado en sede administrativa y que fue prohijada por los precedentes de la alta instancia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia. Sin embargo, es notorio que el negocio de inversiones supone desplazamiento de valores en cuenta e implica una indisponibilidad de esos fondos en el plazo o tiempo en tanto dura la inversión. El inversionista no puede disponer de esos fondos, sino hasta que sean liberados y puestos a su disposición por el ente financiero internacional. Por ende, no puede decirse que esos montos sigan localizados en Costa Rica, pese haber sido colocados en cuentas internacionales. Se trata de una transferencia de valores a efectos de colocarlos en un régimen de inversión, pactado por las partes, a efectos de obtener una ganancia proyectada, acorde al análisis de riesgos y de rentabilidad que particularizan el negocio. Así visto, no son utilidades que sean generadas en Costa Rica, o que bien, pueda estimarse que encajan dentro del concepto legal de “rentas de fuente costarricense”, pues no deriva de capitales utilizados en territorio nacional, cuando, por el contrario, son ganancias por el uso de ese capital en mercados de valores extranjeros.

El criterio de territorialidad avalado por Sala Primera conlleva a la sujeción de aquellas rentas que se forjen con capital nacional producido en función de una actividad económica, independientemente de donde se generen, aplicación que esta Cámara estima ensancha el hecho generador dispuesto por la ley, sin contar con base normativa que así lo habilite. Ergo, la renta proveniente de las inversiones realizadas en el exterior con capital nacional no puede tenerse como de fuente costarricense, por lo que, bajo ese concepto, su imposición no se ampara a lo estatuido por los ordinales 1, 2 y 6 inciso ch) de la Ley No. 7092.

Así, es criterio de los suscritos que la jurisprudencia impugnada de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia resulta contraria al principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria, desarrollado en el artículo 121 inciso 13) constitucional, al establecer la posibilidad de que la Administración Tributaria pueda gravar las rentas generadas en el exterior por medio del impuesto a las utilidades. Lo anterior, por cuanto la norma jurisprudencial en análisis ha ampliado el hecho generador de la ley, al incluir la figura de “pertenencia” o “vinculación a la estructura económica”, las cuales no están definidas ni establecidas en la Ley del Impuesto sobre la Renta (LISR) n.° 7092. De ese modo, se puede evidenciar que, contrario a lo expresado tanto por el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo como por la Procuraduría General de la República, al establecer el hecho generador del impuesto a las utilidades, el legislador no contempló la posibilidad de poder gravar rentas que provengan del exterior, ni mucho menos estableció alguna imposición en relación con renta extranjera, a partir de que se produjera por una empresa domiciliada en el país o que se haya utilizado un capital de fuente costarricense, para ser gravado. Por el contrario, en el tercer párrafo del numeral 1 de la LISR, el legislador enfatizó que debe entenderse por rentas, ingresos o beneficios de fuente costarricense, dentro de las cuales, no se desprende el tipo de ingreso que ha dado base a esta acción.

De allí que contrario a lo argumentado por la Procuraduría General de la Republica y el Tribunal Fiscal Administrativo, consideramos los suscritos magistrados que la interpretación contenida en la norma jurisprudencial impugnada, según la cual por un criterio de vinculación económica, se incluye dentro de la base imponible para el cálculo del impuesto de las utilidades, ingresos obtenidos producto de inversiones en el extranjero, realizadas por empresas domiciliadas en Costa Rica, por cuanto la fuente productora de renta es costarricense y el capital invertido en el extranjero es costarricense, de allí que los rendimientos obtenidos forman parte de los ingresos gravables de la empresa en Costa Rica, no tiene asidero en las disposiciones legales analizadas. Se trata de una interpretación jurídica extensiva de los artículos 1, 5 y 6 inciso ch) de la Ley del Impuesto Sobre la Renta, que varía la forma como se determina la base imponible de un tributo, por lo que, en nuestro criterio, la jurisprudencia impugnada resulta contraria al Derecho de la Constitución.

Esta postura contradice la naturaleza y el espíritu del legislador al momento en que generó los elementos esenciales del impuesto a las utilidades. Se puede evidenciar que el legislador no contempló dentro del impuesto a las utilidades la posibilidad de poder gravar rentas que provengan del exterior, ni mucho menos estableció alguna imposición en relación con renta extranjera, a partir de que se produjera por una empresa domiciliada en el país o que se haya utilizado un capital de fuentes costarricenses para ser gravadas.

En razón de lo anterior, consideramos que la interpretación realizada por la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia no se encuentra conforme con lo establecido en la normativa tributaria, toda vez que lo que está realizando por medio de su jurisprudencia, es gravar una renta que no se encuentra definida por la ley, lo que es contrario del 121 inciso 13) de la Constitución Política y genera inseguridad jurídica, ya que, como se desarrolló anteriormente, el Poder Legislativo es el único órgano con la competencia para crear normas jurídicas tributarias. Finalmente, estimamos que la interpretación de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia tampoco es compatible con la normativa tributaria, pues sigue el criterio subjetivo, según el cual se gravan las rentas sin importar donde hayan sido generadas, considerando únicamente quién produjo la renta, para así determinar si se grava o no. En ese sentido, resulta importante recordar que el sistema tributario costarricense se aplica a partir del criterio objetivo de territorialidad, esto quiere decir que, para que surja la obligación tributaria, es esencial, que la renta sea generada en suelo nacional, para así ser considerada fuente costarricense a partir del principio de territorialidad, que toma como sujeción el lugar donde se generó la renta, para determinar si puede ser gravada o no, de conformidad con el ordenamiento jurídico.

Por las consideraciones apuntadas, estimamos que la acción de inconstitucionalidad debe ser declarada con lugar en cuanto este extremo, por cuanto la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia aquí impugnada, mediante una interpretación extensiva, sujeta rentas extraterritoriales al impuesto sobre las utilidades, lo cual no se encuentra consignado en el hecho generador del impuesto a las utilidades y es contrario al criterio objetivo territorial que sigue el sistema tributario costarricense. En consecuencia, disponemos la anulación de la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia contenida en las sentencias 617-F-S1-2010 de las 09:10 horas del 20 de mayo de 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 de las 08:50 horas del 27 de enero de 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 de las 11:20 horas del 07 de abril de 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 de las 13:05 horas del 22 de setiembre de 2016 y 326-F-S1-2017 de las 10:55 horas del 23 de marzo de 2017, por vulnerar el principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria. Además, conforme lo dispuesto en el artículo 89 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, la inconstitucionalidad se extiende, por conexidad, a todas las directrices o instrucciones generales de la administración tributaria, dirigidas a los contribuyentes, que tienen cobertura en la norma jurisprudencial que declaramos inconstitucional.” El razonamiento antedicho fue reiterado en los votos nros. 2023-000357 y 2023-000359, ambos de las 9:20 horas de 11 de enero de 2023. Por consiguiente, en el sub lite declaro parcialmente con lugar la acción y dispongo la anulación de la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia contenida en las sentencias nros. 617-F-S1-2010 de las 09:10 horas del 20 de mayo de 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 de las 08:50 horas del 27 de enero de 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 de las 11:20 horas del 07 de abril de 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 de las 13:05 horas del 22 de setiembre de 2016 y 326-F-S1-2017 de las 10:55 horas del 23 de marzo de 2017 por transgredir el principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria. Además, con base en el artículo 89 de la Ley de la Jurisdicción Constitucional, declaro que esa inconstitucionalidad se extiende por conexidad a todas las directrices o instrucciones generales de la administración tributaria dirigidas a los contribuyentes, que tengan cobertura en la norma jurisprudencial que estimo inconstitucional.

XI.- 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 rechaza por el fondo la acción. El magistrado Rueda Leal salva el voto y declara parcialmente con lugar la acción de inconstitucionalidad y, en consecuencia, dispone anular por inconstitucional la jurisprudencia de la Sala Primera de la Corte Suprema de Justicia contenida en las sentencias 617-F-S1-2010 de las 09:10 horas del 20 de mayo de 2010, 55-F-S1-2011 de las 08:50 horas del 27 de enero de 2011, 475-F-S1-2011 de las 11:20 horas del 07 de abril de 2011, 976-F-S1-2016 de las 13:05 horas del 22 de setiembre de 2016 y 326-F-S1-2017 de las 10:55 horas del 23 de marzo de 2017, por vulnerar el principio de reserva de ley en materia tributaria. De igual manera, por conexidad, dispone la anulación de todas las directrices o instrucciones generales de la administración tributaria, dirigidas a los contribuyentes, que tienen cobertura en las normas que ahora se declaran inconstitucionales.

Fernando Castillo V.

Fernando Cruz C.

Paul Rueda L.

Luis Fdo. Salazar A.

Jorge Araya G.

Anamari Garro V.

Ingrid Hess H.

Documento Firmado Digitalmente -- Código verificador -- 