Nullity of electronic record requirements for large taxpayers due to violation of hierarchy of sources and reasonablenessNulidad de requisitos de registros electrónicos para grandes contribuyentes por violación de jerarquía normativa y razonabilidad

CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE COURT, Second Judicial Circuit of San José, Directorate04 Central 2545-00-03 Fax 2545-00-33 Email ...01 _____________________________________________________________________ CASE FILE: 14-010303-1027-CA (Accumulated with File 14-010699-1027-CA) PROCEEDING DECLARED OF PURE LAW PLAINTIFF: Nombre113922 DE COSTA RICA, S.A.

DEFENDANT: EL ESTADO (Procuradora María del Rocío Solano Raabe) Nº 52-2017-V CONTENTIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE COURT. SECTION FIVE. SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF SAN JOSÉ. ANNEX A. Goicoechea, at eight hours ten minutes on the twelfth of June, two thousand seventeen.- Proceeding of pure law filed by Nombre113922 DE COSTA RICA, S.A., legal identification number CED90102, represented by Nombre105230, identity card number CED89766, in her capacity as Special Judicial Attorney-in-Fact (image 326 of the virtual case file as of the date of issuance of this judgment); against EL ESTADO, whose representative is Procuradora B MARÍA DEL ROCÍO SOLANO RAABE, identity card number CED90101- (folios 51 of the physical case file for precautionary measure 14-10303-1027-CA, and 53 of the physical case file for precautionary measure number 14-10699-1027-CA).

WHEREAS:

1.- That by resolution number 3361-2014 at 09:10 hours on December 19, 2014, the Processing Judge dismissed the pretrial precautionary measure, processed under case file number 14-10303-1027-CA (folios 66 to 68 of the physical precautionary measure case file). That by oral resolution number 160-2015-I at 16:25 hours on April 8, 2015, the Court of Appeals for Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Matters, ordered, in what is relevant: "...The appealed resolution is revoked and in its place the effects of article four, subsections twenty-two and twenty-three of resolution N° 25-2014 at eight hours forty minutes on June eleventh, two thousand fourteen are suspended (...) It is clarified that the suspension decreed of the effects of the resolution is until April thirtieth, two thousand fifteen (...) solely and exclusively regarding the plaintiff company and promoter of the precautionary measure, which is Nombre113922 de Costa Rica S.A...." (folios 87 to 88 of the physical precautionary measure case file).

2.- That by resolution number 0311-2015-T at 15:30 hours on February 5, 2015, the Processing Judge dismissed the pretrial precautionary measure, processed under case file number 14-10699-1027-CA (folios 76 to 79 of the physical precautionary measure case file). That by resolution number 128-2015-I at 15:25 hours on March 13, 2015, Section One of the Court of Appeals for Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Matters, ordered, in what is relevant: "...Resolution 311-2015-T issued at 15:30 hours on February 5, 2015 by Karen Calderón Chacón, processing judge of the Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Court, is annulled. Proceed to immediately resolve the points indicated in considerando II of this resolution immediately..." (folios 86 and 87 of the physical case file for precautionary measure number 14-10699-1027-CA).- 3.- That by resolution number 972-2015-T at 08:30 hours on April 14, 2015, the Processing Judge ordered: "... The precautionary measure requested by Nombre113922 DE COSTA RICA, S.A. is DISMISSED. Resolved without special award of costs. The plaintiff is warned that if filing an ordinary lawsuit, they must do so under this same judicial case file number..." (folios 101 to 105 of the physical case file for precautionary measure number 14-10699-1027-CA). That by oral resolution number 224-2015-II at 15:00 hours on May 19, 2015, Section Two of the Court of Appeals for Contentious Administrative and Civil Treasury Matters, ordered the rejection of the appeal filed and the confirmation of resolution 972-2015-T (folios 115 to 117 of the physical case file for precautionary measure number 14-10699-1027-CA).- 4.- The claims of the plaintiff –which were adjusted at the preliminary hearing held at 08:47 hours on October 28, 2016– are: i) Case File 14-010303-1027-CA: "...1. Main claim: The absolute nullity of resolution DGT-25-2014, for lacking the due process requirements for its issuance and legal validity, given that the consultation procedure established by article 174 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures was not respected. 2. Subsidiary claim: In the event that the total absolute nullity of resolution DGT-25-2014 is not declared, the partial nullity of the provisions contained in Article 4, subsections xxii and xxiii of said resolution is declared, as it results in a disproportionate and unreasonable obligation for the commercial operation of my Represented Party. 3. That the State be ordered to pay costs. In a subsidiary manner, and if it is deemed that the ground for absolute or partial nullity does not exist, nor the subsidiary ground, may it be considered that my represented party litigated in good faith and under a reasonable appearance of the merit of its claims, for which reason it must be exonerated from the payment of costs...". ii) Case File 14-10699-1027-CA: "... 1. Main claim: The absolute nullity of resolution DGT-25-2014, for lacking the due process requirements for its issuance and legal Validity, given that the consultation procedure established in article 174 of the Tax Code was not respected. 2. Subsidiary claim: In the event that the total absolute nullity of resolution DGT-25-2014 is not declared, the partial nullity of the provisions contained in article 5, subsections xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, and xxvii of said resolution is declared, as it results in a disproportionate and unreasonable obligation for the commercial operation of my Represented Party by violating the fundamental right of my Represented Party not to incur duplicated and proscribed procedures under our Legal System. 3. That the State be ordered to pay costs. In a subsidiary manner, and if it is deemed that the ground for absolute nullity does not exist, nor either of the two subsidiary grounds, may it be considered that my represented party litigated in good faith and under a reasonable appearance of the merit of its claims, for which reason it must be exonerated from the payment of costs..." (folios 57, 58, 172, 173 of the judicial case file and images 328 and 329 of the virtual case file as of the date of issuance of this judgment).- 5.- The representative of the State answered both lawsuits and their respective amplifications negatively; raised the preliminary defense of non-appealable acts and the exception of lack of Right; requested that the lawsuits be dismissed and the plaintiff be ordered to pay the costs of both, as well as the interest generated by such sums from the finality of the judgment until their effective payment. Likewise, she requested that case file 14-10699-1027-CA be accumulated to 14-10303-1027-CA (folios 72 to 98; 185 to 208; 212, 213 of the judicial case file; image 312 of the virtual case file as of the date of issuance of this judgment).- 6.- That by resolution number 2079-2015 at 14:30 hours on August 7, 2015, the Processing Judge ordered: "...The State's motion is granted and the accumulation of processes 14-10699-1027-CA and 10-10303-1027-CA is ordered. Continue their joint processing under the single case file 14-10303-1027-CA. Let the plaintiff take note of what was indicated in considerando III..." (folios 105 to 106 of the judicial case file).

7.- The preliminary hearing was held at 08:47 hours on October 28, 2016, which was recorded in the corresponding electronic system and exists in a separate file in DVD format. That during this hearing, the Processing Judge established the claims raised by the plaintiff, in the terms indicated in the first whereas of this judgment, emphasizing that the plaintiff withdrew subsidiary claim number 2 of the first lawsuit processed under case file 14-10303-1027-CA; likewise, she deemed the preliminary defense of non-appealable acts withdrawn; she established that facts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the lawsuit are considered controverted, transcendental for the case, and therefore, the object of proof; she admitted all the documentary evidence offered by the plaintiff; as well as the entire administrative record presented by the State, clarifying that the folder of the administrative record certified on April 7, 2015, was being returned to the defendant's representative, as it was a duplicate of what had already been admitted. Consequently, as there was no testimonial, confessional, or expert evidence to be taken and in accordance with the provisions of article 98.2 of the same Code, she declared this matter one of pure law and the parties rendered their oral conclusions (images 329 to 330 of the virtual case file as of the date of issuance of this judgment and digital backup of the preliminary hearing of 10-28-2016).

8.- This matter was referred to the Reporting Judge of Section Five of the Contentious Administrative Court, on May 23, 2017 (see status inquiry in electronic folder 14-010303-1027-CA of the Virtual Desktop). In the proceedings before this Court, no nullities have been observed that must be remedied or that cause defenselessness, and the judgment is issued within the period established in article 98 subsection 2) of the Contentious Administrative Procedure Code, in relation to subsection 4) of article 82 of the Autonomous Regulation of Organization and Service of this Jurisdiction, which expires on June 13, 2017.- Judge Nombre113722 drafts the opinion, with the affirmative vote of Judges Mena García and Marchena Jara; and, C O N S I D E R I N G:

Io.- PROVEN FACTS: The following facts that are relevant to this process are considered duly accredited: 1) That by resolution DGA-203-2005 issued at 09:00 hours on June 22, 2005, the General Directorate of Customs issued the Manual of Procedures under the TICA Framework (Containing Entry and Exit of Goods, Vehicles and Transport Units, Customs Transit Procedures, Deposit Procedures, and Final and Temporary Import Procedure) (images 1 to 396 of the evidence CD admitted at the preliminary hearing); 2) That the plaintiff is a company whose main economic activity is that of Chain Supermarkets and Grocery Warehouses, and appears registered as a taxpayer before the Directorate of Large National Taxpayers, for the following taxes: Income, Sales, Withholdings at Source, and Education and Culture Stamp (folios 1 to 3, 107 to 109 of the judicial case file); 3) That in the Official Gazette La Gaceta numbers 39 and 40 on February 25 and 26, 2014, respectively, the following was published: "...In accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of article 174 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures, added by article 2 of the Law for the Strengthening of Tax Management, N° 9069 of September 10, 2012, a period of ten business days counted from the first publication of this notice is granted to entities representing interests of a general, corporate, or diffuse nature, in order for them to express their opinion regarding the draft resolution of general scope called \"OBLIGATION FOR LARGE TAXPAYERS AND LARGE TERRITORIAL COMPANIES IN KEEPING ELECTRONIC RECORDS OF PURCHASES AND SALES OF GOODS, AS WELL AS SERVICES RENDERED\". The observations on the referenced resolution must be expressed in writing and addressed to the Directorate of International Taxation and Technical Taxation of the General Directorate of Taxation (...) For the indicated purposes, the cited draft decree is available on the website http://dgt.hacienda.go.cr, in the \"Projects\" section..." (folios 02 and 04 of the administrative record); 4) That by document number P-022-2014 of April 2, 2014, sent to the Directorate of International Taxation on April 4, 2014 -via fax system-, the President of the Costa Rican Union of Chambers and Associations of the Private Business Sector (UCCAEP), submitted his observations on the draft resolution of general scope called \"OBLIGATION FOR LARGE TAXPAYERS AND LARGE TERRITORIAL COMPANIES IN KEEPING ELECTRONIC RECORDS OF PURCHASES AND SALES OF GOODS, AS WELL AS SERVICES RENDERED\". That in said document, UCCAEP did not indicate that the communication of the hearing provided for in article 174 of the CNPT was carried out by an inadequate means or was silent regarding any of the other publicity requirements established in that same numeral (folios 72 to 88 of the administrative record); 5) That in the Official Gazette La Gaceta number 144 on July 29, 2014, resolution number DGT-25-2015 issued by the General Directorate of Taxation, at 08 hours 40 minutes on June 11, 2014, was published, called \"Obligation for Large National Taxpayers to Keep by Electronic Means the Auxiliary Records of Purchases and Sales Provided by Article 15 of the Regulations of the General Sales Tax Law\", whose entry into force was set for January first, two thousand fifteen (folios 89 to 95 of the administrative record; 4 to 15, 117 to 128 of the judicial case file); 6) That by sworn statement of October 20, 2014, Laura Santana in her capacity as Senior Vice President -Information Technology (IT) of PriceSmart, Inc., declared –among other aspects and according to the Official Translation performed by Roxana Gutiérrez Font, on November 17, 2014– that regarding the adaptation of the computer systems of the company Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A., in order to include the requirements contemplated in subsections xxii and xxiii of article 4 of resolution DGT-25-2014, "...we believe we can commit to having this system functioning appropriately to store and report the required data by May 1, 2015. However, no reasonable possibility of doing so before that date..." (folios 1 to 23 of the physical case file for precautionary measure number 14-10303-1027-CA); 7) That on December 18, 2014, the Certified Public Accountant Germán Antonio Morales Martínez (number 1625), issued a certification to the effect that: "...2. (...) in view of the accounting records of the company Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, there are no individualized accounting records of the sums paid for the Selective Consumption Tax and Specific Taxes. The foregoing reason being that these items form part of the cost of the merchandise. 3. That because Nombre113922 de Costa Rica is an importing and marketing company, the taxes Customs Duties (DAI), Specific Tax on Non-Alcoholic Beverages, Selective Consumption Tax, Procomer, National Archive Stamp, Customs Agents Association Stamp Law 7017, Private Accountants of Costa Rica Stamp, and Law 6946, form part of the cost of the merchandise..." (folios 14 to 18 of the physical case file for precautionary measure number 14-010699-1027-CA); 8) That by sworn statement of January 6, 2015, Laura Santana in her capacity as Senior Vice President -Information Technology (IT) of PriceSmart, Inc., and Michael Mc Cleary in his capacity as Senior Vice President –Corporate Comptroller of PriceSmart, Inc., declared –among other aspects and according to the Official Translation performed by Roxana Gutiérrez Font, on January 8, 2015– that "... these amounts were not available at the item number level for each purchase invoice (...) We are in the process of analyzing if and how we can modify our system to store the items noted in point 7 above, however, we have not yet concluded this (...) Although it is feasible to modify and prepare new reports, in cases like the present, where the data is not stored in the system, it is very complex, if not prohibitive in terms of cost and time, to modify the system to do so..." (official translation of the sworn statement visible on folios 40 to 50 of the physical case file for precautionary measure number 14-010699-1027-CA).- IIo.- FACTS NOT DEMONSTRATED. Of relevance to the present process, the following are considered not demonstrated: a) That a notice was published in a nationally circulated newspaper, making known to the general public the existence of the electronic information and the address through which it could be accessed, regarding the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic records of purchases and sales (not evident from the administrative record); b) That in the "Projects" section of the website of the General Directorate of Taxation, the electronic information related to the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic records of purchases and sales was available (there is no evidence in the case file); c) That entities representing interests of a general, corporate, or diffuse nature, such as the Costa Rican Union of Chambers and Associations of the Private Business Sector (UCCAEP), were directly communicated that they were being given the opportunity to express their opinions about the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic records of purchases and sales (not evident from the administrative record, nor from the documents visible at folios 35 and 129 of the judicial case file); d) That in resolution number DGT-25-2014, it was motivated that there were reasons justifying imposing on the taxpayer or declarant the inclusion in the auxiliary electronic record of purchases and sales, of information issued or contained in the files of the Tax or Customs Administration (not evident from the documents visible at folios 89 to 95 of the administrative record; 4 to 15, 117 to 128 of the judicial case file).- IIIo.- OBJECT OF THE PROCESS. The PLAINTIFF maintains: 1) That resolution DGT-25-2014 issued by the General Directorate of Taxation at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffers from the defect of absolute nullity, given that the procedure provided for in article 174 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures (CNPT) was not followed, since the Costa Rican Union of Chambers and Associations of the Private Business Sector (UCCAEP) was not directly notified of the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic records of purchases and sales, as the Tax Administration merely published the notice in the Official Gazette La Gaceta, which is insufficient to fulfill the publicity duty imposed by the aforementioned rule. Likewise, it considers that the fact that UCCAEP submitted a document raising observations to the indicated draft resolution does not have the effect of considering the requirement fulfilled. 2) It alleges that subsections xxii and xxiii of article 4, and subsections xiv to xvii, xx to xxvii of article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014, are contrary to the provisions of articles 99 and 168 of the CNPT, given that they innovate, through a norm hierarchically inferior to an executive decree (reglamento ejecutivo), the manner and conditions under which article 15 of Executive Decree number 14082 determines how taxpayers and declarants of the General Sales Tax (IVA) must keep the auxiliary records of purchases and sales, despite the fact that article 8, paragraph 2 of Law 6826 indicates that these aspects will be determined through regulatory means. 3) Likewise, it deems that the requirements contained in subsections xxii and xxiii of article 4, and subsections xiv to xvii, xx to xxvii of article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014, are contrary to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, given that some of this data already appears in the records of the Tax and/or Customs Administrations, either because they were issued by the General Directorate of Taxation, the General Directorate of Finance, or because it constitutes information that the General Directorate of Customs possesses through the computer system of the National Customs Service (TICA); 4) Finally, it maintains that it is very complex to make the modifications to the computer system of the company Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A., in order to implement the requirements set forth in subsections xiv to xvii, xx to xxvii of article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014, given that the system does not track that data for making purchases at the supplier invoice level, given its condition as an importing and marketing company. For its part, the representative of the STATE, states that: a) Contrary to what the plaintiff company claims, the procedure established in article 174 of the CNPT was followed, given that two notices were published granting entities representing interests of a general, corporate, or diffuse nature the opportunity to express their opinion on such projects. This is so much the case that UCCAEP submitted its observations to the Directorate of International Taxation on April 4, 2014; b) It considers that the General Directorate of Taxation issued resolution N° DGT-25-2014, directed at large national taxpayers, specifying the characteristics and requirements that the purchase and sales registers that taxpayers and declarants of the General Sales Tax Law must keep by law must contain, as is the case of the plaintiff company Nombre113922 de Costa Rica S.A., based on the provisions of articles 99, 104, 109, and 168 of the Tax Code, which is why, in this matter, the resolution does not innovate any legal situation, but rather is simply the development of the powers granted by the legislator. c) It deems that by express provision of the Legislator, the regulation of Law 8220 could not be extended to assumptions other than that contemplated in article 1, paragraph 2, but furthermore, it is also inappropriate because there are special rules, such as the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures and the General Sales Tax Law and its Regulations. On the other hand, it considers that the provisions of article 171 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures are also not infringed, since the taxpayer is not being required to re-submit documents -such as import procedure documents- but to record the information they have due to their commercial activity, within the electronic purchase and sales registers that sales tax taxpayers must keep by law to comply with that formal tax obligation. d) It maintains that what is provided in subsections xxii and xxiii of article 4, and subsections xiv to xvii, xx to xxvii of article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014, since it concerns information held by the taxpayer, must be provided so that the Tax Administration can fulfill the duty of determining, collecting, and auditing taxes and thereby satisfy the public purposes entrusted to the State. In that sense, it considers that the customs information provided corresponds to the nationalization procedures of the merchandise and that, as is well known, only a detailed physical and documentary verification of the goods entering the country is carried out randomly by Customs, in accordance with the provisions of article 93 of the General Customs Law. e) Finally, it argues that the plaintiff is also incorrect regarding the request for information related to articles xvi and xvii, since from the reading of article 18 of the Regulations to the General Sales Tax Law, which Nombre113922 transcribes, the obligation to record the value of the goods and the amount of the tax is established, which must be related to article 19 of the same Regulations, regarding imports or entries. Consequently, it deems that the challenged resolution is fully adjusted to Law, seeking through its issuance the efficacy in the management, auditing, and tax collection by the Tax Administration, with the purpose of fulfilling the constitutional obligation of every inhabitant of our country to contribute to public burdens, as established by articles 18 and 19 of our Political Constitution.- IVo.- ON THE ALLEGED NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 174 OF THE CNPT AND THE NON-CONFIGURATION, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, OF THE ASSUMPTION PROVIDED IN ARTICLE 223 OF THE LGAP. While it is true, this Court considers it proven that in the Official Gazette La Gaceta numbers 39 and 40, of February 25 and 26, 2014 –respectively–, notices were published aimed at granting "...entities representing interests of a general, corporate, or diffuse nature, a period of ten business days counted from the first publication of this notice, in order for them to express their opinion regarding the draft resolution of general scope called \"OBLIGATION FOR LARGE TAXPAYERS AND LARGE TERRITORIAL COMPANIES IN KEEPING ELECTRONIC RECORDS OF PURCHASES AND SALES OF GOODS, AS WELL AS SERVICES RENDERED…" (folios 02 and 04 of the administrative record); it is also true that the documentary evidence admitted does not show that the following requirements were met, in which the publicity duty imposed on the Tax Administration in these cases is manifested (articles 174 of the Code of Tax Rules and Procedures -CNPT-; 239, 240 subsection 1) and 361 of the General Law of Public Administration –LGAP–), namely: i) That a notice was published in a nationally circulated newspaper, making known to the general public the existence of the electronic information and the address through which it could be accessed, regarding the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic records of purchases and sales (considerando II, section a of this judgment); ii) That in the "Projects" section of the website of the General Directorate of Taxation, the electronic information related to the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic records of purchases and sales was available (considerando II, section b of this judgment); iii) That entities representing interests of a general, corporate, or diffuse nature (considerando II, section c of this judgment), such as the Costa Rican Union of Chambers and Associations of the Private Business Sector (UCCAEP), were directly communicated that they were being given the opportunity to express their opinions about the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic records of purchases and sales. This omission should be highlighted, since in this case the draft resolution was directed at the "LARGE TAXPAYERS AND LARGE TERRITORIAL COMPANIES" sector, which, applying the principles of logic and reasonableness, was clearly identifiable. However, although the General Directorate of Taxation did not comprehensively observe the publicity duty in the procedure aimed at preparing and issuing provisions of a general nature, in the terms set forth above; it is also true that, in this specific case, said omissions did not have the effect of placing entities representing interests of a general, corporate, or diffuse nature in a state of defenselessness, preventing them from exercising their right to raise observations on the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic records of purchases and sales (article 223 of the LGAP). In that sense, it is considered accredited that by document number P-022-2014 of April 2, 2014, sent to the Directorate of International Taxation on April 4, 2014 -via the fax system-, the President of the Costa Rican Union of Chambers and Associations of the Private Business Sector (UCCAEP) submitted his observations on the draft resolution of general scope called \"OBLIGATION FOR LARGE TAXPAYERS AND LARGE TERRITORIAL COMPANIES IN KEEPING ELECTRONIC RECORDS OF PURCHASES AND SALES OF GOODS, AS WELL AS SERVICES RENDERED\" (folios 72 to 88 of the administrative record). Consequently, although this Court deems that the mere publication in the Official Gazette La Gaceta, of the notices aimed at granting entities representing interests of a general, corporate, or diffuse nature the opportunity to express their opinions about the draft resolution (paragraph 2 of article 174 of the CNPT in relation to subsection 2) of numeral 361 of the LGAP), does not guarantee per se the full compliance with the publicity duty.

This is because, in order for the interested parties to effectively exercise their rights to due process, defense, information, and to be heard in the hearing procedure, prior to the issuance of an act that will have legal effects on their vital sphere of interests and rights (subsections 1, 2, 12 of numeral 171 of the CNPT), the Tax Administration must publicize them in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 174 of the CNPT, in relation to numerals 239, 240 subsection 1) and 361 of the LGAP, without prejudice to whether or not it is appropriate to access a document of that nature, solely through digital means. It is also true that, in the specific case and according to article 223 of the LGAP, such procedural omissions did not have the capacity to place the entities representing general or corporate interests or diffuse interests in a state of defenselessness, given that they were not prevented from exercising their right to raise observations on the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic records of purchases and sales, as is evident from folios 72 to 88 of the administrative file, since UCCAEP submitted its observations on the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic records of purchases and sales on April 4, 2014. Without prejudice to the foregoing, it should be noted that at the time of submitting its observations on the draft resolution, UCCAEP did not indicate that the communication of the hearing provided for in article 174 of the CNPT was carried out by an inadequate means or was omitted regarding any of the other publicity requirements set forth in that same numeral and in articles 239, 240 subsection 1) of the LGAP (see folios 72 to 88 of the administrative file), and for this reason and in accordance with the provisions of articles 247 of the LGAP, 9 and 10 of the Judicial Notifications Law, the communication of the hearing granted for them to comment on the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic records of purchases and sales was deemed made at the time when UCCAEP processed and presented its observations, thereby becoming expressly or implicitly aware of it, without alleging at that time the aforementioned omissions. Finally, and although it was not challenged by the plaintiff company, this Court considers it necessary to emphasize that the right to be heard in the hearing procedure prior to the issuance of the resolution or act that will have legal effects for the taxpayers or other interested parties, is not limited solely to granting them the opportunity to express their views on such drafts, but also requires that the Tax Administration analyze those observations; that it state the reasons for which they were rejected and notify them thereof (article 136 of the LGAP), and in the event they are accepted and imply substantial changes to the original draft resolution, to give them due publicity, given that articles 174 of the CNPT and 361 of the LGAP do not subject or restrict the publicity of the draft resolution, regulation, directive, or general rule to a single publication, as this would be contrary to the principles of logic, reasonableness, and proportionality, in those cases where—it bears repeating—substantial modifications, and not merely those of form, are introduced into the draft. For all the foregoing reasons, this Court considers that resolution DGT-25-2014 issued by the Dirección General de Tributación at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, does not suffer from the defect of absolute nullity raised by the plaintiff.

Vo.- REGARDING THE ALLEGED ILLEGALITY OF SUBSECTIONS XIV TO XVII OF ARTICLE 5 OF RESOLUTION DGT-25-2014. Contrary to what was indicated by the representative of the plaintiff company, the requirements contained in subsections xiv to xvii of article 5 of resolution number DGT-25-2014 do not imply a violation of the provisions of articles 99 paragraph 2 and 168 of the CNPT, since they do not introduce innovative elements with respect to the provisions of numeral 15 subsection b) of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082, given that they not only conform to that primary source, but also do not supplant the Regulation to Law 6826, which can only be issued by the Executive Branch in exercise of the powers granted by subsections 3) and 18) of article 140 of the Constitución Política. In that sense, article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014 provides that in the electronic purchase record, each of the invoices for the purchase of goods and/or services shall be detailed, which must mandatorily contain, among others, the information set forth in subsections xiv to xvii, namely: Amount of the ISC borne; Amount of the Specific Tax borne; Amount of the IVA borne, per good acquired or service received; total amount of the purchase invoice, a figure obtained by carrying out the following arithmetic operation: subtotal amount minus discount, plus ISC or other specific tax plus IVA. For its part, subsection b) of article 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 establishes that every individual or legal entity registered as an IVA taxpayer or filer is obligated to maintain and keep up-to-date a record of purchases and a record of sales, which must contain at least—regarding what is relevant—the following information: the total amount of purchases per invoice or voucher, broken down into exempt purchases, taxable purchases, and the tax paid. This Court considers that the requirements contained in subsections xiv to xvii of article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014 correspond to the minimum information that the accounting purchase record must contain, in accordance with the provisions of subsection b) of numeral 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 14082, which has been in effect since November 30, 1982. For the foregoing reason, it is not reasonable for the plaintiff company to attempt to justify the non-compliance with these requirements by arguing that “... these amounts were not available at the item number level for each purchase invoice (…) We are in the process of analyzing if and how we can modify our system to store the items noted in point 7 above, however, we have not yet concluded this (…) Although it is feasible to modify and prepare new reports, in cases such as the present one, where the data is not stored in the system, it is very complex, if not prohibitive in terms of cost and time to modify the system to do so…” (official translation of the sworn statement visible at folios 43 and 44 of the physical file of the precautionary measure number 14-010699-1027-CA); given that the total amount of purchases per invoice or voucher and the tax paid constitute a requirement that has been in effect since November 30, 1982—the date on which Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 entered into force—and that, in the terms of article 15 of that same Decree, is one of the data that the accounting purchase record of those individuals or legal entities that are registered—as in the case of the plaintiff company—as IVA taxpayers must minimally contain (folios 1 to 3, 107 to 109 of the judicial file), therefore, it cannot allege ignorance thereof and take refuge in alleged computer problems to justify an alleged illegality of the rule. Regarding the inclusion of the ISC and other specific taxes, the company bases its arguments on the fact that according to the certification issued on December 18, 2014, by Certified Public Accountant Germán Antonio Morales Martínez, it is indicated that: “…2. That in view of the accounting records of the company Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, there are no individualized accounting records of the sums paid for the Impuesto Selectivo de Consumo and Specific Taxes. The foregoing because these items form part of the cost of the merchandise. 3. That because Nombre113922 de Costa Rica is an importing and marketing company, the taxes Derechos Arancelarios (DAI), Impuesto Específico Bebidas No Alcohólicas, Impuesto Selectivo de Consumo, Procomer, Timbre Archivo Nacional, Timbre Asociación Agentes de Aduana Ley 7017, Timbre Contadores Privados de Costa Rica and Ley 6946, form part of the cost of the merchandise…” (folios 14 to 18 of the physical file of the precautionary measure number 14-010699-1027-CA). In that sense, and without prejudice to subsection b) of article 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 establishing that the total amount of purchases per invoice or voucher, broken down into exempt purchases, taxable purchases, and tax paid, must be recorded in the purchase record, it is necessary to emphasize that subsection 13) of article 18 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 establishes that the invoices issued by the taxpayer or filer must minimally include—among others—the amount of the ISC, when the seller is also a taxpayer of said tax, and the amount of any other tax levied on taxable goods or services. Coupled with the fact that article 19 of the same Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 establishes that “…The tax base in the case of imports or introductions of goods is determined by adding to the customs value, Aduana de Costa Rica, calculated according to the legal provisions in force on customs matters, what was effectively paid by the importer for: (…) b) Impuesto selectivo de consumo. c) Any other tax or surcharge applied to the import or introduction…”. Consequently, if numeral 18 subsection 13) itself establishes that the ISC is recorded when the seller is a taxpayer of that tax or another specific tax, compliance with requirements xiv and xv of article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014 is supported by the provisions of articles 15 subsection b), 18 subsection 13), and 19 subsections b) and c) of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082. For the reasons stated, this Court considers that subsections xiv to xvii do not suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, as they are not contrary to the provisions of articles 99 paragraph 2, 168 of the CNPT; 8 paragraph 2 of Law 6826; 6 of the LGAP; 15, 18 subsection 13), and 19 subsections b) and c) of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082.

VI.- REGARDING THE VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HIERARCHY OF SOURCES, REASONABLENESS, AND PROPORTIONALITY, BY SUBSECTIONS XXII AND XXIII OF ARTICLE 4, AND SUBSECTIONS XX TO XXVII OF ARTICLE 5 OF RESOLUTION DGT-25-2014. In the first instance, it is necessary to emphasize that while it is true, in accordance with the principle that individuals are obligated to contribute to the support of public burdens according to their tax capacity, the Administration, in order to facilitate the timely verification of the taxpayers' situation, may require them to present books, files, accounting records, and all information of tax significance, and for this purpose, may establish guidelines regarding the manner in which such tax information must be recorded; it is also true that the exercise of the powers granted for this purpose by articles 104 and 109 of the CNPT must be exercised in accordance with the law, in the terms provided for in articles 99 and 168 of the CNPT, 6 of the LGAP, in order to guarantee a balance between the efficiency of the Tax Administration and the dignity, freedom, and other applicable fundamental rights of the taxpayers (articles 8 of the LGAP and 172 of the CNPT). Based on the foregoing, this Court will analyze whether the provisions of subsections xxii and xxiii of article 4; xx to xxvii of article 5, both of resolution DGT-25-2014 issued by the Dirección General de Tributación at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, are or are not contrary to the legal system, in accordance with the following parameters: i) Principle of Hierarchy of Norms (articles 6 of the LGAP; 2 and 168 of the CNPT). It bears recalling that although paragraph 2 of numeral 99 of the CNPT establishes that the Tax Administration may issue general rules for the purpose of the correct application of tax laws, it is also true that it must do so within the limits set by legal and regulatory provisions. In that sense, the general resolutions and directives of the Tax Administration shall be interpretive of the laws and regulations, but they may not innovate objective legal situations (article 168 of the CNPT). Likewise, the aforementioned resolutions and directives must conform to the primary sources, and may not supplant the regulations that, in this matter, can only be issued by the Executive Branch, in accordance with the provisions of articles 140 subsections 3) and 18 of the Constitución Política, and 168 paragraph 2 in fine of the CNPT. Based on the foregoing and on what is relevant to the specific case, paragraph 2 of numeral 8 of the General Sales Tax Law (Ley 6826) establishes that “…Taxpayers and filers must keep accounting records in the form and conditions determined in the Regulation.” (the highlighting is not from the original). Consequently, the legislator made it subject to the regulatory avenue, that the Executive Branch, in exercise of the powers conferred in subsections 3) and 18) of the Constitución Política, issue the necessary regulation to execute the provisions of article 8 paragraph 2 of Law 6826, regarding the form and conditions under which General Sales Tax taxpayers and filers must keep their accounting records. Based on the foregoing, article 15 of the Regulation to Law 6826 (Decreto Ejecutivo number 14082, in force since November 30, 1982), establishes that: “…Every person or entity registered as a taxpayer or filer of the tax is obligated to maintain and keep up-to-date a purchase record and a sales record; such records must contain at least the following information: a) Date and number of the document supporting the transaction; b) Total amount of purchases per invoice or voucher, broken down into exempt purchases, taxable purchases, and the tax paid; c) Total amount of sales per invoice or voucher, broken down into exempt sales, exports, taxable sales, and the tax charged; and d) The monthly total, in both records, of the foregoing amounts…”. While it is true that the aforementioned article 15 establishes that the sales and purchase records that every individual or legal entity registered as a taxpayer or filer of the General Sales Tax must maintain shall contain at least the requirements stipulated therein; it is also true that this does not imply authorization for the Tax Administration to impose other requirements regarding the form and conditions for keeping said records, through a normative avenue hierarchically inferior to the executive regulation, given that Law 6826, in article 8 paragraph 2, determines that this is the normative source to be used for that purpose. For the foregoing reason, this Court considers that the requirements contained in subsections xxii and xxiii of article 4 of resolution DGT-25-2014—which the electronic record of sales of goods and services must mandatorily contain, under warning that failure to comply could result in the imposition of the sanctions established in the CNPT (article 8 of resolution DGT-25-2015)—are contrary to the provisions of articles 140 subsections 3) and 18) of the Constitución Política; 6 of the LGAP; 2, 99 paragraph 2, and 168 of the CNPT; 8 paragraph 2 of Law 6826, and 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 14082. This is because it imposes the mandatory incorporation in the accounting sales records of the authorization note number from the Dirección General de Tributación or the Dirección General de Hacienda, for the sale without Impuesto de Ventas (IVA), Impuesto Selectivo de Consumo (ISC), or some other specific tax; as well as the effective date covered by said authorization, despite the fact that subsection c) of numeral 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 establishes—in what is relevant—that what must be indicated is the total amount for exempt sales per invoice or voucher. This Court considers that, contrary to what the representative of the State maintains, this requirement not only constitutes an innovative and non-interpretive aspect of subsection c) of article 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082, but also does not conform to the primary source, since it supplants the executive regulation that constitutes the norm to which the Legislator subordinated the determination of the form and conditions under which taxpayers and filers must keep the accounting sales records. This is because it includes—under warning of committing a sanctionable offense—the obligation to indicate the number of the authorization or exemption note for IVA, ISC, or another specific tax and its effective date, even though—it bears repeating—subsection c) of article 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 establishes—in what is relevant—that what must be indicated is the total amount for exempt sales per invoice or voucher; without prejudice to how unreasonable and disproportionate it is to request information that is already on file in the Tax Administration, as will be analyzed in part ii of this considerando. Finally, the fact that the Official Translation of the Sworn Statement signed by Laura Santana (Senior Vice President of Information Technology of PriceSmart Inc.) indicates, regarding the adaptation of the computer systems of the company Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A., in order to include the requirements contemplated in subsections xxii and xxiii of article 4 of resolution DGT-25-2014, that “…we believe we can commit to having this system functioning properly to store and report the required data starting May 1, 2015. However, no reasonable possibility of doing it before that date…” (folios 1 to 23 of the physical file of precautionary measure number 14-10303-1027-CA), does not have the virtue of validating the substantial violations of the principle of hierarchy of norms that have been analyzed previously. For the same reasons set forth above, this Court considers that subsections xx to xxvii of article 5 of resolution number DGT-25-2014 are also contrary to the provisions of articles 140 subsections 3) and 18) of the Constitución Política; 6 of the LGAP; 2, 99 paragraph 2, and 168 of the CNPT; 8 paragraph 2 of Law 6826, and 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 14082, since mandatory compliance with them is also imposed in the electronic accounting records of purchases of goods and services, under warning that otherwise, the taxpayer or filer could be subject to the respective sanctions. In that sense, subsection b) of article 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 establishes that what must be recorded is the total amount of purchases per invoice or voucher, broken down into exempt purchases, taxable purchases, and the tax paid; while subsections xx to xxvii of article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014 innovate the primary source and supplant the Decreto Ejecutivo, by imposing the duty to include the following information: unique customs declaration (DUA) number; date of the import DUA; customs tariff heading; detail of the customs tariff heading; name of the customs office, name of the customs agency or the customs agent that carried out the import procedure; identification number of the customs agent or the customs agency that carries out the export procedure; value of the goods reflected in the DUA. With the aggravating circumstance that in case of non-compliance, the filers or taxpayers may be subject to the respective sanctions provided for in the CNPT, even though the requirements were created by a resolution of general scope and not by an executive regulation as established by numeral 8 paragraph 2 of Law 6826, and without prejudice to the violation of the principles of unreasonableness and disproportionality by requesting information that is already on file in the Tax Administration, as will be analyzed in part ii of this considerando. Consequently, and for all the foregoing reasons, it is declared that subsections xxii and xxiii of article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014 issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, since they are contrary to the principle of hierarchy of sources. ii) Principles of reasonableness and proportionality, and their impact on the right of the administered party not to be requested information that the Tax Administration issues or possesses. Without prejudice to what was analyzed in the previous section, this collegiate body considers that subsections xxii and xxiii of article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of article 5, both of resolution DGT-25-2014 issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, are also contrary to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality and to the right contained in numerals 171 subsection 8) of the CNPT and 2 paragraph 1 of Law 8220 (Citizen Protection from Excessive Requirements and Administrative Procedures Law), for the reasons set forth below. In the first instance, it should be noted that, contrary to what the representative of the State affirms, Law 8220 not only applies in those cases where the administered party addresses a public entity or body in exercise of their rights of petition and timely response, information, and/or access to justice through administrative channels (paragraph 2 of article 1 of that Law); but also, as is evident from paragraph 1 of numeral 1 of that same regulatory body, it applies as a correlative duty of the Public Administration for the effective exercise of that right, regarding the limits and scopes that public law entities and bodies must observe, when establishing, publicizing, and executing the procedures and/or requirements that the administered party must fulfill—see article 4 and following of Law 8220—in this case, the form and conditions under which IVA taxpayers and filers must keep the accounting sales and purchase records. Therefore, the application in the specific case of article 2 paragraph 2 in fine of Law 8220 is appropriate—which establishes: “…Likewise, no public entity, body, or official may request from the administered party information that one or several of its own offices issue or possess…”—which, in any case, has in subsection 8) of numeral 171 of the CNPT a similar rule for tax matters, namely: “…Right not to provide documents already submitted and received, which should be in the possession of the acting administration, except for justified reasons…”. Based on the foregoing, this Court considers it unreasonable and disproportionate that subsections xxii and xxiii of article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of article 5, both of resolution DGT-25-2014, request information that was issued and/or is contained in the records of the Tax and/or Customs Administration, as is the case with those relating to the authorization or exemption number for sale without IVA, ISC, or some other tax and its effective date, since even subsection xxii itself of article 4 of resolution DGT-25-2014 indicates that said authorization notes are issued by the Dirección General de Tributación or the Dirección General de Hacienda (folios 89 to 95 of the administrative file; 4 to 15, 117 to 128 of the judicial file). In the same sense, regarding the requirements related to the unique customs declaration (DUA) number; date of the import DUA; customs tariff heading; detail of the customs tariff heading; name of the customs office, name of the customs agency or the customs agent that carried out the import procedure; identification number of the customs agent or the customs agency that carries out the export procedure; value of the goods reflected in the DUA. This is because, from articles 86, 88, 103, 104, 106, and 107 of the General Customs Law (Ley General de Aduanas, Ley 7557), and from resolution DGA-203-2005 issued by the Dirección General de Aduanas at 09:00 hours on June 22, 2005, called Manual de Procedimientos en el Marco TICA (Contains Entry and Exit of Goods, Vehicles and Transport Units, Customs Transit Procedures, Deposit Procedures, and Definitive and Temporary Import Procedure) (images 1 to 396 of the CD of evidence admitted at the preliminary hearing), it is evident not only that these data must be contained in the Declaración Única Aduanera (DUA) registered in the computer system of the Sistema Nacional de Aduanas (TICA) or another authorized system; but also, that these data must be provided by the customs authorities to other official agencies, in the terms of numeral 107 of the General Customs Law (Ley 7557). At this point, it should be noted that the fact that the registration of the DUA in the computer system of the Servicio Nacional de Aduanas does not entail endorsing the content of that declaration, nor limit the verification powers of the customs authority (article 88 of Law 7557), to the point that the self-assessed customs declaration will be subjected to a selective and random process to determine if it is appropriate to carry out the immediate verification of what was declared (article 93 of Law 7557); does not imply that the information contained in the computer system of the Servicio Nacional de Aduanas is not accurate, given that, as established by articles 89 to 92, 98, of that same regulatory body, when a customs declaration is rejected, errors may be corrected within three days; likewise, the declarant may at any time request the correction of the DUA, or withdraw the declaration for a regime before the release of the goods, or make the corrections or adjustments when differences with the DUA are determined in the verification process. Finally, resolution number DGT-25-2014 does not state the reasons that justify requesting the taxpayer or filer to include information issued or contained in the files of the Tax or Customs Administration (considerando II, part d of this judgment), as established by subsection 8 in fine of article 171 of the CNPT, without prejudice to the use of a normative source of lower hierarchy than that established by article 8 paragraph 2 of Law 6826 to determine the form and conditions under which the accounting sales and purchase records must be kept. Consequently, and for all the foregoing reasons, this Court declares that subsections xxii and xxiii of article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014 issued by the Dirección General de Tributación at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, as they are contrary to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, and to the right contained in numerals 171 subsection 8) of the CNPT and 2 paragraph 1 in fine of Law 8220. The declaration of absolute nullity of said rules has erga omnes effects, except for rights acquired in good faith and consolidated legal situations. Once this judgment becomes final, it must be published in full in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the expense of the State, since it was the Dirección General de Tributación that issued resolution number DGT-25-2014 issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014.

VII.- REGARDING THE SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS AND EXCEPTIONS. This Court reaches the conclusion that the plaintiff has sufficient standing to participate in this process in accordance with article 10 subsection a) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, since being registered as a taxpayer before the Dirección de Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales for the General Sales Tax, among others, it must comply with the provisions of resolution DGT-25-2014 issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, by the Dirección General de Tributación. Furthermore, the action is correctly directed against the State, as provided by subsection 1) of numeral 12 of the cited Code, given that the Dirección General de Tributación is the author of the resolution of general scope that is the subject of this process. For its part, the interest remains current, as long as the questioned conduct continues to have effects on the legal sphere of the plaintiff and requires a jurisdictional resolution to resolve it. Finally, and for all the reasons stated in considerandos IV and V of this judgment, the exception of lack of right raised by the representative of the State is partially upheld, solely regarding the main claim of total absolute nullity of resolution DGT-25-2014 of 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, and regarding the subsidiary claim of partial absolute nullity of subsections xiv to xvii of article 5 of that same resolution. Consequently, and for all the reasons stated in considerando VI of this judgment, the exception of lack of right is rejected as to the other aspects, and the claims filed by Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A. are partially granted.

against the State, in the following terms, it being understood as denied in all matters not expressly indicated: 1) It is declared that subsections xxii and xxiii of article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014 issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta), as they are contrary to the principles of hierarchy of sources, reasonableness and proportionality, and to the right contained in articles 171 subsection 8) of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios and 2 paragraph 1 in fine of the Ley 8220; 2) The declaration of absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta) of said rules has erga omnes effects, except for good faith acquired rights and consolidated legal situations. 3) Once this judgment becomes final (firmeza), it must be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the expense of the State, for it was the Dirección General de Tributación that issued resolution number DGT-25-2014 issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014.- VIIIo.- REGARDING COSTS. In accordance with numeral 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, procedural and personal costs (costas procesales y personales) constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by virtue of being so. Waiver of this award is only viable when, in the opinion of the Court, there is sufficient reason to litigate, or when the judgment is rendered based on evidence whose existence was unknown to the opposing party. In the present case, this collegiate body finds no reason to apply the exceptions set forth by the applicable regulations and break the postulate of awarding costs against the losing party, for while it is true that the main claims of both lawsuits and partially the subsidiary claim of the lawsuit originally filed under case file 14-010699-1027-CA were dismissed; it is also true that this collegiate body determined that subsections xxii and xxiii of article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of article 5, all of resolution DGT-25-2014 issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta), as they are contrary to the principles of hierarchy of sources, reasonableness and proportionality, and to the right contained in articles 171 subsection 8) of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios and 2 paragraph 1 in fine of the Ley 8220. Therefore, both costs (costas) are imposed on the State, amounts which will be liquidated in the sentence execution phase.-

POR TANTO.

The defense of lack of right (falta de derecho) raised by the representative of the State is partially upheld, solely regarding the main claim of total absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta) of resolution DGT-25-2014 of 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, and with respect to the subsidiary claim of partial absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta) of subsections xiv to xvii of article 5 of that same resolution. Consequently, the defense of lack of right (falta de derecho) is rejected on the remaining grounds, and the lawsuits filed by Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A. against the State are partially granted, in the following terms, it being understood as denied in all matters not expressly indicated: 1) It is declared that subsections xxii and xxiii of article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014 issued by the Dirección General de Tributación at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta), as they are contrary to the principles of hierarchy of sources, reasonableness and proportionality, and to the right contained in articles 171 subsection 8) of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios and 2 paragraph 1 in fine of the Ley 8220; 2) The declaration of absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta) of said rules has erga omnes effects, except for good faith acquired rights and consolidated legal situations. 3) Once this judgment becomes final (firmeza), it must be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the expense of the State. 4) Both costs (costas) are to be borne by the State, amounts which will be liquidated in the sentence execution phase.- Nombre113722 Sergio Mena García Giovanni Marchena Jara PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO DECLARADO DE PURO DERECHO ACTORA: Nombre113922 DE COSTA RICA, S.A.

DEMANDADO: EL ESTADO (Procuradora María del Rocío Solano Raabe) Nombre113722 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A Subsidiary Claim: In the event that the total absolute nullity of resolution DGT-25-2014 is not declared, the partial nullity of the provisions contained in Article 4, sections xxii and xxiii of said resolution is declared, as it becomes a disproportionate and unreasonable obligation for the commercial operation of my Represented Party. 3. That the State be ordered to pay costs. Subsidiarily, and if it is considered that the ground for absolute or partial nullity does not exist, nor the subsidiary ground, that my represented party litigated in good faith and under a reasonable appearance of the merit of its claims, for which reason it should be exonerated from the payment of costs...". ii) Expediente 14-10699-1027-CA: "... 1. Main Claim: The absolute nullity of resolution DGT-25-2014, for lacking the requirements of due process for its issuance and legal validity, as the consultative procedure established in article 174 of the Tax Code was not respected. 2. Subsidiary Claim: In the event that the total absolute nullity of resolution DGT-25-2014 is not declared, the partial nullity of the provisions contained in Article 5, sections xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, and xxvii of said resolution is declared, as it becomes a disproportionate and unreasonable obligation for the commercial operation of my Represented Party by violating my Represented Party's fundamental right not to incur in duplicated procedures proscribed by our Legal System. 3. That the State be ordered to pay costs. Subsidiarily, and if it is considered that the ground for absolute nullity does not exist, nor either of the two subsidiary grounds, that my represented party litigated in good faith and under a reasonable appearance of the merit of its claims, for which reason it should be exonerated from the payment of costs..." (folios 57, 58, 172, 173 of the judicial expediente and images 328 and 329 of the virtual expediente as of the date of issuance of this judgment).- 5.- The representative of the State answered both lawsuits and their respective amplifications in the negative; she interposed the preliminary defense of acts not subject to challenge and the exception of lack of Right; she requested that the lawsuits be declared without merit and that the plaintiff be ordered to pay both sets of costs, as well as the interest that said sums generate from the finality of the judgment until their effective payment. Likewise, she requested that expediente 14-10699-1027-CA be consolidated with 14-10303-1027-CA (folios 72 to 98; 185 to 208; 212, 213 of the judicial expediente; image 312 of the virtual expediente as of the date of issuance of this judgment).- 6.- That by resolution number 2079-2015 of 14:30 hours on August 07, 2015, the Processing Judge ordered: "...The State's petition is granted, and the consolidation of processes 14-10699-1027-CA and 10-10303-1027-CA is ordered. Continue their joint processing under the single expediente 14-10303-1027-CA. Let the plaintiff take note of what is indicated in Considerando III..." (folios 105 to 106 of the judicial expediente).

7.- The preliminary hearing was held at 08:47 hours on October 28, 2016, which was recorded in the corresponding electronic system and is contained in a separate file in DVD format. That during this hearing, the Processing Judge established the claims raised by the plaintiff, in the terms indicated in the first recital of this judgment, emphasizing that the plaintiff withdrew subsidiary claim number 2 of the first lawsuit processed under expediente 14-10303-1027-CA; likewise, he deemed the preliminary defense of acts not subject to challenge as withdrawn; he established that facts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the lawsuit are deemed controverted, transcendental for the case, and therefore, subject to proof; he admitted all the documentary evidence offered by the plaintiff; as well as the entirety of the administrative expediente presented by the State, clarifying that the folder of the administrative expediente certified on April 07, 2015, was being returned to the representative of the defendant, as it was a duplicate of what had already been admitted. Consequently, as there was no testimonial, confessional, or expert evidence to be taken and in accordance with the provisions of article 98.2 of the same Code, he declared this matter to be purely legal, and the parties orally presented their conclusions (images 329 to 330 of the virtual expediente as of the date of issuance of this judgment and digital backup of the preliminary hearing of 10-28-2016).

8.- This matter was referred to the Reporting Judge of the Fifth Section of the Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo on May 23, 2017 (see status inquiry in the electronic folder 14-010303-1027-CA of the Escritorio Virtual). In the proceedings before this Tribunal, no nullities have been observed that must be remedied or that cause defenselessness, and the judgment is issued within the term established in article 98 subsection 2) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, in relation to subsection 4) of article 82 of the Reglamento Autónomo de Organización y Servicio of this Jurisdiction, which expires on June 13, 2017.- Drafted by Judge Nombre113722, with the affirmative vote of Judges Mena García and Marchena Jara; and, C O N S I D E R I N G:

Io.- PROVEN FACTS: The following facts that are relevant to this process are deemed duly accredited: 1) That by resolution DGA-203-2005 issued at 09:00 hours on June 22, 2005, the Dirección General de Aduanas issued the Manual de Procedimientos en el Marco TICA (Contains Entry and Exit of Goods, Vehicles and Transport Units, Customs Transit Procedures, Deposit Procedures, and Definitive and Temporary Import Procedures) (images 1 to 396 of the CD of evidence admitted at the preliminary hearing); 2) That the plaintiff is a company whose main economic activity is Supermarkets and Chain Grocery Stores, and it is registered as a taxpayer before the Dirección de Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales, for the following taxes: Income, Sales, Withholdings at Source, and Timbre de Educación y Cultura (folios 1 to 3, 107 to 109 of the judicial expediente); 3) That in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta numbers 39 and 40 of February 25 and 26, 2014, respectively, the following was published: "...In accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of article 174 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, added by article 2 of the Ley de Fortalecimiento de la Gestión Tributaria, N° 9069 of September 10, 2012, a period of ten business days counted from the first publication of this notice is granted to entities representing general interests, corporate interests, or diffuse interests, for the purpose of presenting their opinion regarding the draft resolution of general scope called 'OBLIGATORIEDAD PARA LOS GRANDES CONTRIBUYENTES Y GRANDES EMPRESAS TERRITORIALES EN LA LLEVANZA DE LOS REGISTROS ELECTRÓNICOS DE COMPRAS Y VENTAS DE MERCANCÍAS, ASÍ COMO DE SERVICIOS PRESTADOS'. Observations on the referenced resolution must be expressed in writing and addressed to the Dirección de Tributación Internacional y Técnica Tributaria of the Dirección General de Tributación (...) For the indicated purposes, the cited draft decree is available on the website http://dgt.hacienda.go.cr, in the 'Proyectos' section..." (folios 02 and 04 of the administrative expediente); 4) That by document number P-022-2014 of April 02, 2014, sent to the Dirección de Tributación Internacional on April 04, 2014 -via the fax system-, the President of the Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado (UCCAEP), presented his observations on the draft resolution of general scope called "OBLIGATORIEDAD PARA LOS GRANDES CONTRIBUYENTES Y GRANDES EMPRESAS TERRITORIALES EN LA LLEVANZA DE LOS REGISTROS ELECTRÓNICOS DE COMPRAS Y VENTAS DE MERCANCÍAS, ASÍ COMO DE SERVICIOS PRESTADOS". That in said document, UCCAEP did not indicate that the notification of the hearing provided for in article 174 of the CNPT was carried out by an inadequate means or was omitted with respect to any of the other publicity requirements provided for in that same numeral (folios 72 to 88 of the administrative expediente); 5) That in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta number 144 of July 29, 2014, resolution number DGT-25-2015 was published, issued by the Dirección General de Tributación, at 08 hours 40 minutes on June 11, 2014, called "Obligatoriedad para los Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales, de Llevanza por Medios Electrónicos de los Registros Auxiliares de Compras y Ventas Dispuestos por el Artículo 15 del Reglamento de la Ley del Impuesto General sobre las Ventas", whose entry into force was set for January first, 2015 (folios 89 to 95 of the administrative expediente; 4 to 15, 117 to 128 of the judicial expediente); 6) That by sworn statement of October 20, 2014, Laura Santana, in her capacity as Senior Vice President - Information Technology (IT) of PriceSmart, Inc., stated –among other aspects and according to the Official Translation performed by Roxana Gutiérrez Font, on November 17, 2014- that regarding the adaptation of the computer systems of the company Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A., in order to include the requirements contemplated in sections xxii and xxiii of article 4 of resolution DGT-25-2014, “…we believe we can commit to having this system functioning properly to store and report on the required data as of May 1, 2015.

However, no reasonable possibility of doing so before that date…” (folios 1 to 23 of the physical file of precautionary measure number 14-10303-1027-CA); 7) That on December 18, 2014, the Authorized Public Accountant Germán Antonio Morales Martínez (number 1625), issued a certification to the effect that: “…2. (…) upon review of the accounting records of the company Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, there are no individualized accounting records of the sums that are paid for the Selective Consumption Tax (Impuesto Selectivo de Consumo) and Specific Taxes. The foregoing because these items form part of the cost of the merchandise. 3. That because Nombre113922 de Costa Rica is an importing and marketing company, the taxes Customs Duties (DAI), Specific Tax on Non-Alcoholic Beverages (Impuesto Específico Bebidas No Alcohólicas), Selective Consumption Tax, Procomer, National Archive Stamp (Timbre Archivo Nacional), Customs Agents Association Stamp Law 7017 (Timbre Asociación Agentes de Aduana Ley 7017), Private Accountants of Costa Rica Stamp and Law 6946 (Timbre Contadores Privados de Costa Rica y Ley 6946), form part of the cost of the merchandise…” (folios 14 to 18 of the physical file of precautionary measure number 14-010699-1027-CA); 8) That by sworn statement dated January 6, 2015, Laura Santana in her capacity as Senior Vice President - Information Technology (IT) of PriceSmart, Inc., and Michael Mc Cleary in his capacity as Senior Vice President – Corporate Controller of PriceSmart, Inc., stated –among other aspects and according to the Official Translation performed by Roxana Gutiérrez Font, on January 8, 2015, that “… these amounts were not available at the item number level for each purchase invoice (…) We are in the process of analyzing if and how we can modify our system to store the items noted in point 7 above, however, we have not yet concluded this (…) Although it is feasible to modify and prepare new reports, in cases like the present one, where the data is not stored in the system, it is very complex, if not prohibitive in terms of cost and time to modify the system to do so…” (official translation of the sworn statement visible on folios 40 to 50 of the physical file of precautionary measure number 14-010699-1027-CA).- IIo.- FACTS NOT PROVEN. Of relevance to the present process, the following are considered not proven: a) That a notice was published in a nationally circulated newspaper, making known to the general public the existence of the electronic information and the address through which it could be accessed, regarding the draft resolution on electronic auxiliary purchase and sales records (not evident from the administrative file); b) That in the “Projects” section of the website of the Dirección General de Tributación, the electronic information related to the draft resolution on electronic auxiliary purchase and sales records was available (there is no evidence in the file); c) That direct communication was made to the representative entities of general or corporate interests or diffuse interests, such as the Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado (UCCAEP), that they were being granted the opportunity to express their opinions about the draft resolution on electronic auxiliary purchase and sales records (not evident from the administrative file, nor from the documents visible on folios 35 and 129 of the judicial file); d) That in resolution number DGT-25-2014, it was reasoned that there were reasons justifying requiring the taxpayer or declarant to include, in the electronic auxiliary purchase and sales record, information issued by or appearing in the files of the Tax or Customs Administration (not evident from the documents visible on folios 89 to 95 of the administrative file; 4 to 15, 117 to 128 of the judicial file).- IIIo.- OBJECT OF THE PROCESS. The PLAINTIFF maintains: 1) That resolution DGT-25-2014 issued by the Dirección General de Tributación at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffers from the defect of absolute nullity, given that the procedure established in article 174 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios (CNPT) was not followed, because the Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado (UCCAEP) was not directly notified of the draft resolution on electronic auxiliary purchase and sales records, since the Tax Administration limited itself to publishing the notice in the Official Gazette La Gaceta, which is not sufficient to fulfill the duty of publicity imposed by the aforementioned rule. Likewise, it considers that the fact that UCCAEP submitted a brief raising its observations to the indicated draft resolution, does not have the virtue of considering the requirement observed. 2) It alleges that subparagraphs xxii and xxiii of article 4, and subparagraphs xiv to xvii, xx to xxvii of article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014, are contrary to the provisions of articles 99 and 168 of the CNPT, given that they innovate, through a norm hierarchically inferior to an executive decree (reglamento ejecutivo), the form and conditions under which article 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo number 14082 determines how taxpayers and declarants of the General Sales Tax (Impuesto General sobre las Ventas, IVA) must maintain the auxiliary purchase and sales records, despite the fact that article 8, paragraph 2 of Law 6826, indicates that these aspects will be determined through the regulatory channels. 3) Likewise, it considers that the requirements contained in subparagraphs xxii and xxiii of article 4, and subparagraphs xiv to xvii, xx to xxvii of article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014, are contrary to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, given that some of this data already appears in the records of the Tax and/or Customs Administrations, whether because it was issued by the Dirección General de Tributación, the Dirección General de Hacienda, or because it constitutes information that the Dirección General de Aduanas possesses through the computer system of the Servicio Nacional de Aduanas (TICA); 4) Finally, it maintains that it is very complex to make the modifications to the computer system of the company Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A., in order to implement the requirements set forth in subparagraphs xiv to xvii, xx to xxvii of article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014, given that the system does not track that data for making purchases at the supplier invoice level, due to its condition as an importing and marketing company. For her part, the representative of the STATE, states that: a) Contrary to what the plaintiff company claims, the procedure established in article 174 of the CNPT was followed, given that two notices were published granting the representative entities of general or corporate interests or diffuse interests the opportunity to express their views on such drafts. So much so, that UCCAEP submitted its observations to the Dirección de Tributación Internacional on April 4, 2014; b) It considers that the Dirección General de Tributación issued resolution No. DGT-25-2014, directed at large national taxpayers, specifying the characteristics and requirements that the purchase and sales records, which taxpayers and declarants under the General Sales Tax Law must legally maintain, must contain, such as the plaintiff company Nombre113922 de Costa Rica S.A., based on the provisions of articles 99, 104, 109, and 168 of the Tax Code, for which reason, in the present matter, the resolution does not innovate any legal situation, but rather is simply the development of the powers granted by the legislator. c) It considers that by express provision of the Legislator, the regulation of Law 8220 could not be extended to cases other than that contemplated in article 1, paragraph 2, but furthermore, it is also inappropriate because there are special rules, such as the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios and the General Sales Tax Law and its Regulations (Reglamento). On the other hand, it considers that the provisions of article 171 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios are also not infringed, since the taxpayer is not being required to re-submit documents –such as import procedure documents– but rather to record the information they possess by virtue of their commercial activity, within the electronic purchase and sales records, which taxpayers of the sales tax must legally maintain to comply with that formal tax obligation. d) It maintains that the provisions in subparagraphs xxii and xxiii of article 4, and subparagraphs xiv to xvii, xx to xxvii of article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014, as this is information which the taxpayer possesses, must be provided so that the Tax Administration can fulfill its duty to determine, collect, and audit taxes, thereby satisfying the public purposes entrusted to the State. In that sense, it considers that the customs information provided corresponds to the nationalization procedures for the merchandise and that, as is well known, only a random, detailed physical and documentary verification of the goods entering the country is carried out by Customs, in accordance with article 93 of the Ley General de Aduanas. e) Finally, it alleges that the plaintiff is also incorrect regarding the request for information related to articles xvi and xvii, since a reading of article 18 of the Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre las Ventas, which Nombre113922 transcribes, establishes the obligation to record the value of the merchandise and the amount of the tax, which must be linked to article 19 of the same Regulations, regarding imports or entries. Consequently, it considers that the contested resolution is fully in accordance with the Law, its issuance seeking efficiency in tax management, auditing, and collection by the Tax Administration, with the purpose of complying with the constitutional obligation of every inhabitant of our country to contribute to public expenses, as established in articles 18 and 19 of our Political Constitution.- IVo.- REGARDING THE ALLEGED NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED IN ARTICLE 174 OF THE CNPT AND THE NON-CONFIGURATION IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE OF THE SCENARIO PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 223 OF THE LGAP. While it is true, this Court has as proven that in the Official Gazette La Gaceta numbers 39 and 40, of February 25 and 26, 2014 –respectively–, the notices were published tending to grant “…to the representative entities of general, corporate, or diffuse interests, a period of ten business days counted from the first publication of this notice, for the purpose of them expressing their views regarding the draft resolution of general scope called ‘OBLIGATION FOR LARGE TAXPAYERS AND LARGE TERRITORIAL COMPANIES IN THE KEEPING OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS OF PURCHASES AND SALES OF GOODS, AS WELL AS SERVICES RENDERED…’ (folios 02 and 04 of the administrative file); it is also true, that it is not evident in the admitted documentary evidence, that the following requirements were met, which manifest the duty of publicity imposed on the Tax Administration in these cases (articles 174 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos -CNPT-; 239, 240 subparagraph 1) and 361 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública –LGAP-), namely: i) That a notice was published in a nationally circulated newspaper, making known to the general public the existence of the electronic information and the address through which it could be accessed, regarding the draft resolution on electronic auxiliary purchase and sales records (Whereas Clause II section a of this judgment); ii) That in the “Projects” section of the website of the Dirección General de Tributación, the electronic information related to the draft resolution on electronic auxiliary purchase and sales records was available (Whereas Clause II section b of this judgment); iii) That direct communication was made to the representative entities of general or corporate interests or diffuse interests (Whereas Clause II section c of this judgment), such as the Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado (UCCAEP), that they were being granted the opportunity to express their opinions about the draft resolution on electronic auxiliary purchase and sales records. This omission is noteworthy, because in this specific case the draft resolution was directed at the “LARGE TAXPAYERS AND LARGE TERRITORIAL COMPANIES” sector, which, applying the principles of logic and reasonableness, was clearly identifiable. However, though the Dirección General de Tributación did not comprehensively observe the duty of publicity in the procedure for elaborating and issuing provisions of a general nature, in the terms set forth above; it is also true, that in this specific case, said omissions did not have the virtue of placing the representative entities of general or corporate interests or diffuse interests in a state of defenselessness, which would have prevented them from exercising their right to raise observations on the draft resolution on electronic auxiliary purchase and sales records (article 223 of the LGAP). In that regard, it is accredited that by document number P-022-2014 of April 2, 2014, sent to the Dirección de Tributación Internacional on April 4, 2014 –via the fax system–, the President of the Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado (UCCAEP), submitted its observations on the draft resolution of general scope called “OBLIGATION FOR LARGE TAXPAYERS AND LARGE TERRITORIAL COMPANIES IN THE KEEPING OF ELECTRONIC RECORDS OF PURCHASES AND SALES OF GOODS, AS WELL AS SERVICES RENDERED” (folios 72 to 88 of the administrative file). Consequently, although this Court considers that the mere publication in the Official Gazette La Gaceta of the notices tending to grant the representative entities of general or corporate interests or diffuse interests the opportunity to express their opinions about the draft resolution (paragraph 2 of article 174 of the CNPT in relation to subparagraph 2) of numeral 361 of the LGAP), does not per se guarantee full compliance with the duty of publicity. This is because, in order for interested parties to be able to effectively exercise their rights to due process, defense, information, and to be heard during the hearing process, prior to the issuance of an act that will have legal effects on their vital sphere of interests and rights (subparagraphs 1, 2, 12 of numeral 171 of the CNPT), the Tax Administration must publicize them in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of article 174 of the CNPT, in relation to numerals 239, 240 subparagraph 1) and 361 of the LGAP, without prejudice to how opportune or not it may be to access a document of that nature solely through digital means. It is also true, that in this specific case and according to article 223 of the LGAP, said omissions in the procedure did not have the virtue of placing the representative entities of general or corporate interests or diffuse interests in a state of defenselessness, given that they were not prevented from exercising their right to raise observations on the draft resolution on electronic auxiliary purchase and sales records, as is evident from folios 72 to 88 of the administrative file, since UCCAEP submitted its observations on the draft resolution on electronic auxiliary purchase and sales records on April 4, 2014. Without prejudice to the foregoing, it should be noted that at the time of submitting its observations on the draft resolution, UCCAEP did not indicate that the communication of the hearing provided for in article 174 of the CNPT was made through an inadequate medium or was lacking with respect to any of the other publicity requirements provided for in that same numeral and in articles 239, 240 subparagraph 1) of the LGAP (see folios 72 to 88 of the administrative file), which is why, and in accordance with the provisions of articles 247 of the LGAP, 9 and 10 of the Ley de Notificaciones Judiciales, the communication of the hearing granted for them to comment on the draft resolution on electronic auxiliary purchase and sales records, was considered effected at the time UCCAEP processed and submitted its observations, thereby expressly or implicitly acknowledging receipt, without alleging at that time the aforementioned omissions. Finally, and although it was not the subject of a challenge by the plaintiff company, this Court deems it necessary to highlight that the right to be heard during the hearing process prior to the issuance of the resolution or act that will have legal effects for the passive subjects or other interested parties, is not limited only to granting them the opportunity to express their views on such drafts, but also requires that the Tax Administration analyze those observations; that it provide reasons for and notify them of the reasons why they were rejected (article 136 of the LGAP), and in the event they were accepted and implied substantial changes to the original draft resolution, to give them due publicity, given that articles 174 of the CNPT and 361 of the LGAP do not condition or restrict the publicity of the draft resolution, regulation (reglamento), directive, or general rule to a single publication, as this would be contrary to the principles of logic, reasonableness, and proportionality, in those cases where –it is reiterated– substantial modifications are introduced to the draft, and not merely ones of form. For all the foregoing, this Court considers that resolution DGT-25-2014 issued by the Dirección General de Tributación at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, does not suffer from the defect of absolute nullity alleged by the plaintiff.- Vo.- REGARDING THE SUPPOSED ILLEGALITY OF SUBPARAGRAPHS XIV TO XVII OF ARTICLE 5 OF RESOLUTION DGT-25-2014. Contrary to what was indicated by the representative of the plaintiff company, the requirements contained in subparagraphs xiv to xvii of article 5 of resolution number DGT-25-2014 do not imply a violation of the provisions of articles 99 paragraph 2 and 168 of the CNPT, given that they do not introduce innovative elements with respect to the provisions of numeral 15 subparagraph b) of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082, since they not only conform to that primary source, but also do not supplant the Reglamento to Law 6826, which can only be issued by the Executive Branch (Poder Ejecutivo) in exercise of the powers granted by subparagraphs 3) and 18) of article 140 of the Political Constitution. In that sense, article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014 provides that in the electronic purchase record, each of the invoices for the purchase of goods and/or services shall be detailed, which must mandatorily contain, among others, the information provided in subparagraphs xiv to xvii, namely: ISC amount borne; Specific Tax (Impuesto Específico) amount borne; IVA amount borne, per acquired good or received service; total amount of the purchase invoice, a figure obtained by performing the following arithmetic operation: subtotal amount minus discount, plus ISC or other specific tax plus IVA. For its part, subparagraph b) of article 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 establishes that every natural or legal person registered as an IVA taxpayer or declarant is obliged to keep and maintain up to date a purchase record and a sales record, which must contain at a minimum –as relevant– the following information: the total amount of purchases per invoice or receipt, broken down into exempt purchases, taxable purchases, and the tax paid.

This Court considers that </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">the requirements contained in subsections xiv to xvii of Article 5 of Resolution DGT-25-2014 correspond to the minimum information that the accounting record of purchases must contain, pursuant to subsection b) of numeral 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082, which has been in force since November 30, 1982.</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> By reason of the foregoing, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">it is not reasonable</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> for the plaintiff company to attempt to justify non-compliance with those requirements by arguing that </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">“… these amounts were not available at the item number level for each purchase invoice (…) We are in the process of analyzing if and how we can modify our system to store the items noted in point 7 above; however, we have not yet concluded this (…) Although it is feasible to modify and prepare new reports, in cases like the present one, where the data is not stored in the system, it is very complex, if not prohibitive in terms of cost and time, to modify the system to do so…” (official translation of the sworn statement visible at folios 43 and 44 of the physical file of precautionary measure number 14-010699-1027-CA); </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">given that the total amount of purchases per invoice or voucher and the tax paid constitute a requirement that has been in force since November 30, 1982</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">–the date on which Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 entered into force-</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">and that, in the terms of Article 15 of that same Decree, it is one of the data items that the accounting record of purchases must contain at a minimum, for those natural or legal persons that are registered</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> –as is the case of the plaintiff company- </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">as a VAT taxpayer</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">(folios 1 to 3, 107 to 109 of the judicial file), </span><span style=\"color:#010101\">therefore, </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">it cannot claim ignorance of that requirement and seek refuge in supposed computer problems to justify an alleged illegality of the rule</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">. </span><span style=\"color:#010101\">Regarding the inclusion of the ISC and other specific taxes, the company supports its arguments on the basis that according to the certification issued on December 18, 2014, by Certified Public Accountant Germán Antonio Morales Martínez, it is indicated that:</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> “…2. That in view of the accounting records of the company Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, there are no individualized accounting records of the sums cancelled for the Selective Consumption Tax and Specific Taxes. The foregoing is because these items form part of the cost of the merchandise. 3. That because Nombre113922 de Costa Rica is an importing and marketing company, the taxes Customs Duties (DAI), Specific Tax on Non-Alcoholic Beverages, Selective Consumption Tax, Procomer, National Archive Stamp, Law 7017 Customs Agents Association Stamp, Costa Rican Private Accountants Stamp and Law 6946, form part of the cost of the merchandise…”</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">(folios 14 to 18 of the physical file of precautionary measure number 14-010699-1027-CA)</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">. In that sense and without prejudice to the fact that subsection b) of Article 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 establishes that the purchase record must state the </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">total amount</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> of purchases per invoice or voucher, broken down into exempt purchases, taxable purchases, and </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">the tax paid</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">, it is necessary to highlight that subsection 13) of Article 18 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 establishes that in the invoices issued by the taxpayer or declarant, the amount of the ISC must be stated at a minimum –among others-, </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">when the seller is also a taxpayer of the indicated tax, and the amount of any other tax levied on taxable goods or services</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">. Added to this is that Article 19 of the same Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 establishes that </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">“…The taxable base </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">in the case of imports or internalizations of merchandise is determined by adding to the customs value, Aduana de Costa Rica, calculated according to the legal provisions in force in customs matters, </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">what is effectively paid by the importer for: (…) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">b) </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">Selective consumption tax. </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\">c)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline\"> Any other tax or surcharge applied to the import or internalization</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic\">…”</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">. Consequently, if numeral 18 subsection 13) itself establishes that the ISC is stated when the seller is a taxpayer of that tax or of another specific tax, compliance with requirements xiv and xv of Article 5 of Resolution DGT-25-2014 </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">is protected by the provisions of Articles 15 subsection b), 18 subsection 13), and 19 subsections b) and c) of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">. For the reasons stated, this Court considers that subsections xiv to xvii do not suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, as they are not contrary to the provisions of Articles 99 paragraph 2, 168 of the CNPT; 8 paragraph 2 of Ley 6826; 6 of the LGAP; 15, 18 subsection 13), and 19 subsections b) and c) of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082. </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">&#xa0;</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span></p><p style=\"margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%\"><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">VIo.- REGARDING THE VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HIERARCHY OF SOURCES, REASONABLENESS, AND PROPORTIONALITY, OF SUBSECTIONS XXII AND XXIII OF ARTICLE 4, AND SUBSECTIONS XX TO XXVII OF ARTICLE 5 OF RESOLUTION DGT-25-2014. </span><span style=\"color:#010101\">In the first instance, it is necessary to emphasize that while it is true, in accordance with the principle that persons are obligated to contribute to the support of public burdens according to their tax-paying capacity, that the Administration, to facilitate the timely verification of the status of taxpayers, may require them to present books, files, accounting records, and all information of tax significance, and for that purpose, may establish guidelines regarding the form in which such tax information should be recorded; it is also true that the exercise of the powers granted to that effect by Articles 104 and 109 of the CNPT must be exercised in accordance with the law, within the terms provided in Articles 99 and 168 of the CNPT, and 6 of the LGAP, in order to guarantee a balance between the efficiency of the Tax Administration and the dignity, freedom, and other applicable fundamental rights of taxpayers </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">(Articles 8 of the LGAP and 172 of the CNPT)</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">. Based on the foregoing, this Court will analyze whether the provisions in subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4; and xx to xxvii of Article 5, both of Resolution </span><span>DGT-25-2014 issued by the Dirección General de Tributación at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, are or are not contrary to the legal system, according to the following parameters</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">:</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">i) Principle of Hierarchy of Norms (Articles 6 of the LGAP; 2 and 168 of the CNPT)</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">. </span><span style=\"color:#010101\">It should be recalled that while paragraph 2 of numeral 99 of the CNPT establishes that the Tax Administration may issue general norms for the purpose of the correct application of tax laws, it is also true that it must do so within the limits set by legal and regulatory provisions. In that sense, the general resolutions and guidelines of the Tax Administration shall be of an interpretative nature of the laws and regulations, </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">but they may not be innovative of objective legal situations</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">(Article 168 of the CNPT)</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">. Likewise, the cited resolutions and guidelines </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">must conform to the primary sources, and may not supplant the regulations that only the Executive Branch can issue on this matter</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 140 subsections 3) and 18 of the Political Constitution, and 168 paragraph 2 in fine of the CNPT. Based on the above and as it pertains to the specific case, paragraph 2 of numeral 8 of the Ley del Impuesto General sobre las Ventas (Ley 6826) establishes that </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">“…Taxpayers and declarants must keep accounting records in the form and under the conditions </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">determined in the Regulation</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">.” </span><span style=\"color:#010101\">(highlighting not in original). Consequently, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">the legislator conditioned the determination to be made through the regulatory route, that the Executive Branch, in exercise of the powers conferred in subsections 3) and 18) of the Political Constitution, </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">should issue the necessary regulation to execute the provisions of Article 8 paragraph 2 of Ley 6826, regarding the form and conditions under which taxpayers and declarants of the Impuesto General sobre las Ventas must keep their accounting records</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">. Based on the above, Article 15 of the Regulation to Ley 6826 (Decreto Ejecutivo 14082, in force since November 30, 1982), establishes that: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">“…Every person or entity registered as a taxpayer or declarant of the tax is obligated to keep and maintain up to date a record of purchases and another of sales; such records must contain, at a minimum, the following information: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">a)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> Date and number of the document supporting the transaction; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">b)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> Total amount of purchases per invoice or voucher, broken down into exempt purchases, taxable purchases, and the tax paid; </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">c)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> Total amount of sales per invoice or voucher, broken down into exempt sales, exports, taxable sales, and the tax charged; and </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">ch)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> The monthly total, in both records, of the above amounts…”.</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> While it is true that the transcribed Article 15 establishes that the sales and purchase records that every natural or legal person registered as a taxpayer or declarant of the Impuesto General sobre las Ventas must keep, </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">shall contain, at a minimum, the requirements stipulated therein</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">; it is also true that </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">this does not imply an authorization for the Tax Administration to impose other requirements regarding the form and conditions for keeping such records, through a normative route hierarchically inferior to the executive regulation, since Ley 6826 in Article 8 paragraph 2 determines that this is the normative source to be used for that purpose</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">. For the foregoing reasons, this Court considers that the requirements contained in subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4 of Resolution DGT-25-2014 </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">-which the electronic sales record of goods and services must mandatorily contain, under warning that failure to comply could lead to the imposition of the sanctions established in the CNPT (Article 8 of Resolution DGT-25-2015)-</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">, </span><span style=\"color:#010101\">are contrary to the provisions of Articles 140 subsections 3) and 18) of the Political Constitution; 6 of the LGAP; 2, 99 paragraph 2, and 168 of the CNPT; 8 paragraph 2 of Ley 6826, and 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082. This is because it imposes that the sales accounting records must mandatorily include the authorization note number from the Dirección General de Tributación or the Dirección General de Hacienda, for the sale without Impuesto de Ventas (IVA), Impuesto Selectivo de Consumo (ISC), or any other specific tax; as well as the effective date covered by said authorization, </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">despite the fact that subsection c) of numeral 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 establishes –as relevant- that what should be indicated is the total amount for exempt sales per invoice or voucher</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">. This Court considers that, contrary to what the State representative maintains, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">this requirement not only constitutes an innovative and non-interpretative aspect of subsection c) of Article 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 but also does not conform to the primary source, since it supplants the executive regulation that constitutes the norm to which the Legislator subordinated the determination of the form and conditions under which taxpayers and declarants must keep the sales accounting records</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">. This is because it includes </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">-under warning of incurring a sanctionable offense-</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> the obligation to indicate the authorization or exemption note number for the IVA, ISC, or other specific tax and its effective date, despite the fact that –it is restated- subsection c) of Article 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 establishes –as relevant- that what should be indicated is the total amount for exempt sales per invoice or voucher; without prejudice to how unreasonable and disproportionate it is to request information that is already on file with the Tax Administration, as will be analyzed in part ii of this considerando. Finally, the fact that the Official Translation of the Sworn Statement signed by Laura Santana (Senior Vice President of Information Technology of PriceSmart Inc.) indicates, regarding the adaptation of the computer systems of the company Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A., in order to include the requirements contemplated in subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4 of Resolution DGT-25-2014, that </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">“…we believe we can commit to having this system functioning properly to store and report the required data as of May 1, 2015. However, there is no reasonable possibility of doing so before that date…” (folios 1 to 23 of the physical file of precautionary measure number 14-10303-1027-CA)</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">does not have the virtue of validating the substantial violations of the principle of hierarchy of norms that have been previously analyzed.</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> For the same reasons set forth above, </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">this Court considers that subsections xx to xxvii of Article 5 of Resolution number DGT-25-2014 are also contrary to the provisions of Articles 140 subsections 3) and 18) of the Political Constitution; 6 of the LGAP; 2, 99 paragraph 2, and 168 of the CNPT; 8 paragraph 2 of Ley 6826, and 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">, given that mandatory compliance with them is also imposed in the electronic accounting records of purchases of goods and services, under warning that otherwise, the taxpayer or declarant could have the respective sanctions imposed on them. In that sense, subsection b) of Article 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 establishes that what must be stated is the total amount of purchases per invoice or voucher, broken down into exempt purchases, taxable purchases, and the tax paid; while subsections xx to xxvii of Article 5 of Resolution DGT-25-2014 </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">innovate the primary source and supplant Decreto Ejecutivo, by imposing the duty to include the following information</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">: the single customs declaration (DUA) number; the date of the import DUA; the tariff code; details of the tariff code; the name of the customs office; the name of the customs agency or customs agent that processed the import; the identification number of the customs agent or customs agency that processes the export procedure; the value of the goods reflected in the DUA</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">. Aggravated by the fact that in case of non-compliance,</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> the declarants or taxpayers may have the respective sanctions provided in the CNPT imposed on them, </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">despite the requirements having been created through a resolution of general scope and not through an executive regulation as established in numeral 8 paragraph 2 of Ley 6826</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">, and without prejudice to the violation of the principles of reasonableness and proportionality by requesting information that is already on file with the Tax Administration, as will be analyzed in part ii of this considerando. Consequently, and for all the foregoing reasons, it is declared that subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of Article 5 of Resolution DGT-25-2014 issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, given that they are contrary to the principle of hierarchy of sources. </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">ii) Principles of reasonableness and proportionality, and their incidence on the right of the administered party not to be asked for information that the Tax Administration issues or possesses</span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">.</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> Without prejudice to what was analyzed in the previous part, this collegiate body deems that subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of Article 5, both of Resolution DGT-25-2014 issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, are also contrary to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality and to the right contained in numerals 171 subsection 8) of the CNPT and 2 paragraph 1 of Ley 8220 (Ley de Protección al Ciudadano del Exceso de Requisitos y Trámites Administrativos), for the reasons set forth below. In the first instance, it should be noted that, contrary to what the State representative affirms, Ley 8220 applies not only in those cases where the administered party addresses a public entity or body in exercise of their rights of petition and prompt response, information, and/or access to justice through administrative channels </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">(paragraph 2 of Article 1 of that Law)</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">; but also, as is evident from paragraph 1 of numeral 1 of that same normative body, </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">applies as a correlative duty of the Public Administration for the effective exercise of that right, regarding the limits and scope that public law entities and bodies must observe when establishing, publicizing, and executing the procedures and/or requirements that the administered party must fulfill</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">–see Article 4 and following of Ley 8220-</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">, in this case, the form and conditions under which VAT taxpayers and declarants must keep the accounting records of sales and purchases. </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">Therefore, the application in this case of Article 2 paragraph 2 in fine of Ley 8220 is appropriate</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">–which establishes:</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">“…Similarly, no entity, body, or public official may request from the administered party information that one or several of its own offices issue or possess…”-; </span><span style=\"color:#010101\">which in any case, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">has a similar norm for tax matters in subsection 8) of numeral 171 of the CNPT,</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> namely: </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">“…Right not to provide documents already submitted and received, which should be in the possession of the acting administration unless justified reasons exist…”</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">. Based on the above, this Court considers it unreasonable and disproportionate that in subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4, and in subsections xx to xxvii of Article 5, both of Resolution DGT-25-2014, </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">information is requested that was issued and/or is recorded in the registries of the Tax and/or Customs Administration</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">, as occurs with those relating to the authorization or exemption number for the sale without IVA, ISC, or any other tax and its effective date, </span><span style=\"font-weight:bold; color:#010101\">since even in subsection xxii of Article 4 of Resolution DGT-25-2014 itself, it is indicated that said authorization notes are issued by the Dirección General de Tributación or the Dirección General de Hacienda</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">(folios 89 to 95 of the administrative file; 4 to 15, 117 to 128 of the judicial file). </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">In the same sense, regarding the requirements related to</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> the single customs declaration (DUA) number; the date of the import DUA; the tariff code; details of the tariff code; the name of the customs office; the name of the customs agency or customs agent that processed the import; the identification number of the customs agent or customs agency that processes the export procedure; the value of the goods reflected in the DUA. This is because, from Articles 86, 88, 103, 104, 106, and 107 of the Ley General de Aduanas (Ley 7557), and from Resolution DGA-203-2005 issued by the Dirección General de Aduanas at 09:00 hours on June 22, 2005, called Procedural Manual within the TICA Framework (Contains Entry and Exit of Goods, Vehicles and Transport Units, Customs Transit Procedures, Deposit Procedures, and Definitive and Temporary Import Procedures)</span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\"> (images 1 to 396 of the evidence CD admitted at the preliminary hearing), </span><span style=\"color:#010101\">it is evident not only that this data must be recorded in the Declaración Única Aduanera (DUA) registered in the computer system of the Sistema Nacional de Aduanas (TICA) or another authorized system; but also, that this data must be provided by the customs authorities to other official departments, under the terms of numeral 107 of the Ley General de Aduanas (Ley 7557). At this point, it should be noted that the fact that the registration of the DUA in the computer system of the Servicio Nacional de Aduanas does not imply endorsing the content of that declaration, nor does it limit the verification powers of the customs authority </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">(Article 88 of Ley 7557),</span><span style=\"color:#010101\"> to the point that the self-determined customs declaration will be subjected to a selective and random process to determine if an immediate verification of what was declared should be carried out </span><span style=\"line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101\">(Article 93 of Ley 7557</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">); </span><span style=\"text-decoration:underline; color:#010101\">does not imply that the information contained in the computer system of the Servicio Nacional de Aduanas is not truthful</span><span style=\"color:#010101\">, given that, as established by Articles 89 to 92, 98 of that same normative body, when a customs declaration is rejected, the errors may be corrected within a period of three days; likewise, the declarant may at any time request the correction of the DUA, or withdraw the declaration for a regime before the release of the goods, or make the corrections or adjustments when differences are determined with the DUA during the verification process.

Finally, resolution number DGT-25-2014 also fails to state reasons justifying a request that the taxpayer or declarant include information issued by or contained in the files of the Tax or Customs Administration *(considerando* II, section d of this judgment), as established by subsection 8 *in fine* of Article 171 of the CNPT, without prejudice to the fact that a normative source of lower hierarchy is used, as opposed to that established by Article 8, paragraph 2 of Law 6826, to determine the form and conditions under which the accounting record of sales and purchases must be kept. Consequently and for all the foregoing reasons, this Court declares that subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of Article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014 issued by the Dirección General de Tributación at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity (nulidad absoluta), as they are contrary to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, and to the right contained in numerals 171 subsection 8) of the CNPT and 2, paragraph 1 *in fine* of Law 8220. The declaration of absolute nullity of said rules has *erga omnes* effects, except for rights acquired in good faith and consolidated legal situations. Once this judgment becomes final (adquiera firmeza), it must be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the State's expense, since it was the Dirección General de Tributación that issued resolution number DGT-25-2014 issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014.- VII.- ON THE PROCEDURAL PREREQUISITES AND SUBSTANTIVE DEFENSES. This Court concludes that the plaintiff has sufficient standing (legitimación activa) to participate in this proceeding in accordance with Article 10, subsection a) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, since, being registered as a taxpayer before the Dirección de Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales, for the Impuesto General sobre las Ventas, among others, it must comply with the provisions of resolution DGT-25-2014 issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014 by the Dirección General de Tributación. Furthermore, the action is correctly directed against the State, as provided by subsection 1) of numeral 12 of the cited Code, given that the Dirección General de Tributación is the author of the general scope resolution that is the object of this proceeding. For its part, the interest remains current, insofar as the challenged conduct continues to produce effects in the plaintiff's legal sphere and requires a jurisdictional resolution to resolve it. Finally, and for all the reasons set forth in considerandos IV and V of this judgment, the defense of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho) raised by the State's representative is partially upheld, only regarding the main claim of total absolute nullity of resolution DGT-25-2014 of 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, and regarding the subsidiary claim of partial absolute nullity of subsections xiv to xvii of Article 5 of that same resolution. Consequently, and for all the reasons set forth in considerando VI of this judgment, the defense of lack of right is rejected in its remaining aspects and the lawsuits filed by Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A. against the State are partially granted, in the following terms, understanding as denied any aspect not expressly indicated: 1) It is declared that subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of Article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014 issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, as they are contrary to the principles of hierarchy of sources, reasonableness and proportionality, and to the right contained in Articles 171 subsection 8) of the Código de Normas Procedimientos Tributarios and 2, paragraph 1 *in fine* of Law 8220; 2) The declaration of absolute nullity of said rules has *erga omnes* effects, except for rights acquired in good faith and consolidated legal situations. 3) Once this judgment becomes final, it must be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the State's expense, since it was the Dirección General de Tributación that issued resolution number DGT-25-2014 issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014.- VIII.- ON COSTS. In accordance with numeral 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, procedural and personal costs (costas procesales y personales) constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by virtue of being so. Dispensation from this condemnation is only viable when, in the Court's judgment, there was sufficient reason to litigate, or when the judgment is rendered based on evidence whose existence the opposing party was unaware of. In this case, this collegiate body finds no reason to apply the exceptions set forth in the applicable rules and to break the postulate of condemning the losing party, since, although it is true that the main claims of both lawsuits and partially the subsidiary claim of the lawsuit originally filed under expediente 14-010699-1027-CA were dismissed; it is also true that this collegiate body determined that subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of Article 5, all of resolution DGT-25-2014 issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, as they are contrary to the principles of hierarchy of sources, reasonableness and proportionality, and to the right contained in Articles 171 subsection 8) of the Código de Normas Procedimientos Tributarios and 2, paragraph 1 *in fine* of Law 8220. Therefore, both sets of costs are imposed on the State, amounts to be calculated in the judgment enforcement phase.-

POR TANTO.

The defense of lack of right raised by the State's representative is partially upheld, only regarding the main claim of total absolute nullity of resolution DGT-25-2014 of 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, and regarding the subsidiary claim of partial absolute nullity of subsections xiv to xvii of Article 5 of that same resolution. Consequently, the defense of lack of right is rejected in its remaining aspects and the lawsuits filed by Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A. against the State are partially granted, in the following terms, understanding as denied any aspect not expressly indicated: 1) It is declared that subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of Article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014 issued by the Dirección General de Tributación at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, as they are contrary to the principles of hierarchy of sources, reasonableness and proportionality, and to the right contained in Articles 171 subsection 8) of the Código de Normas Procedimientos Tributarios and 2, paragraph 1 *in fine* of Law 8220; 2) The declaration of absolute nullity of said rules has *erga omnes* effects, except for rights acquired in good faith and consolidated legal situations. 3) Once this judgment becomes final, it must be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the State's expense. 4) Both sets of costs are to be borne by the State, amounts to be calculated in the judgment enforcement phase.- Nombre113722 Sergio Mena García Giovanni Marchena Jara 14-010699-1027-CA)</span></span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">DECLARATORY KNOWLEDGE PROCEEDING DECIDED ON PURE QUESTIONS OF LAW</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">PLAINTIFF</span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">: Nombre113922 DE COSTA RICA, S.A.</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt"><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">DEFENDANT</span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">: THE STATE (Prosecutor María del Rocío Solano Raabe)</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt"><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span></p><table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="width:432pt; border:1pt solid #010101; border-collapse:collapse"><tr><td style="width:426pt; padding:3pt; vertical-align:top"><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#010101">Document signed by:</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">Nombre113722</span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101; -aw-import:spaces">&#xa0; </span><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">, DECISION-MAKING JUDGE</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">SERGIO MENA GARCÍA, DECISION-MAKING JUDGE</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt"><span style="font-family:Arial; color:#010101">GIOVANNI GERARDO MARCHENA JARA, DECISION-MAKING JUDGE</span></p></td></tr></table><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt"><span>&#xa0;</span><span>&#xa0;</span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt"><span>&#xa0;</span></p></div></body></html>" “VI. REGARDING THE VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HIERARCHY OF SOURCES, REASONABLENESS, AND PROPORTIONALITY, OF SUBSECTIONS XXII AND XXIII OF ARTICLE 4, AND SUBSECTIONS XX TO XXVII OF ARTICLE 5 OF RESOLUTION DGT-25-2014 […] ii) Principles of reasonableness (razonabilidad) and proportionality (proporcionalidad), and their impact on the right of the administered party not to be asked for information issued or held by the Tax Administration. Without prejudice to what was analyzed in the previous section, this collegiate body considers that subsections xxii and xxiii of article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of article 5, both of resolution DGT-25-2014 issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, are also contrary to the principles of reasonableness (razonabilidad) and proportionality (proporcionalidad) and to the right contained in numerals 171 subsection 8) of the CNPT and 2 paragraph 1 of Law 8220 (Law for the Protection of the Citizen from the Excess of Administrative Requirements and Procedures), for the reasons set forth below. In the first instance, it should be noted that, contrary to what the State's representative asserts, Law 8220 not only applies in those cases where the administered party addresses a public entity or body in exercise of their rights of petition and prompt response, information, and/or access to justice through administrative channels (paragraph 2 of article 1 of that Law); but also, as is evident from paragraph 1 of numeral 1 of that same regulatory body, it applies as a correlative duty of the Public Administration for the effective exercise of that right, regarding the limits and scope that public-law entities and bodies must observe when establishing, publicizing, and executing the procedures and/or requirements that the administered party must fulfill –see article 4 and following of Law 8220-, in this case, the form and conditions under which VAT taxpayers and declarants must keep the accounting records of sales and purchases. Therefore, the application in this case of article 2, paragraph 2 in fine of Law 8220 is appropriate –which establishes: “…Likewise, no public entity, body, or official may request from the administered party information that one or more of its own offices issue or hold…”; which in any case, has in subsection 8) of numeral 171 of the CNPT, a similar rule for tax matters, namely: “…Right not to provide documents already submitted and received, which should be in the possession of the acting administration, except for justified reasons…”. Based on the foregoing, this Court considers it unreasonable and disproportionate that, in subsections xxii and xxiii of article 4, and in subsections xx to xxvii of article 5, both of resolution DGT-25-2014, information is requested that was issued and/or is recorded in the records of the Tax and/or Customs Administration, as occurs with those relating to the authorization or exemption number for sale without VAT, ISC, or some other tax and the effective date thereof, since even in subsection xxii of article 4 of resolution DGT-25-2014 itself, it is indicated that said authorization notes are issued by the Dirección General de Tributación or the Dirección General de Hacienda (folios 89 to 95 of the administrative case file (expediente administrativo); 4 to 15, 117 to 128 of the judicial case file (expediente judicial)). In the same vein, regarding the requirements related to the single customs declaration number (DUA); date of the import DUA; tariff heading; detail of the tariff heading; name of the customs office, name of the customs agency or the customs agent who processed the import; identification number of the customs agent or the customs agency processing the export; value of the goods reflected in the DUA.

This is because, from articles 86, 88, 103, 104, 106, and 107 of the General Customs Law (Ley General de Aduanas, Ley 7557), and from resolution DGA-203-2005 issued by the Dirección General de Aduanas at 09:00 hours on June 22, 2005, called the Manual of Procedures within the TICA Framework (Covers Entry and Exit of Goods, Vehicles and Transport Units, Customs Transit Procedures, Deposit Procedures, and Definitive and Temporary Import Procedure) (images 1 to 396 of the test CD admitted at the preliminary hearing), it follows not only that this data must be recorded in the Single Customs Declaration (Declaración Única Aduanera, DUA) registered in the computer system of the National Customs System (TICA) or another authorized system; but also that this data must be provided by the customs authorities to other official entities, under the terms of article 107 of the General Customs Law (Ley 7557). At this point, it is worth noting that the fact that the registration of the DUA in the computer system of the Servicio Nacional de Aduanas does not entail endorsing the content of that declaration, nor does it limit the verification powers of the customs authority (article 88 of Ley 7557), to the extent that the self-determined customs declaration will be subjected to a selective and random process to determine if immediate verification of what was declared should be carried out (article 93 of Ley 7557); does not imply that the information contained in the computer system of the Servicio Nacional de Aduanas is not truthful, given that as established in articles 89 to 92, 98, of that same regulatory body, when there is a rejection of a customs declaration, the errors may be corrected within a period of three days; likewise, the declarant may at any time request the correction of the DUA, or withdraw the declaration from a regime before the release of the goods, or else make corrections or adjustments when differences with the DUA are determined in the verification process. Finally, resolution number DGT-25-2014 also provides no reasons justifying requesting the taxpayer or declarant to include information issued by or contained in the files of the Tax or Customs Administration (Recital (considerando) II, subsection d of this judgment), as established in subparagraph 8 in fine of article 171 of the CNPT, without prejudice to the use of a regulatory source of lower hierarchy than that established in article 8, paragraph 2 of Ley 6826 to determine the manner and conditions in which the accounting record of sales and purchases must be kept. Consequently, and for all the foregoing, this Court declares that subparagraphs xxii and xxiii of article 4, and subparagraphs xx to xxvii of article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014 issued by the Dirección General de Tributación at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, as they are contrary to the principles of reasonableness (razonabilidad) and proportionality (proporcionalidad), and to the right contained in article 171, subparagraph 8) of the CNPT and article 2, paragraph 1 in fine of Ley 8220. The declaration of absolute nullity of these norms has erga omnes effects, except for rights acquired in good faith and consolidated legal situations. Once this judgment becomes final, it must be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the State's expense, since it was the Dirección General de Tributación that issued resolution number DGT-25-2014 delivered at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014 […]." Subsidiary Claim: In the event that the total absolute nullity of resolution DGT-25-2014 is not declared, the partial nullity of the provisions contained in Article 4, sections xxii and xxiii of said resolution is declared, as it results in a disproportionate and unreasonable obligation for the commercial operation of my Represented Party. 3. That the State be ordered to pay costs. On a subsidiary basis, and if it is deemed that the ground for absolute nullity does not exist, nor the subsidiary ground, it be considered that my represented party litigated in good faith and under a reasonable appearance of the merit of its claims, for which reason it must be exempted from the payment of costs...". ii) Expediente 14-10699-1027-CA: "... 1. Main Claim: The absolute nullity of resolution DGT-25-2014, as it lacks the requirements of due process for its issuance and legal validity, because the consultative procedure established in article 174 of the Tax Code was not respected. 2. Subsidiary Claim: In the event that the total absolute nullity of resolution DGT-25-2014 is not declared, the partial nullity of the provisions contained in Article 5, sections xiv , xv, xvi, xvii, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, and xxvii of said resolution is declared, as it results in a disproportionate and unreasonable obligation for the commercial operation of my Represented Party by breaching my Represented Party's fundamental right not to engage in duplicate procedures that are proscribed by our Legal System. 3. That the State be ordered to pay costs. On a subsidiary basis, and if it is deemed that the ground for absolute nullity does not exist, nor either of the two subsidiary grounds, it be considered that my represented party litigated in good faith and under a reasonable appearance of the merit of its claims, for which reason it must be exempted from the payment of costs..." (folios 57, 58, 172, 173 of the judicial expediente and images 328 and 329 of the virtual expediente as of the date of issuance of this judgment).- 5.- The representative of the State responded negatively to both lawsuits and their respective expansions; she raised the preliminary defense of acts not subject to challenge and the exception of lack of right; she requested that the lawsuits be declared without merit and that the plaintiff be ordered to pay both sets of costs, as well as the interest that said sums generate from the finality of the judgment until their effective payment. Likewise, she requested that expediente 14-10699-1027-CA be consolidated with 14-10303-1027-CA (folios 72 to 98; 185 to 208; 212, 213 of the judicial expediente; image 312 of the virtual expediente as of the date of issuance of this judgment).- 6.- That by resolution number 2079-2015 at 14:30 hours on August 07, 2015, the Case Management Judge ordered: "...The State's motion is granted, and the consolidation of processes 14-10699-1027-CA and 10-10303-1027-CA is ordered. Their joint processing shall continue under the single expediente 14-10303-1027-CA. The plaintiff shall take note of what is indicated in Considerando III..." (folios 105 to 106 of the judicial expediente).

7.- The preliminary hearing was held at 08:47 hours on October 28, 2016, which was recorded in the corresponding electronic system and is contained in a separate file in DVD format. That during this hearing, the Case Management Judge set the claims raised by the plaintiff, in the terms indicated in the first resultando of this judgment, emphasizing that the plaintiff withdrew subsidiary claim number 2 of the first lawsuit processed under expediente 14-10303-1027-CA; likewise, the preliminary defense of acts not subject to challenge was deemed withdrawn; it was established that facts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 of the lawsuit are considered controverted, transcendental for the case, and therefore, subject to proof; all the documentary evidence offered by the plaintiff was admitted; as well as, the entirety of the administrative expediente presented by the State, clarifying that the folder of the administrative expediente certified on April 07, 2015, was being returned to the representative of the defendant, as it was a duplicate of the one already admitted. Consequently, as there was no testimonial, confessional, or expert evidence to be presented, and in accordance with the provisions of Article 98.2 of the same Code, this matter was declared a matter of pure law, and the parties presented their conclusions orally (images 329 to 330 of the virtual expediente as of the date of issuance of this judgment and digital backup of the preliminary hearing of 10-28-2016).

8.- This matter was referred to the Reporting Judge of Section Five of the Contencioso Administrativo Tribunal on May 23, 2017 (see status inquiry in the electronic folder 14-010303-1027-CA of the Virtual Desktop). In the proceedings before this Tribunal, no nullities have been observed that must be remedied or that cause defenselessness, and the judgment is issued within the deadline established in Articles 98 subsection 2) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, in relation to subsection 4) of Article 82 of the Reglamento Autónomo de Organización y Servicio de this Jurisdiction, which expires on June 13, 2017.- Drafted by Judge Nombre113722 , with the affirmative vote of Judges Mena García and Marchena Jara; and, C O N S I DE R I N G:

Io.- PROVEN FACTS: The following facts, which are relevant to this process, are considered duly accredited: 1) That by resolution DGA-203-2005 issued at 09:00 hours on June 22, 2005, the Dirección General de Aduanas issued the Manual de Procedimientos in the TICA Framework (Containing Entry and exit of Goods, Vehicles and Transport Units, Customs Transit Procedures, Deposit Procedures, and Definitive and Temporary Import Procedures) (images 1 to 396 of the CD of evidence admitted at the preliminary hearing); 2) That the plaintiff is a company whose main economic activity is Supermarkets and Chain Grocery Stores, and it is registered as a taxpayer before the Directorate of Large National Taxpayers, for the following taxes: Income, Sales, Withholdings at Source, and Education and Culture Tax Stamp (folios 1 to 3, 107 to 109 of the judicial expediente); 3) That in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta numbers 39 and 40 of February 25 and 26, 2014, respectively, the following was published: "...In accordance with the provisions of the second paragraph of Article 174 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, added by Article 2 of the Ley de Fortalecimiento de la Gestión Tributaria, No. 9069 of September 10, 2012, a period of ten business days counted from the first publication of this notice is granted to representative entities of general, corporate, or diffuse interests, for the purpose of expressing their opinion regarding the draft resolution of general scope called 'OBLIGATORIEDAD PARA LOS GRANDES CONTRIBUYENTES Y GRANDES EMPRESAS TERRITORIALES EN LA LLEVANZA DE LOS REGISTROS ELECTRÓNICOS DE COMPRAS Y VENTAS DE MERCANCÍAS, ASÍ COMO DE SERVICIOS PRESTADOS'. The observations on the resolution in question must be expressed in writing and addressed to the Dirección de Tributación Internacional y Técnica Tributaria of the Dirección General de Tributación (...) For the indicated purposes, the cited draft decree is available on the website http://dgt.hacienda.go.cr, in the 'Proyectos' section..." (folios 02 and 04 of the administrative expediente); 4) That by document number P-022-2014 of April 02, 2014, sent to the Dirección de Tributación Internacional on April 04, 2014 -via the fax system-, the President of the Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado (UCCAEP), submitted its observations to the draft resolution of general scope called "OBLIGATORIEDAD PARA LOS GRANDES CONTRIBUYENTES Y GRANDES EMPRESAS TERRITORIALES EN LA LLEVANZA DE LOS REGISTROS ELECTRÓNICOS DE COMPRAS Y VENTAS DE MERCANCÍAS, ASÍ COMO DE SERVICIOS PRESTADOS". That in said document, UCCAEP did not indicate that the communication of the hearing provided for in Article 174 of the CNPT was carried out by an inadequate means or was omitted with respect to any of the other publicity requirements stipulated in that same numeral (folios 72 to 88 of the administrative expediente); 5) That in the Diario Oficial La Gaceta number 144 of July 29, 2014, resolution number DGT-25-2015 issued by the Dirección General de Tributación, at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, was published, called "Obligatoriedad para los Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales, de Llevanza por Medios Electrónicos de los Registros Auxiliares de Compras y Ventas Dispuestos por el Artículo 15 del Reglamento de la Ley del Impuesto General sobre las Ventas", the effective date of which was set for the first of January, 2015 (folios 89 to 95 of the administrative expediente; 4 to 15, 117 to 128 of the judicial expediente); 6) That by sworn statement of October 20, 2014, Laura Santana, in her capacity as Senior Vice President -Information Technology (IT) of PriceSmart, Inc., stated –among other aspects and according to the Official Translation performed by Roxana Gutiérrez Font, on November 17, 2014- that regarding the adaptation of the computer systems of the company Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A., in order to include the requirements contemplated in sections xxii and xxiii of Article 4 of resolution DGT-25-2014, “…we believe that we can commit to having this system functioning properly to store and report the required data as of May 1, 2015.

…no reasonable possibility of doing so before that date…” (folios 1 to 23 of the physical file of precautionary measure number 14-10303-1027-CA); **7)** That on December 18, 2014, the Certified Public Accountant Germán Antonio Morales Martínez (number 1625), issued a certification to the effect that: *“…2. (…) in view of the accounting records of the company Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, there are no individualized accounting records of the sums paid for the Selective Consumption Tax and Specific Taxes. The foregoing because these items form part of the merchandise cost. 3. That because Nombre113922 de Costa Rica is an importing and marketing company, the taxes Customs Duties (DAI), Specific Tax on Non-Alcoholic Beverages, Selective Consumption Tax, Procomer, National Archive Stamp, Customs Agents Association Stamp Law 7017, Private Accountants of Costa Rica Stamp and Law 6946, form part of the merchandise cost…”* (folios 14 to 18 of the physical file of precautionary measure number 14-010699-1027-CA); **8)** That by sworn declaration dated January 6, 2015, Laura Santana in her capacity as Senior Vice President – Information Technology (IT) of PriceSmart, Inc., and Michael Mc Cleary in his capacity as Senior Vice President – Corporate Controller of PriceSmart, Inc., stated –among other aspects and according to the Official Translation performed by Roxana Gutiérrez Font, on January 8, 2015, that *“… these amounts were not available at the item number level for each purchase invoice (…) We are in the process of analyzing if and how we can modify our system to store the items noted in point 7 above, however, we have not yet concluded this (…) Although it is feasible to modify and prepare new reports, in cases like the present one, where data are not stored in the system, it is very complex, if not prohibitive in cost and time to modify the system to do so…”* (official translation of the sworn declaration visible at folios 40 to 50 of the physical file of precautionary measure number 14-010699-1027-CA).- **II.-** **FACTS NOT PROVEN.** Of relevance to the present process, the following are considered not proven: **a)** That a notice was published in a nationally circulated newspaper, in which the existence of the electronic information and the address through which it could be accessed was made known to the general public, regarding the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic purchase and sales records *(it does not appear from the administrative file)*; **b)** That in the “Projects” section of the website of the Dirección General de Tributación, the electronic information related to the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic purchase and sales records was posted *(there is no evidence in the file)*; **c)** That direct communication was made to the representative entities of general or corporate interests or diffuse interests, such as the Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado (UCCAEP), that they were being granted the opportunity to express their opinions about the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic purchase and sales records *(it does not appear from the administrative file, nor from the documents visible at folios 35 and 129 of the judicial file)*; **d)** That resolution number DGT-25-2014 provides reasons justifying imposing on the taxpayer or declarant the requirement to include, in the auxiliary electronic purchase and sales record, information issued by or contained in the files of the Tax or Customs Administration *(it does not appear from the documents visible at folios 89 to 95 of the administrative file; 4 to 15, 117 to 128 of the judicial file)*.- **III.- SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROCESS.** The **PLAINTIFF party** contends: **1)** That resolution DGT-25-2014 issued by the Dirección General de Tributación at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffers from the defect of absolute nullity, since the procedure provided for in Article 174 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios (CNPT) was not followed, as the Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado (UCCAEP) was not directly notified of the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic purchase and sales records, because the Tax Administration merely published the notice in the Official Gazette La Gaceta, which is insufficient to fulfill the publicity duty imposed by the aforementioned rule. Likewise, it considers that the fact that UCCAEP submitted a brief setting forth its observations on the indicated draft resolution does not have the effect of curing the requirement. **2)** It alleges that subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4, and subsections xiv to xvii, xx to xxvii of Article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014, are contrary to the provisions of Articles 99 and 168 of the CNPT, since they innovate, through a regulation hierarchically inferior to an executive decree, on the form and conditions under which Article 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 determines how taxpayers and declarants of the General Sales Tax (IVA) must keep the auxiliary purchase and sales records, even though Article 8, paragraph 2 of Law 6826 indicates that these aspects are to be determined via regulation. **3)** Likewise, it deems that the requirements contained in subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4, and subsections xiv to xvii, xx to xxvii of Article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014, are contrary to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, since some of these data are already in the records of the Tax and/or Customs Administrations, either because they were issued by the Dirección General de Tributación, the Dirección General de Hacienda, or because it constitutes information that the Dirección General de Aduanas possesses through the computer system of the Servicio Nacional de Aduanas (TICA); **4)** Finally, it maintains that it is very complex to make the modifications to the computer system of the company Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A., in order to implement the requirements set forth in subsections xiv to xvii, xx to xxvii of Article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014, given that it does not track this data for purchases at the supplier invoice level, given its status as an importing and marketing company. **For its part, the representative of the STATE** states that: **a)** Contrary to what the plaintiff company affirms, the procedure established in Article 174 of the CNPT was followed, since two notices were published granting the representative entities of general or corporate interests or diffuse interests the opportunity to express their views on such projects. So much so, that UCCAEP submitted its observations to the Dirección de Tributación Internacional on April 4, 2014; **b)** It considers that the Dirección General de Tributación issued resolution N° DGT-25-2014, aimed at large national taxpayers, specifying the characteristics and requirements that the purchase and sales records must contain, which by law must be kept by taxpayers and declarants of the General Sales Tax Law, such as the plaintiff company Nombre113922 de Costa Rica S.A., based on the provisions of Articles 99, 104, 109 and 168 of the Tax Code, for which reason, in the present matter, the resolution does not innovate any legal situation, but rather simply develops the powers granted by the legislator. **c)** It deems that by express provision of the Legislator, the regulation of Law 8220 could not be extended to situations other than that contemplated in Article 1, paragraph 2, but furthermore, it is also improper because there are special rules, such as the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios and the General Sales Tax Law and its Regulations. On the other hand, it considers that the provisions of Article 171 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios are not infringed either, since the taxpayer is not being required to re-submit documents – such as import procedure documents – but rather to *record the information it has due to its commercial line of business* within the electronic purchase and sales records that taxpayers of the sales tax must legally keep to fulfill that formal tax obligation. **d)** It maintains that the provisions in subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4, and subsections xiv to xvii, xx to xxvii of Article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014, since it concerns information held by the taxpayer, must be provided so that the Tax Administration can fulfill the duty of determining, collecting, and auditing taxes, and thereby satisfy the public purposes entrusted to the State. In that sense, it considers that the customs information provided corresponds to the nationalization procedures of the merchandise and that, as is well known, Customs only conducts a detailed physical and documentary verification of goods entering the country on a random basis, pursuant to Article 93 of the General Customs Law. **e)** Finally, it argues that the plaintiff is also incorrect regarding the request for information related to articles xvi and xvii, since a reading of Article 18 of the Regulations to the General Sales Tax Law, transcribed by Nombre113922, establishes the obligation to record the value of the merchandise and the tax amount, which must be related to Article 19 of the same Regulations, regarding imports or internments. Consequently, it deems that the challenged resolution is fully in accordance with the Law, its issuance seeking efficiency in tax management, auditing, and collection by the Tax Administration, for the purpose of fulfilling the constitutional obligation of every inhabitant of our country to contribute to public burdens, as established by Articles 18 and 19 of our Political Constitution.- **IV.- CONCERNING THE ALLEGED NON-OBSERVANCE OF THE PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 174 OF THE CNPT AND THE NON-CONFIGURATION IN THE SPECIFIC CASE OF THE SITUATION PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE 223 OF THE LGAP.** While it is true that this Court has found it proven that in Official Gazette La Gaceta numbers 39 and 40, of February 25 and 26, 2014 – respectively – the notices were published aimed at granting *“…the representative entities of general, corporate, or diffuse interests, a period of ten business days counted from the first publication of this notice, for the purpose of expressing their views regarding the draft resolution of general scope called \"OBLIGATORIEDAD PARA LOS GRANDES CONTRIBUYENTES Y GRANDES EMPRESAS TERRITORIALES EN LA LLEVANZA DE LOS REGISTROS ELECTRÓNICOS DE COMPRAS Y VENTAS DE MERCANCÍAS, ASÍ COMO DE SERVICIOS PRESTADOS…\"* (folios 02 and 04 of the administrative file); it is also true that it is not evident from the admitted documentary evidence that the following requirements were fulfilled, which manifest the publicity duty imposed on the Tax Administration in these cases *(Article 174 of the Código de Normas y Procedimientos -CNPT-; 239, 240 subsection 1) and 361 of the Ley General de la Administración Pública –LGAP-)*, namely: **i)** That a notice was published in a nationally circulated newspaper, making known to the general public the existence of the electronic information and the address through which it could be accessed, regarding the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic purchase and sales records *(recital II, section a of this judgment)*; **ii)** That in the “Projects” section of the website of the Dirección General de Tributación, the electronic information related to the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic purchase and sales records was posted *(recital II, section b of this judgment)*; **iii**) That direct communication was made to the representative entities of general or corporate interests or diffuse interests *(recital II, section c of this judgment)*, such as the Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado (UCCAEP), that they were being granted the opportunity to express their opinions about the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic purchase and sales records. This omission is notable, as in this case the draft resolution was addressed to the sector of “*LARGE TAXPAYERS AND LARGE TERRITORIAL ENTERPRISES”*, which, applying the principles of logic and reasonableness, was clearly identifiable. Now, although the Dirección General de Tributación did not comprehensively observe the duty of publicity in the procedure for preparing and issuing provisions of a general nature, in the terms set forth above*; it is also true, that in this specific case, said omissions did not have the effect of placing the representative entities of general or corporate interests or diffuse interests in a state of defenselessness, preventing them from exercising their right to raise observations on the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic purchase and sales records* *(Article 223 of the LGAP)*. In this sense, it is credited that by brief number P-022-2014 dated April 2, 2014, sent to the Dirección de Tributación Internacional on April 4, 2014 *– via fax –*, the President of the Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado (UCCAEP), submitted his observations on the draft resolution of general scope called *\"OBLIGATORIEDAD PARA LOS GRANDES CONTRIBUYENTES Y GRANDES EMPRESAS TERRITORIALES EN LA LLEVANZA DE LOS REGISTROS ELECTRÓNICOS DE COMPRAS Y VENTAS DE MERCANCÍAS, ASÍ COMO DE SERVICIOS PRESTADOS\" (folios 72 to 88 of the administrative file)*. Consequently, although this Court deems that the mere publication in the Official Gazette La Gaceta of the notices aimed at granting representative entities of general or corporate interests or diffuse interests the opportunity to express their opinions on the draft resolution *(paragraph 2 of Article 174 of the CNPT in relation to subsection 2) of numeral 361 of the LGAP)*, does not per se guarantee full compliance with the duty of publicity. This is because, for interested parties to be able to effectively exercise the rights to due process, defense, information, and to be heard in the hearing procedure, prior to the issuance of an act that will have legal effects on their sphere of interests and rights *(subsections 1, 2, 12 of numeral 171 of the CNPT)*, the Tax Administration must publicize them in accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 174 of the CNPT, in relation to numerals 239, 240 subsection 1) and 361 of the LGAP, without prejudice to the timeliness or otherwise of accessing a document of that nature solely by digital means. It is also true, that in this case and pursuant to Article 223 of the LGAP, said procedural omissions did not have the effect of placing the representative entities of general or corporate interests or diffuse interests in a state of defenselessness, since they were not prevented from exercising their right to raise observations on the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic purchase and sales records, as evidenced by folios 72 to 88 of the administrative file, since UCCAEP submitted its observations on the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic purchase and sales records on April 4, 2014. Without prejudice to the foregoing, it should be noted that when submitting its observations on the draft resolution, UCCAEP did not point out that the communication of the hearing provided for in Article 174 of the CNPT was made by an inappropriate means or was deficient with respect to any of the other publicity requirements provided for in that same numeral and in Articles 239, 240 subsection 1) of the LGAP *(see folios 72 to 88 of the administrative file)*, which is why, pursuant to Articles 247 of the LGAP, 9 and 10 of the Judicial Notifications Law, the communication of the hearing granted for them to comment on the draft resolution on auxiliary electronic purchase and sales records, was deemed made at the moment when UCCAEP processed and submitted its observations, thereby expressly or implicitly considering itself notified of the same, without alleging at that time the aforementioned omissions. Finally, and although it was not challenged by the plaintiff company, this Court deems it necessary to highlight that the right to be heard in the hearing procedure prior to the issuance of the resolution or act that will have legal effects for the taxable persons or other interested parties, is not limited solely to granting them the opportunity to express their views on such projects, but rather requires that the Tax Administration analyze those observations; that the reasons for which they were rejected are reasoned and notified *(Article 136 of the LGAP)*, and in the event that they were admitted and implied substantial changes to the original draft resolution, to duly publicize them, since Articles 174 of the CNPT and 361 of the LGAP, do not subject or restrict the publicity of the draft resolution, regulation, directive, or general rule to a single publication, as this would be contrary to the principles of logic, reasonableness, and proportionality, in those cases where –it is reiterated– substantial, and not merely formal, modifications are introduced to the draft. For all the foregoing, this Court considers that resolution DGT-25-2014 issued by the Dirección General de Tributación at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, does not suffer from the defect of absolute nullity raised by the plaintiff party.- **V.- CONCERNING THE ALLEGED ILLEGALITY OF SUBSECTIONS XIV TO XVII OF ARTICLE 5 OF RESOLUTION DGT-25-2014.** Contrary to what the representative of the plaintiff company indicated, the requirements contained in subsections xiv to xvii of Article 5 of resolution number DGT-25-2014, do not imply a violation of the provisions of Articles 99, paragraph 2 and 168 of the CNPT, since they do not introduce innovative elements with respect to the provisions of numeral 15, subsection b) of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082, given that they not only conform to that primary source, but also do not supplement the Regulations to Law 6826, which can only be issued by the Executive Branch in exercise of the powers granted by subsections 3) and 18) of Article 140 of the Political Constitution. In that sense, Article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014 provides that the electronic purchase record shall detail each of the invoices for the purchase of goods and/or services, which must mandatorily contain, among others, the information set forth in subsections xiv to xvii, namely: Amount of ISC borne; Amount of Specific Tax borne; Amount of IVA borne, per acquired good or received service; total amount of the purchase invoice, a figure obtained by performing the following arithmetic operation: subtotal amount minus discount, plus ISC or other specific tax plus IVA. For its part, subsection b) of Article 15 of Decreto Ejecutivo 14082, establishes that every natural or legal person registered as a taxpayer or declarant of IVA is obligated to keep and maintain up to date a purchase record and a sales record, which must contain at least –as relevant–, the following information: the total amount of purchases per invoice or voucher, broken down into exempt purchases, taxable purchases, and the tax paid.

This Tribunal considers that <span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">the requirements contained in subsections xiv to xvii of Article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014 correspond to the minimum information that the accounting record of purchases (registro contable de compras) must contain, pursuant to the provisions of subsection b) of numeral 15 of Executive Decree number 14082, which has been in force since November 30, 1982.</span><span style="color:#010101"> By reason of the foregoing, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">it is not reasonable</span><span style="color:#010101"> for the plaintiff company to attempt to justify its non-compliance with those requirements by arguing that </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">“… these quantities were not available at the article number level for each purchase invoice (…) We are in the process of analyzing if and how we can modify our system to store the items noted in point 7 above, however, we have not yet concluded this (…) Although it is feasible to modify and prepare new reports, in cases like the present one, where the data is not stored in the system, it is very complex, if not prohibitive in terms of cost and time, to modify the system to do so…” (official translation of the sworn statement visible at folios 43 and 44 of the physical file of precautionary measure number 14-010699-1027-CA); </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">given that the total amount of purchases per invoice or voucher and the tax paid constitute a requirement that has been in force since November 30, 1982</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">–the date on which Executive Decree 14082 entered into force-</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">and that, under the terms of Article 15 of that same Decree, is one of the data points that the accounting record of purchases must contain, at a minimum, for those natural or legal persons who are registered</span><span style="color:#010101"> –as in the case of the plaintiff company- </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">as a VAT taxpayer</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">(folios 1 to 3, 107 to 109 of the judicial file), </span><span style="color:#010101">therefore, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">it cannot claim ignorance of the former and seek protection in supposed computer problems to justify an alleged illegality of the rule</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">. </span><span style="color:#010101">Regarding the inclusion of the ISC and other specific taxes, the company bases its arguments on the fact that, according to the certification issued on December 18, 2014, by Certified Public Accountant Germán Antonio Morales Martínez, it is indicated that:</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> “…2. That in view of the accounting records of the company Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, there are no individualized accounting records of the sums paid for the Selective Consumption Tax (ISC) and Specific Taxes. The foregoing is because these items form part of the cost of the merchandise. 3. That because Nombre113922 de Costa Rica is an importing and marketing company, the taxes: Customs Duties (DAI), Specific Non-Alcoholic Beverages Tax, Selective Consumption Tax, Procomer, Timbre Archivo Nacional, Timbre Asociación Agentes de Aduana Ley 7017, Timbre Contadores Privados de Costa Rica, and Ley 6946, form part of the cost of the merchandise…”</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">(folios 14 to 18 of the physical file of precautionary measure number 14-010699-1027-CA)</span><span style="color:#010101">. In that sense, and notwithstanding the fact that subsection b) of Article 15 of Executive Decree 14082 establishes that the purchase record must state the </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">total amount</span><span style="color:#010101"> of purchases per invoice or voucher, broken down into exempt purchases, taxable purchases, and </span><span style="font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">the tax paid</span><span style="color:#010101">, it is necessary to highlight that subsection 13) of Article 18 of Executive Decree 14082 establishes that the invoices issued by the taxpayer or declarant must state, at a minimum –among others- the amount of the ISC, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">when the seller is also a taxpayer of the indicated tax, and the amount of any other tax levied on taxable goods or services</span><span style="color:#010101">. In addition to the fact that Article 19 of the same Executive Decree 14082 establishes that </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">“…The tax base </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">in the case of imports or internments of goods, is determined by adding to the customs value, Aduana de Costa Rica, calculated according to the legal provisions in force in customs matters, </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">what is effectively paid by the importer for: (…) </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">b) </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">Selective consumption tax. </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline">c)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline"> Any other tax or surcharge applied to the importation or internment</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic">…”</span><span style="color:#010101">. Consequently, if numeral 18 subsection 13) itself establishes that the ISC is stated when the seller is a taxpayer of that tax or another specific tax, compliance with requirements xiv and xv of Article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014 </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">is covered by the provisions of Article 15 subsection b), Article 18 subsection 13), and Article 19 subsections b) and c) of Executive Decree 14082</span><span style="color:#010101">. By reason of the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that subsections xiv to xvii do not suffer from an absolute nullity defect, since they are not contrary to the provisions of Article 99 paragraph 2, Article 168 of the CNPT; Article 8 paragraph 2 of Law 6826; Article 6 of the LGAP; Articles 15, 18 subsection 13), and 19 subsections b) and c) of Executive Decree 14082. </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="color:#010101"> </span></p><p style="margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:150%"><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">VIo.- REGARDING THE VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF HIERARCHY OF SOURCES, REASONABLENESS, AND PROPORTIONALITY, BY SUBSECTIONS XXII AND XXIII OF ARTICLE 4, AND SUBSECTIONS XX TO XXVII OF ARTICLE 5 OF RESOLUTION DGT-25-2014. </span><span style="color:#010101">In the first instance, it is necessary to highlight that although it is true, according to the principle that persons are obligated to contribute to the support of public burdens according to their ability to pay, the Administration, to facilitate the timely verification of the taxpayers' situation, may require them to present books, files, accounting records, and all information of tax relevance, and to that end, may establish guidelines regarding the form in which such tax information should be recorded; it is also true that the exercise of the powers granted to it for that purpose by Articles 104 and 109 of the CNPT must be exercised in accordance with the law under the terms provided in Articles 99 and 168 of the CNPT, and Article 6 of the LGAP, in order to guarantee a balance between the efficiency of the Tax Administration and the dignity, liberty, and other applicable fundamental rights of the taxpayers </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">(Articles 8 of the LGAP and 172 of the CNPT)</span><span style="color:#010101">. Based on the foregoing, this Tribunal will analyze whether the provisions of subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4; xx to xxvii of Article 5, both of resolution </span><span>DGT-25-2014 issued by the Dirección General de Tributación at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, are or are not contrary to the legal system, according to the following parameters</span><span style="color:#010101">:</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">i) Principle of Hierarchy of Norms (Articles 6 of the LGAP; 2 and 168 of the CNPT)</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">. </span><span style="color:#010101">It is worth recalling that although paragraph 2 of numeral 99 of the CNPT establishes that the Tax Administration may issue general rules for the correct application of tax laws, it is also true that it must do so within the limits fixed by the legal and regulatory provisions. In that sense, the general resolutions and guidelines of the Tax Administration shall be interpretative of the laws and regulations, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">but may not be innovative of objective legal situations</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">(Article 168 of the CNPT)</span><span style="color:#010101">. Likewise, the cited resolutions and guidelines </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">must conform to the primary sources and may not supplant the regulations that, in this matter, can only be issued by the Executive Branch</span><span style="color:#010101">, pursuant to the provisions of Articles 140 subsections 3) and 18 of the Political Constitution, and Article 168 paragraph 2 in fine of the CNPT. Based on the foregoing and what is relevant to the specific case, paragraph 2 of numeral 8 of the General Sales Tax Law (Ley del Impuesto General sobre las Ventas, Law 6826), establishes that </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">“…Taxpayers and declarants must keep accounting records in the form and under the conditions that </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">are determined in the Regulation</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">.” </span><span style="color:#010101">(highlighting is not from the original). Consequently, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">the legislator conditioned the issuance of the necessary regulation to execute the provisions of Article 8 paragraph 2 of Law 6826, regarding the form and conditions under which taxpayers and declarants of the General Sales Tax must keep their accounting records, to be done through the regulatory channel, by the Executive Branch in exercise of the powers conferred in subsections 3) and 18) of the Political Constitution.</span><span style="color:#010101"> Based on the foregoing, Article 15 of the Regulation to Law 6826 (Executive Decree number 14082, in force since November 30, 1982), establishes that: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">“…Every person or entity registered as a taxpayer or declarant of the tax is obligated to keep and maintain up-to-date a purchase record and a sales record; such records must contain, at a minimum, the following information: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">a)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> Date and number of the document supporting the operation; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">b)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> Total amount of purchases per invoice or voucher, broken down into exempt purchases, taxable purchases, and the tax paid; </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">c)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> Total amount of sales per invoice or voucher, broken down into exempt sales, exports, taxable sales, and the tax charged; and </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">ch)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> The monthly total, in both records, of the aforementioned amounts…”.</span><span style="color:#010101"> Although it is true that Article 15 transcribed above establishes that the sales and purchase records that every natural or legal person registered as a taxpayer or declarant of the General Sales Tax must keep, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">must contain, at a minimum, the requirements stipulated therein</span><span style="color:#010101">; it is also true that </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">this does not imply an authorization for the Tax Administration to impose other requirements regarding the form and conditions for keeping said records, through a regulatory channel hierarchically inferior to the executive decree, since Law 6826 in Article 8 paragraph 2 determines that this is the regulatory source to be used for such purpose</span><span style="color:#010101">. In reason of the foregoing, this Tribunal considers that the requirements contained in subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4 of resolution DGT-25-2014 </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">-which the electronic record of sales of goods and services must obligatorily contain, under warning that failure to comply could result in the imposition of the sanctions established in the CNPT (Article 8 of resolution DGT-25-2015)-</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">, </span><span style="color:#010101">are contrary to the provisions of Articles 140 subsections 3) and 18) of the Political Constitution; Article 6 of the LGAP; Articles 2, 99 paragraph 2, and 168 of the CNPT; Article 8 paragraph 2 of Law 6826, and Article 15 of Executive Decree number 14082. This is because it requires that the accounting records of sales obligatorily include the authorization note number from the Dirección General de Tributación or the Dirección General de Hacienda, for the sale without Sales Tax (IVA), Selective Consumption Tax (ISC), or any other specific tax; as well as the effective date covered by said authorization, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">despite the fact that subsection c) of numeral 15 of Executive Decree 14082 establishes –in what is relevant- that what must be indicated is the total amount for exempt sales per invoice or voucher</span><span style="color:#010101">. This Tribunal considers that contrary to what the State's representative argues, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">this requirement not only constitutes an innovative and non-interpretative aspect of subsection c) of Article 15 of Executive Decree 14082, but also does not conform to the primary source, since it supplants the executive decree that constitutes the norm to which the Legislator subordinated the determination of the form and conditions under which taxpayers and declarants must keep the accounting records of sales</span><span style="color:#010101">. This is because it includes </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">-under warning of incurring a sanctionable offense-</span><span style="color:#010101"> the obligation to indicate the authorization or exemption note number for IVA, ISC, or other specific tax and its effective date, despite the fact that –it insists- subsection c) of Article 15 of Executive Decree 14082 establishes –in what is relevant- that what must be indicated is the total amount for exempt sales per invoice or voucher; without prejudice to how unreasonable and disproportionate it is to request information that is already on file in the Tax Administration's records, as will be analyzed in section ii of this considerando. Finally, the fact that in the Official Translation of the Sworn Statement signed by Laura Santana (Senior Vice President of Information Technology of PriceSmart Inc.), it is indicated, regarding the adaptation of the computer systems of the company Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A., to include the requirements contemplated in subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4 of resolution DGT-25-2014, that </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">“…we believe we can commit to having this system functioning properly to store and report the required data as of May 1, 2015. However, no reasonable possibility of doing so before that date…” (folios 1 to 23 of the physical file of precautionary measure number 14-10303-1027-CA)</span><span style="color:#010101">, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">does not have the virtue of validating the substantial violations of the principle of hierarchy of norms, which have been analyzed previously.</span><span style="color:#010101"> For the same reasons set forth above, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">this Tribunal considers that subsections xx to xxvii of Article 5 of resolution number DGT-25-2014 are also contrary to the provisions of Articles 140 subsections 3) and 18) of the Political Constitution; Article 6 of the LGAP; Articles 2, 99 paragraph 2, and 168 of the CNPT; Article 8 paragraph 2 of Law 6826, and Article 15 of Executive Decree number 14082</span><span style="color:#010101">, given that mandatory compliance with them is also imposed, in the electronic accounting records of purchases of goods and services, under warning that otherwise, the taxpayer or declarant could be subject to the respective sanctions. In that sense, subsection b) of Article 15 of Executive Decree 14082 establishes that what must be recorded is the total amount of purchases per invoice or voucher, broken down into exempt purchases, taxable purchases, and the tax paid; whereas subsections xx to xxvii of Article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014 </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">innovate on the primary source and supplant the Executive Decree, by imposing the duty to include the following information</span><span style="color:#010101">: single customs declaration (DUA) number; date of the import DUA; tariff classification; detail of the tariff classification; name of the customs office, name of the customs agency or the customs agent that processed the import; identification number of the customs agent or customs agency processing the export; value of the goods reflected in the DUA</span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">. With the aggravating factor that in the event of non-compliance,</span><span style="color:#010101"> the declarants or taxpayers could be subject to the respective sanctions provided in the CNPT, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">despite the fact that the requirements were created through a resolution of general scope and not by means of an executive decree as established by numeral 8 paragraph 2 of Law 6826</span><span style="color:#010101">, and without prejudice to the violation of the principles of unreasonableness and disproportionality in requesting information that is already on file in the records of the Tax Administration, as will be analyzed in section ii of this considerando. Consequently, and for all of the foregoing, it is declared that subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of Article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014 issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffer from an absolute nullity defect, since they are contrary to the principle of hierarchy of sources. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">ii) Principles of reasonableness and proportionality, and their impact on the right of the administrated not to be asked for information that the Tax Administration issues or possesses</span><span style="font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#010101">.</span><span style="color:#010101"> Without prejudice to what was analyzed in the preceding section, this collegiate body considers that subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of Article 5, both of resolution DGT-25-2014 issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, are also contrary to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality and to the right contained in numerals 171 subsection 8) of the CNPT and Article 2 paragraph 1 of Law 8220 (Law for the Protection of the Citizen from Excessive Administrative Requirements and Procedures), for the reasons set forth below. In the first instance, it should be noted that contrary to what the State's representative affirms, Law 8220 not only applies in those cases where the administrated addresses a public entity or body in exercise of their rights of petition and prompt response, information, and/or access to justice through administrative channels </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">(paragraph 2 of Article 1 of that Law)</span><span style="color:#010101">; but also, as is evident from paragraph 1 of numeral 1 of that same regulatory body, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">it applies as a correlative duty of the Public Administration for the effective exercise of that right, regarding the limits and scope that public law entities and bodies must observe when establishing, publicizing, and executing the procedures and/or requirements that the administrated must fulfill</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">–see Article 4 and subsequent articles of Law 8220-</span><span style="color:#010101">, in this case, the form and conditions under which IVA taxpayers and declarants must keep the accounting records of sales and purchases. </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">Therefore, the application in this case of Article 2 paragraph 2 in fine of Law 8220</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">–which establishes:</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">“…Likewise, no public entity, body, or official may request from the administrated information that one or several of its own offices issue or possess…”-; </span><span style="color:#010101">which, in any case, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">has in subsection 8) of numeral 171 of the CNPT a similar rule for tax matters,</span><span style="color:#010101"> namely: </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">“…Right not to provide documents already submitted and received, which should be in the possession of the acting administration, except for justified reasons…”</span><span style="color:#010101">. Based on the foregoing, this Tribunal considers it unreasonable and disproportionate that subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of Article 5, both of resolution DGT-25-2014, </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">request information that was issued and/or is on file in the records of the Tax and/or Customs Administration</span><span style="color:#010101">, as occurs with those relating to the authorization or exemption number for the sale without IVA, ISC, or any other tax and the effective date thereof, </span><span style="font-weight:bold; color:#010101">since even in the same subsection xxii of Article 4 of resolution DGT-25-2014, it is indicated that said authorization notes are issued by the Dirección General de Tributación or the Dirección General de Hacienda</span><span style="color:#010101"> </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">(folios 89 to 95 of the administrative file; 4 to 15, 117 to 128 of the judicial file). </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">In the same sense, regarding the requirements related to</span><span style="color:#010101"> the single customs declaration (DUA) number; date of the import DUA; tariff classification; detail of the tariff classification; name of the customs office, name of the customs agency or the customs agent that processed the import; identification number of the customs agent or customs agency that processes the export; value of the goods reflected in the DUA. This is because it is evident from Articles 86, 88, 103, 104, 106, and 107 of the General Customs Law (Ley General de Aduanas, Law 7557), and from resolution DGA-203-2005 issued by the Dirección General de Aduanas at 09:00 hours on June 22, 2005, called the TICA Framework Procedures Manual (Contains Entry and Exit of Goods, Vehicles, and Transport Units, Customs Transit Procedures, Deposit Procedures, and Definitive and Temporary Import Procedure)</span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101"> (images 1 to 396 of the evidence CD admitted at the preliminary hearing), </span><span style="color:#010101">not only that this data must be recorded in the Single Customs Declaration (DUA) registered in the computer system of the National Customs System (Sistema Nacional de Aduanas, TICA) or another authorized system; but also, that this data must be provided by the customs authorities to other official agencies, under the terms of numeral 107 of the General Customs Law (Law 7557). At this point, it should be noted that the fact that the registration of the DUA in the computer system of the Servicio Nacional de Aduanas does not entail endorsing the content of that declaration, nor does it limit the verification powers of the customs authority </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">(Article 88 of Law 7557),</span><span style="color:#010101"> to the point that the self-assessed customs declaration will be subjected to a selective and random process to determine whether immediate verification of what was declared is appropriate </span><span style="line-height:150%; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; color:#010101">(Article 93 of Law 7557</span><span style="color:#010101">); </span><span style="text-decoration:underline; color:#010101">does not imply that the information contained in the computer system of the Servicio Nacional de Aduanas is not truthful</span><span style="color:#010101">, given that as established by Articles 89 to 92, and 98 of that same regulatory body, when a customs declaration is rejected, the errors may be corrected within three days; likewise, the declarant may at any time request the correction of the DUA, or desist from the declaration to a regime before the release of the goods, or else, make the corrections or adjustments, when differences are determined in the verification process with the DUA.

Finally, resolution number DGT-25-2014 does not provide reasons justifying requesting the taxpayer or declarant to include information issued by or contained in the files of the Tax or Customs Administration *(considerando* II, subsection d of this judgment), as established by subsection 8 *in fine* of Article 171 of the CNPT, without prejudice to the use of a normative source of lower hierarchy than that established by Article 8, paragraph 2 of Law 6826 to determine the form and conditions in which the accounting record of sales and purchases must be kept. Consequently, and for all the foregoing, this **Tribunal declares that subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of Article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014** issued by the Dirección General de Tributación at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, as they are contrary to the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, and to the right contained in numerals 171, subsection 8) of the CNPT and 2, paragraph 1 *in fine* of Law 8220. The declaration of absolute nullity of said provisions has *erga omnes* effects, except for rights acquired in good faith and consolidated legal situations. **Once this judgment becomes final, it must be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the expense of the State,** since it was the Dirección General de Tributación that issued resolution number DGT-25-2014, issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014.- **VIIo.- REGARDING THE PROCEDURAL PREREQUISITES AND SUBSTANTIVE EXCEPTIONS.** This Tribunal concludes that the plaintiff has sufficient **standing (legitimación activa)** to participate in this proceeding pursuant to Article 10, subsection a) of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, since, being registered as a taxpayer before the Dirección de Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales for the Impuesto General sobre las Ventas, among others, it must comply with the provisions of resolution DGT-25-2014, issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, by the Dirección General de Tributación. Furthermore, **the action is correctly directed against the State,** as provided in subsection 1) of numeral 12 of the aforementioned Code, given that the Dirección General de Tributación is the author of the general scope resolution that is the subject of this proceeding. For its part, **the interest remains current,** insofar as the challenged conduct continues to have effects in the legal sphere of the plaintiff and requires a jurisdictional resolution to resolve it. Finally, and for all the reasons set forth in *considerandos* IV and V of this judgment, **the exception of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho)** raised by the representative of the State is **partially upheld,** **only** with respect to the main claim for total absolute nullity of resolution DGT-25-2014 of 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, and with respect to the subsidiary claim for partial absolute nullity of subsections xiv to xvii of Article 5 of that same resolution. Consequently, and for all the reasons set forth in *considerando* VI of this judgment, **the exception of lack of right is rejected on the remaining points and** **the lawsuits** filed by Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A. against the State **are partially granted,** on the following terms, **it being understood that they are denied in all matters not expressly stated**: **1)** It is declared that subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of Article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014, issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, as they are contrary to the principles of hierarchy of sources, reasonableness, and proportionality, and to the right contained in Articles 171, subsection 8) of the Código de Normas Procedimientos Tributarios and 2, paragraph 1 *in fine* of Law 8220; **2)** The declaration of absolute nullity of said provisions has *erga omnes* effects, except for rights acquired in good faith and consolidated legal situations. **3)** **Once this judgment becomes final, it must be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the expense of the State,** since it was the Dirección General de Tributación that issued resolution number DGT-25-2014, issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014.- **VIIIo.- REGARDING COSTS.** In accordance with numeral 193 of the Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, procedural and personal costs constitute a burden imposed on the losing party by virtue of being so. Dispensation from this condemnation is only viable when, in the Tribunal's judgment, there was sufficient reason to litigate, or when the judgment is rendered based on evidence whose existence the opposing party was unaware of. **In the present case,** this collegiate body finds no reason to apply the exceptions established by the applicable regulations and to break the postulate of condemnation of the losing party, since, while it is true that the main claims of both lawsuits were dismissed, and partially the subsidiary claim of the lawsuit originally filed under expediente 14-010699-1027-CA; it is also true that this collegiate body determined that subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of Article 5, all of resolution DGT-25-2014, issued at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, as they are contrary to the principles of hierarchy of sources, reasonableness, and proportionality, and to the right contained in Articles 171, subsection 8) of the Código de Normas Procedimientos Tributarios and 2, paragraph 1 *in fine* of Law 8220. Therefore, **both costs are imposed on the State,** amounts to be liquidated in the judgment execution phase.- **POR TANTO.** **The exception of lack of right (excepción de falta de derecho)** raised by the representative of the State is **partially upheld,** **only** with respect to the main claim for total absolute nullity of resolution DGT-25-2014 of 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, and with respect to the subsidiary claim for partial absolute nullity of subsections xiv to xvii of Article 5 of that same resolution. Consequently, **the exception of lack of right is rejected on the remaining points and** **the lawsuits** filed by Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A. against the State **are partially granted,** on the following terms, **it being understood that they are denied in all matters not expressly stated**: **1)** It is declared that subsections xxii and xxiii of Article 4, and subsections xx to xxvii of Article 5 of resolution DGT-25-2014, issued by the Dirección General de Tributación at 08:40 hours on June 11, 2014, suffer from a defect of absolute nullity, as they are contrary to the principles of hierarchy of sources, reasonableness, and proportionality, and to the right contained in Articles 171, subsection 8) of the Código de Normas Procedimientos Tributarios and 2, paragraph 1 *in fine* of Law 8220; **2)** The declaration of absolute nullity of said provisions has *erga omnes* effects, except for rights acquired in good faith and consolidated legal situations. **3)** **Once this judgment becomes final, it must be published in its entirety in the official gazette La Gaceta, at the expense of the State. 4)** **Both costs are to be borne by the State,** amounts to be liquidated in the judgment execution phase.- Nombre113722 **Sergio Mena García** **Giovanni Marchena Jara** **EXPEDIENTE**: 14-010303-1027-CA (Acumulado el Exp. 14-010699-1027-CA) **PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO DECLARADO DE PURO DERECHO** **ACTORA**: Nombre113922 DE COSTA RICA, S.A.

**DEMANDADO**: EL ESTADO (Procuradora María del Rocío Solano Raabe) | **Documento firmado por:** | | Nombre113722 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | | SERGIO MENA GARCÍA, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A | | GIOVANNI GERARDO MARCHENA JARA, JUEZ/A DECISOR/A |

Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, Central 2545-00-03 Fax 2545-00-33 Correo Electrónico ...01 _____________________________________________________________________ PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO DECLARADO DE PURO DERECHO ACTORA: Nombre113922 DE COSTA RICA, S.A.

DEMANDADO: EL ESTADO (Procuradora María del Rocío Solano Raabe) Nº 52-2017-V TRIBUNAL CONTENCIOSO ADMINISTRATIVO. SECCIÓN QUINTA. SEGUNDO CIRCUITO JUDICIAL DE SAN JOSÉ. ANEXO A. Goicoechea, a las ocho horas diez minutos del doce de junio del dos mil diecisiete.- Proceso de conocimiento declarado de puro derecho interpuesto por Nombre113922 DE COSTA RICA, S.A., cédula jurídica número CED90102, representada por Nombre105230 , cédula de identidad número CED89766, en su condición de Apoderada Especial Judicial (imagen 326 del expediente virtual a la fecha de dictado de esta sentencia); contra el ESTADO, cuya representante es la Procuradora B MARÍA DEL ROCÍO SOLANO RAABE, cédula de identidad número CED90101- (folios 51 del expediente físico de medida cautelar 14-10303-1027-CA, y 53 del expediente físico de medida cautelar número 14-10699-1027-CA).

RESULTANDO:

1.- Que por resolución número 3361-2014 de las 09:10 horas del 19 de diciembre del 2014, el Juez Tramitador declaró sin lugar la medida cautelar ante causam, tramitada en expediente número 14-10303-1027-CA (folios 66 a 68 del expediente físico de medida cautelar). Que por resolución oral número 160-2015-I de las 16:25 horas del 08 de abril del 2015, el Tribunal de Apelaciones de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, dispuso en lo que interesa: "...Se revoca la resolución recurrida y en su lugar se suspenden los efectos del artículo cuatro incisos veintidós y veintitrés de la resolución N° 25-2014 de las ocho horas cuarenta minutos del once de junio del año dos mil catorce (...) Se hace la aclaración que la suspensión que se decrete de los efectos de la resolución es hasta el treinta de abril del año dos mil quince (...) única y exclusivamente respecto de la empresa actora y promovente de la medida cautelar que es Nombre113922 de Costa Rica S.A..." (folios 87 a 88 del expediente físico de medida cautelar).

2.- Que por resolución número 0311-2015-T de las 15:30 horas del 05 de febrero del 2015, la Jueza Tramitadora declaró sin lugar la medida cautelar ante causam, tramitada en expediente número 14-10699-1027-CA (folios 76 a 79 del expediente físico de medida cautelar). Que por resolución número 128-2015-I de las 15:25 horas del 13 de marzo del 2015, la Sección Primera del Tribunal de Apelaciones de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, dispuso en lo que interesa: "...Se anula la resolución 311-2015-T dictada a las 15:30 horas del 05 de febrero del 2015 por Karen Calderón Chacón, jueza tramitadora del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda. Procédase a resolver de manera inmediata los extremos indicados en el considerando II de la presente resolución de forma inmediata..." (folios 86 y 87 del expediente físico de la medida cautelar número 14-10699-1027-CA).- 3.- Que por resolución número 972-2015-T de las 08:30 horas del 14 de abril del 2015, la Jueza Tramitadora dispuso: "... Se declara SIN LUGAR la medida cautelar solicitada por Nombre113922 DE COSTA RICA, S.A. Se resuelve sin especial condenatoria en costas. Se previene a la parte actora que de presentar demanda ordinaria, deberá hacerlo bajo este mismo número de expediente judicial..." (folios 101 a 105 del expediente físico de medida cautelar número 14-10699-1027-CA). Que por resolución oral número 224-2015-II de las 15:00 horas del 19 de mayo del 2015, la Sección Segunda del Tribunal de Apelaciones de lo Contencioso Administrativo y Civil de Hacienda, dispuso rechazar el recurso interpuesto y confirmar la resolución 972-2015-T (folios 115 a 117 del expediente físico de la medida cautelar número 14-10699-1027-CA).- 4.- Las pretensiones de la parte actora –que se ajustaron en la audiencia preliminar que se realizó a las 08:47 horas del 28 de octubre del 2016-, son: i) Expediente 14-010303-1027-CA: "...1. Pretensión principal: La nulidad absoluta de la resolución DGT-25-2014, por carecer de los requisitos del debido procedimiento para su emisión y validez jurídica, dado que no se respetó el procedimiento de consulta establecido por el artículo 174 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios. 2. Pretensión subsidiaria: En caso de que no se declare la nulidad absoluta total de la resolución DGT -25-2014, se declare la nulidad parcial de las disposiciones contenidas en el Artículo 4, apartes xxii y xxiii de dicha resolución, pues deviene en una obligación desproporcionada e irrazonable para la marcha comercial de mi Representada. 3. Que se condene en costas al Estado. De manera subsidiaria, y de estimarse que no existe el motivo de nulidad absoluta o parcial, ni del motivo subsidiario, se considere que mi representada litigó de buena fe y amparada en una apariencia razonable de procedencia de sus pretensiones, por lo cual se le debe exonerar del pago de costas...". ii) Expediente 14-10699-1027-CA: "... 1. Pretensión principal: La nulidad absoluta de la resolución DGT-25-2014, por carecer de los requisitos del debido procedimiento para su emisión y validez Jurídica, al no haberse respetado el procedimiento consultivo establecido en el artículo 174 del Código Tributario. 2. Pretensión subsidiaria: En caso de que no se declare la nulidad absoluta total de la resolución DGT -25-2014, se declare la nulidad parcial de las disposiciones contenidas en el artículo 5, apartes xiv , xv, xvi, xvii, xx, xxi, xxii, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, xxvi, y xxvii de dicha resolución, pues deviene en una obligación desproporcionada e irrazonable para la marcha comercial de mi Representada al quebrantarse el derecho fundamental de mi Representada a no incurrir en trámites duplicados y proscritos por nuestro Ordenamiento Jurídico. 3. Que se condene en costas al Estado. De manera subsidiaria, y de estimarse que no existe el motivo de nulidad absoluta, ni ninguno de los dos motivos subsidiarios, se considere que mi representada litigó de buena fe y amparada en una apariencia razonable de procedencia de sus pretensiones, por lo cual se le debe exonerar del pago de costas..." (folios 57, 58, 172, 173 del expediente judicial e imágenes 328 y 329 del expediente virtual a la fecha de dictado de esta sentencia).- 5.- La representante del Estado, contestó de manera negativa ambas demandas y sus respectivas ampliaciones; interpuso la defensa previa de actos no susceptibles de impugnación y la excepción de falta de Derecho; solicitó que las demandas sean declaradas sin lugar y se condene a la actora al pago de ambas costas, así como los intereses que dichas sumas generen desde la firmeza de la sentencia hasta su efectivo pago. Asimismo, solicitó que ser acumulara el expediente 14-10699-1027-CA al 14-10303-1027-CA (folios 72 a 98; 185 a 208; 212, 213 del expediente judicial; imagen 312 del expediente virtual a la fecha de dictado de esta sentencia).- 6.- Que por resolución número 2079-2015 de las 14:30 horas del 07 de agosto del 2015, el Juez Tramitador dispuso: "...Se declara con lugar la gestión del Estado y se ordenan acumular los procesos 14-10699-1027-CA y 10-10303-1027-CA. Continúese su tramitación conjunta bajo el único expediente 14-10303-1027-CA. Tome nota la parte actora de lo indicado en el considerando III..." (folios 105 a 106 del expediente judicial).

7.- La audiencia preliminar se celebró a las 08:47 horas del 28 de octubre del 2016, la cual, fue grabada en el sistema electrónico correspondiente y consta en un legajo aparte en formato de DVD. Que durante esta audiencia el Juez Tramitador fijó las pretensiones planteadas por la parte actora, en los términos indicados en el resultando primero de esta sentencia, haciendo énfasis que el actor desistió de la pretensión subsidiaria número 2 de la primera demanda tramitada bajo expediente 14-10303-1027-CA; asimismo, tuvo por desistida la defensa previa de actos no susceptibles de impugnación; estableció que los hechos 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9 y 10 hechos de la demanda se tienen por controvertidos, trascendentales para el caso y por ende, objeto de prueba; admitió toda la prueba documental ofrecida por la parte actora; así como, la totalidad del expediente administrativo presentado por el Estado, aclarando que se hacía devolución a la representante del accionado de la carpeta de expediente administrativo certificado el 07 de abril del 2015, por ser repetida de la que ya se había admitido. En consecuencia, como no había prueba testimonial, confesional, ni pericial por evacuar y conforme a lo dispuesto en el artículo 98.2 del mismo Código, declaró este asunto de puro derecho y las partes rindieron en forma oral sus conclusiones (imágenes 329 a 330 del expediente virtual a la fecha de dictado de esta sentencia y respaldo digital de la audiencia preliminar del 28-10-2016).

8.- Este asunto fue remitido a la Jueza Ponente de la Sección Quinta del Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo, el 23 de mayo del 2017 (ver consulta por estado en la carpeta electrónica 14-010303-1027-CA del Escritorio Virtual). En los procedimientos ante este Tribunal no se han observado nulidades que deban ser subsanadas o que generen indefensión y la sentencia se dicta dentro del plazo establecido en los artículos 98 inciso 2) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, con relación al inciso 4) del artículo 82 del Reglamento Autónomo de Organización y Servicio de esta Jurisdicción, el cual vence el 13 de junio del 2017.- Redacta la jueza Nombre113722 , con el voto afirmativo de los jueces Mena García y Marchena Jara; y, C O N S I DE R A N D O:

Io.- HECHOS PROBADOS: Se tienen como debidamente acreditados los siguientes hechos que resultan relevantes para este proceso: 1) Que por resolución DGA-203-2005 dictada a las 09:00 horas del 22 de junio del 2005, la Dirección General de Aduanas emitió el Manual de Procedimientos en el Marco TICA (Contiene Ingreso y salida de Mercancías, Vehículos y Unidades de Transporte, Procedimientos de Tránsito Aduanero, Procedimientos de Depósito y Procedimiento de Importación Definitiva y Temporal) (imágenes 1 a 396 del CD de prueba admitido en la audiencia preliminar); 2) Que la actora es una empresa cuya actividad económica principal es la de Supermercados y Almacenes de Abarrotes en Cadena, y aparece inscrita como contribuyente ante la Dirección de Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales, para los siguientes impuestos: sobre la Renta, sobre las Ventas, Retenciones en la Fuente y Timbre de Educación y Cultura (folios 1 a 3, 107 a 109 del expediente judicial); 3) Que en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta número 39 y 40 del 25 y 26 de febrero del 2014, respectivamente, se publicó lo siguiente: "...De conformidad con lo establecido en el segundo párrafo del artículo 174 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, adicionado por el artículo 2 de la Ley de Fortalecimiento de la Gestión Tributaria, N° 9069 del 10 de setiembre de 2012, se concede a las entidades representativas de intereses de carácter general, corporativo o de intereses difusos, un plazo de diez días hábiles contados a partir de la primera publicación del presente aviso, con el objeto de que expongan su parecer respecto del proyecto de resolución de alcance general denominada "OBLIGATORIEDAD PARA LOS GRANDES CONTRIBUYENTES Y GRANDES EMPRESAS TERRITORIALES EN LA LLEVANZA DE LOS REGISTROS ELECTRÓNICOS DE COMPRAS Y VENTAS DE MERCANCÍAS, ASÍ COMO DE SERVICIOS PRESTADOS". Las observaciones sobre la resolución en referencia, deberán expresarse por escrito y dirigirlas a la Dirección de Tributación Internacional y Técnica Tributaria de la Dirección General de Tributación (...) Para los efectos indicados, el citado proyecto de decreto se encuentra disponible en el sitio web http://dgt.hacienda.go.cr, en la sección "Proyectos"..." (folios 02 y 04 del expediente administrativo); 4) Que por escrito número P-022-2014 del 02 de abril del 2014, remitido a la Dirección de Tributación Internacional el 04 de abril del 2014 -mediante el sistema de fax-, el Presidente de la Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado (UCCAEP), presentó sus observaciones al proyecto de resolución de alcance general denominado "OBLIGATORIEDAD PARA LOS GRANDES CONTRIBUYENTES Y GRANDES EMPRESAS TERRITORIALES EN LA LLEVANZA DE LOS REGISTROS ELECTRÓNICOS DE COMPRAS Y VENTAS DE MERCANCÍAS, ASÍ COMO DE SERVICIOS PRESTADOS". Que en dicho escrito, la UCCAEP no indicó que la comunicación de la audiencia prevista en el artículo 174 del CNPT fuera realizada por un medio inadecuado o fuera omisa respecto a alguno de los otros requisitos de publicidad previstos en ese mismo numeral (folios 72 a 88 del expediente administrativo); 5) Que en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta número 144 del 29 de julio del 2014, salió publicada la resolución número DGT-25-2015 dictada por la Dirección General de Tributación, a las 08 horas 40 minutos del 11 de junio del 2014, llamada "Obligatoriedad para los Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales, de Llevanza por Medios Electrónicos de los Registros Auxiliares de Compras y Ventas Dispuestos por el Artículo 15 del Reglamento de la Ley del Impuesto General sobre las Ventas", cuya entrada en vigencia se fijó para el primero de enero del 2015 (folios 89 a 95 del expediente administrativo; 4 a 15, 117 a 128 del expediente judicial); 6) Que por declaración jurada del 20 de octubre del 2014, Laura Santana en su condición de Vicepresidenta Senior -Tecnología de la Información (TI) de PriceSmart, Inc., manifestó –entre otros aspectos y según Traducción Oficial realizada por Roxana Gutiérrez Font, el 17 de noviembre del 2014- que respecto a la adaptación de los sistemas informáticos de la empresa Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A., a fin de incluir los requisitos contemplados en los incisos xxii y xxiii del artículo 4 de la resolución DGT-25-2014,“…creemos que podemos comprometernos a tener este sistema funcionando apropiadamente para almacenar e informar sobre los datos requeridos a partir del 1º de mayo del 2015. Sin embargo, ninguna posibilidad razonable de hacerlo antes de esa fecha…” (folios 1 a 23 del expediente físico de medida cautelar número 14-10303-1027-CA); 7) Que el 18 de diciembre del 2014, el Contador Público Autorizado Germán Antonio Morales Martínez (número 1625), emitió certificación en el sentido de que: “…2. (…) con vista a los registros contables de la empresa Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, no existen registros contables indivualizados de las sumas que se cancelan por concepto de Impuesto Selectivo de Consumo e Impuestos Específicos. Lo anterior en razón de que estos rubros forman parte del costo de la mercancía. 3. Que por ser Nombre113922 de Costa Rica una empresa importadora y comercializadora, los impuestos Derechos arancelarios (DAI), Impuesto Específico Bebidas No Alcohólicas, Impuesto Selectivo de Consumo, Procomer, Timbre Archivo Nacional, Timbre Asociación Agentes de Aduana Ley 7017, Timbre Contadores Privados de Costa Rica y Ley 6946, forman parte del costo de las mercancías…” (folios 14 a 18 del expediente físico de la medida cautelar número 14-010699-1027-CA); 8) Que por declaración jurada del 06 de enero del 2015, Laura Santana en su condición de Vicepresidenta Senior -Tecnología de la Información (TI) de PriceSmart, Inc., y Michael Mc Cleary en su carácter de Vicepresidente Senior –Contralor Corporativo de PriceSmart, Inc., manifestaron –entre otros aspectos y según Traducción Oficial realizada por Roxana Gutiérrez Font, el 8 de enero del 2015, que “… estas cantidades no estaban disponibles a nivel del número de artículo por cada factura de compra (…) Estamos en el proceso de analizar si y cómo podemos modificar nuestro sistema para almacenar los artículos anotados en el punto 7 anterior, sin embargo, aún no hemos concluido esto (…) Aunque es factible modificar y preparar nuevos informes, en casos como el presente, donde los datos no se almacenan en el sistema, es muy complejo, si no prohibitivo en cuanto a costo y tiempo modificar el sistema para hacerlo…” (traducción oficial de la declaración jurada visible de folios 40 a 50 del expediente físico de la medida cautelar número 14-010699-1027-CA).- IIo.- HECHOS NO DEMOSTRADOS. De relevancia para el presente proceso, se tienen por no demostrados los siguientes: a) Que se haya publicado un aviso en un diario de circulación nacional, en el que se hiciera del conocimiento general, la existencia de la información electrónica y la dirección por medio de la cual se podía ingresar, en cuanto al proyecto de resolución sobre registros electrónicos auxiliares de compras y ventas (no se desprende del expediente administrativo); b) Que en la sección “Proyectos” de la página web de la Dirección General de Tributación, constara la información electrónica relacionada con el proyecto de resolución sobre registros electrónicos auxiliares de compras y ventas (no hay prueba en el expediente); c) Que se haya comunicado de manera directa a las entidades representativas de intereses de carácter general o corporativo o de intereses difusos como lo es, la Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado (UCCAEP), que se les estaba otorgando la oportunidad de expresar sus opiniones acerca del proyecto de resolución sobre registros electrónicos auxiliares de compras y ventas (no se desprende del expediente administrativo, ni de los documentos visibles a folios 35 y 129 del expediente judicial); d) Que en la resolución número DGT-25-2014 se motive que existían razones que justificaran imponer al contribuyente o declarante, incluir en el registro electrónico auxiliar de compras y ventas, información emitida o que conste en los archivos de la Administración Tributaria o Aduanera (no se desprende de los documentos visibles de folios 89 a 95 del expediente administrativo; 4 a 15, 117 a 128 del expediente judicial).- IIIo.- OBJETO DEL PROCESO. La parte ACTORA sostiene: 1) Que la resolución DGT-25-2014 dictada por la Dirección General de Tributación a las 08:40 horas del 11 de junio del 2014, adolece del vicio de nulidad absoluta, toda vez que no se cumplió el procedimiento previsto en el artículo 174 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios (CNPT), pues a la Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado (UCCAEP), no se le notificó de manera directa el proyecto de resolución sobre registros electrónicos auxiliares de compras y ventas, ya que la Administración Tributaria se limitó a publica el aviso en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta, lo que no basta para cumplir el deber de publicidad que le impone la norma antes indicada. Asimismo considera que el hecho de que la UCCAEP haya presentado un escrito en que plantea las observaciones al proyecto de resolución señalado, no tiene la virtud de tener por observado el requisito. 2) Alega que los incisos xxii y xxiii del artículo 4, y los incisos xiv a xvii, xx a xxvii del artículo 5 de la resolución DGT-25-2014, resultan contrarios a lo dispuesto en los artículos 99 y 168 del CNPT, toda vez que innovan mediante una norma jerárquicamente inferior al reglamento ejecutivo, la forma y condiciones en que el artículo 15 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 14082 determina cómo los contribuyentes y declarantes del Impuesto General sobre las Ventas (IVA), deben llevar los registros auxiliares de compras y ventas, a pesar de que el artículo 8 párrafo 2º de la Ley 6826, indica que es por la vía reglamentaria que se determinarán esos aspectos. 3) Asimismo, estima que los requisitos contenidos en los incisos xxii y xxiii del artículo 4, y los incisos xiv a xvii, xx a xxvii del artículo 5 de la resolución DGT-25-2014, son contrarios a los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, toda vez que algunos de estos datos ya constan en los registros de las Administraciones Tributaria y/o Aduanera, sea porque fueron emitidos por la Dirección General de Tributación, la Dirección General de Hacienda, o porque constituye información que la Dirección General de Aduanas posea mediante el sistema informático del Servicio Nacional de Aduanas (TICA); 4) Por último, sostiene que resulta muy complejo realizar las modificaciones en el sistema informático de la empresa Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A., a efecto de implementar los requisitos consignados en los incisos xiv a xvii, xx a xxvii del artículo 5 de la resolución DGT-25-2014, dado que el mismo no hace seguimiento de esos datos para realizar compras a nivel de la factura del proveedor, dada su condición de empresa importadora y comercializadora. Por su parte, la representante del ESTADO, manifiesta que: a) Contrario a lo que afirma la empresa actora, se cumplió el procedimiento establecido en el artículo 174 del CNPT, toda vez que se publicaron dos avisos en que se concedía a las entidades representativas de intereses de carácter general o corporativo o de intereses difusos, la oportunidad de exponer sus parecer sobre tales proyectos. Tan es así, que la UCCAEP presentó sus observaciones ante la Dirección de Tributación Internacional el 04 de abril del 2014; b) Considera que la Dirección General de Tributación emitió la resolución N° DGT-25-2014, dirigida a los grandes contribuyentes nacionales, especificando las características y requisitos que deben contener los registros de compras y ventas que por ley deben llevar los contribuyentes y declarantes de la Ley del Impuesto General sobre las Ventas, como lo es la empresa actora Nombre113922 de Costa Rica S.A., con base en lo dispuesto por los artículos 99, 104, 109 y 168 del Código Tributario, razón por la cual, en el presente asunto la resolución no innova ninguna situación jurídica, sino que simplemente es el desarrollo de las facultades otorgadas por el legislador. c) Estima que por disposición expresa del Legislador, no podría extenderse la regulación de la Ley 8220 a supuestos diversos al contemplado en el artículo 1 párrafo 2º, pero además, también resulta improcedente por existir normas de carácter especial, como lo son, el Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios y la Ley del Impuesto General sobre las ventas y su Reglamento. Por otro lado, considera que tampoco se infringe lo dispuesto por el artículo 171 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos Tributarios, ya que no se le está requiriendo al contribuyente volver a presentar documentos -como son los documentos de trámites de importación- sino consignar la información con que cuenta por su giro comercial, dentro de los registros electrónicos de compras y ventas, que por ley deben llevar los contribuyentes del impuesto sobre las ventas para cumplir con esa obligación tributaria formal. d) Sostiene que lo dispuesto en los incisos xxii y xxiii del artículo 4, y los incisos xiv a xvii, xx a xxvii del artículo 5 de la resolución DGT-25-2014, al tratarse de información con la que cuenta el contribuyente, debe ser aportada con el objetivo de que la Administración Tributaria pueda cumplir el deber de determinar, recaudar y fiscalizar los tributos y con ello satisfacer los fines públicos encomendados al Estado. En ese sentido, considera que la información aduanera aportada corresponde a los trámites de nacionalización de la mercancía y que como es bien sabido, únicamente se da una verificación física y documental pormenorizada de las mercancías ingresadas al país por parte de las Aduanas en forma aleatoria, según lo dispuesto por el artículo 93 de la Ley General de Aduanas. e) Por último, alega que tampoco lleva razón la parte actora en cuanto a la solicitud de información relacionada con los artículos xvi y xvii, ya que de la lectura del artículo 18 del Reglamento a la Ley del Impuesto sobre las Ventas, que transcribe Nombre113922, se establece la obligación de consignar el valor de las mercancías y el monto del impuesto, debiéndose de relacionar con el artículo 19 del mismo Reglamento, en cuanto a importaciones o internaciones. En consecuencia, estima que la resolución impugnada se encuentra plenamente ajustada a Derecho, pretendiendo con su emisión la eficacia en la gestión, fiscalización y recaudación tributaria por parte de la Administración Tributaria, con el propósito de dar cumplimiento a obligación constitucional de todo habitante de nuestro país de contribuir con las cargas públicas, según lo establecen el artículo 18 y 19 de nuestra Constitución Política.- IVo.- SOBRE LA ALEGADA INOBSERVANCIA DEL PROCEDIMIENTO PREVISTO EN EL ARTÍCULO 174 DEL CNPT Y LA NO CONFIGURACIÓN EN EL CASO CONCRETO DEL SUPUESTO PREVISTO EN EL ARTÍCULO 223 DE LA LGAP. Si bien es cierto, este Tribunal tiene por demostrado que en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta número 39 y 40, del 25 y 26 de febrero del 2014 –respectivamente-, se publicaron los avisos tendentes a conceder “…a las entidades representativas de intereses de carácter general, corporativo o de intereses difusos, un plazo de diez días hábiles contados a partir de la primera publicación del presente aviso, con el objeto de que expongan su parecer respecto del proyecto de resolución de alcance general denominada "OBLIGATORIEDAD PARA LOS GRANDES CONTRIBUYENTES Y GRANDES EMPRESAS TERRITORIALES EN LA LLEVANZA DE LOS REGISTROS ELECTRÓNICOS DE COMPRAS Y VENTAS DE MERCANCÍAS, ASÍ COMO DE SERVICIOS PRESTADOS…" (folios 02 y 04 del expediente administrativo); también lo es, que no consta en la prueba documental admitida, que se hayan cumplido los siguientes requisitos, en que se manifiesta el deber de publicidad que se impone a la Administración Tributaria en estos casos (artículos 174 del Código de Normas y Procedimientos -CNPT-; 239, 240 inciso 1) y 361 de la Ley General de la Administración Pública –LGAP-), a saber: i) Que se haya publicado un aviso en un diario de circulación nacional, en el que se hiciera del conocimiento general, la existencia de la información electrónica y la dirección por medio de la cual se podía ingresar, en cuanto al proyecto de resolución sobre registros electrónicos auxiliares de compras y ventas (considerando II aparte a de esta sentencia); ii) Que en la sección “Proyectos” de la página web de la Dirección General de Tributación, constara la información electrónica relacionada con el proyecto de resolución sobre registros electrónicos auxiliares de compras y ventas (considerando II aparte b de esta sentencia); iii) Que se haya comunicado de manera directa a las entidades representativas de intereses de carácter general o corporativo o de intereses difusos (considerando II aparte c de esta sentencia), como lo es, la Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado (UCCAEP), que se les estaba otorgando la oportunidad de expresar sus opiniones acerca del proyecto de resolución sobre registros electrónicos auxiliares de compras y ventas. Cabe destacar esa omisión, pues en la especie el proyecto de resolución iba dirigido al sector de “GRANDES CONTRIBUYENTES Y GRANDES EMPRESAS TERRITORIALES”, que en aplicación de los principios de lógica y razonabilidad, era claramente identificable. Ahora bien, aunque la Dirección General de Tributación no observó de manera integral, el deber de publicidad en el procedimiento tendente a elaborar y dictar disposiciones de carácter general, en los términos antes expuestos; también lo es, que en este caso concreto, dichas omisiones no tuvieron la virtud de colocar en estado de indefensión, a las entidades representativas de intereses de carácter general o corporativo o de intereses difusos, que le impidieran ejercer su derecho de plantear las observaciones al proyecto de resolución sobre registros electrónicos auxiliares de compras y ventas (artículo 223 de la LGAP). En ese sentido, se tiene por acreditado que por escrito número P-022-2014 del 02 de abril del 2014, remitido a la Dirección de Tributación Internacional el 04 de abril del 2014 -mediante el sistema de fax-, el Presidente de la Unión Costarricense de Cámaras y Asociaciones del Sector Empresarial Privado (UCCAEP), presentó sus observaciones al proyecto de resolución de alcance general denominado "OBLIGATORIEDAD PARA LOS GRANDES CONTRIBUYENTES Y GRANDES EMPRESAS TERRITORIALES EN LA LLEVANZA DE LOS REGISTROS ELECTRÓNICOS DE COMPRAS Y VENTAS DE MERCANCÍAS, ASÍ COMO DE SERVICIOS PRESTADOS" (folios 72 a 88 del expediente administrativo). En consecuencia, aunque este Tribunal estima que la sola publicación en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta, de los avisos tendentes a conceder a las entidades representativas de intereses de carácter general o corporativo o de intereses difusos, la oportunidad de expresar sus opiniones acerca del proyecto de resolución (párrafo 2º del artículo 174 del CNPT con relación al inciso 2) del numeral 361 de la LGAP), no garantiza per se el pleno cumplimiento del deber de publicidad. Ello por cuanto, para que los interesados puedan ejercer de manera efectiva los derechos al debido proceso, de defensa, de información y de ser oídas en el trámite de audiencia, con carácter previo al dictado de un acto que tendrá efectos jurídicos en su esfera vital de intereses y derechos (incisos 1, 2, 12 del numeral 171 del CNPT), la Administración Tributaria debe publicitarlos conforme a lo dispuesto en el párrafo 1º del artículo 174 del CNPT, con relación a los numerales 239, 240 inciso 1) y 361 de la LGAP, sin perjuicio de lo oportuno o no que resulte acceder a un documento de esa naturaleza, únicamente por vía digital. También lo es, que en la especie y de acuerdo al artículo 223 de la LGAP, dichas omisiones al procedimiento no tuvieron la virtud de colocar en estado de indefensión, a las entidades representativas de intereses de carácter general o corporativo o de intereses difusos, dado que no se les impidió ejercer su derecho a plantear las observaciones al proyecto de resolución sobre registros electrónicos auxiliares de compras y ventas, tal y como se desprende de los folios 72 a 88 del expediente administrativo, puesto que la UCCAEP presentó sus observaciones al proyecto de resolución sobre registros electrónicos auxiliares de compras y ventas, el 04 de abril del 2014. Sin perjuicio de lo anterior, cabe resaltar que al momento de presentar sus observaciones al proyecto de resolución, la UCCAEP no señaló que la comunicación de la audiencia prevista en el artículo 174 del CNPT fuera realizada por un medio inadecuado o fuera omisa respecto a alguno de los otros requisitos de publicidad previstos en ese mismo numeral y en los artículos 239, 240 inciso 1) de la LGAP (ver folios 72 a 88 del expediente administrativo), razón por la cual y de acuerdo a lo dispuesto en los artículos 247 de la LGAP, 9 y 10 de la Ley de Notificaciones Judiciales, la comunicación de la audiencia otorgada para que se manifestaran acerca del proyecto de resolución sobre registros electrónicos auxiliares de compras y ventas, se tuvo por hecha en el momento en que la UCCAEP gestionó y presentó sus observaciones, dándose por enterada expresa o implícitamente de la misma, sin que alegara en ese momento las omisiones antes indicadas. Por último, y aunque no fue objeto de impugnación por parte de la empresa actora, este Tribunal estima necesario resaltar que el derecho de ser oído en el trámite de audiencia con carácter previo al dictado de la resolución o acto que tendrá efectos jurídicos para los sujetos pasivos u otro interesado, no se limita únicamente a que se les conceda la oportunidad para que expongan su parecer sobre tales proyectos, sino a que la Administración Tributaria analice esas observaciones; a que se motive y se notifiquen las razones por las cuales fueron rechazadas (artículo 136 de la LGAP), y en el supuesto en que se admitieran e implicaran cambios sustanciales al proyecto de resolución original, a darles la publicidad debida, dado que los artículos 174 del CNPT y 361 de la LGAP, no supeditan o restringen la publicidad del proyecto de resolución, reglamento, directriz o norma general, a una sola publicación, pues ello sería contrario a los principios de lógica, razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, en aquellos supuestos en que –se insiste- al proyecto se le introduzcan modificaciones sustanciales, y no únicamente de forma. Por todo lo expuesto, este Tribunal considera que la resolución DGT-25-2014 dictada por la Dirección General de Tributación a las 08:40 horas del 11 de junio del 2014, no adolece del vicio de nulidad absoluta planteado por la parte actora.- Vo.- SOBRE LA SUPUESTA ILEGALIDAD DE LOS INCISOS XIV A XVII DEL ARTÍCULO 5 DE LA RESOLUCIÓN DGT-25-2014. Contrario a lo indicado por la representante de la empresa actora, los requisitos contenidos en los incisos xiv a xvii del artículo 5 de la resolución número DGT-25-2014, no implican una violación a lo dispuesto en los artículos 99 párrafo 2º y 168 del CNPT, toda vez que no introducen elementos innovativos respecto a lo dispuesto en el numeral 15 inciso b) del Decreto Ejecutivo 14082, dado que no sólo se ajustan a esa fuente primaria, sino que además, no suplen el Reglamento a la Ley 6826, que únicamente puede dictar el Poder Ejecutivo en ejercicio de las potestades otorgadas por los incisos 3) y 18) del artículo 140 de la Constitución Política. En ese sentido, el artículo 5 de la resolución DGT-25-2014 dispone que en el registro electrónico de compras, se detallarán cada una de las facturas por concepto de compra de mercancías y/o servicios, el cual deberá contener obligatoriamente, entre otros, la información prevista en los incisos xiv a xvii, a saber: Importe del ISC soportado; Importe del Impuesto Específico soportado; Importe del IVA soportado, por mercancía adquirida o servicio recibido; monto total de la factura de compra, cifra que se obtiene al realizar la siguiente operación aritmética: monto subtotal menos descuento, más ISC u otro impuesto específico más IVA. Por su parte, el inciso b) del artículo 15 del Decreto Ejecutivo 14082, establece que toda persona física o jurídica inscrita como contribuyente o declarante del IVA está obligada a llevar y a mantener al día un registro de compras y otro de ventas, que deben contener como mínimo –en lo que interesa-, la siguiente información: el monto total de las compras por factura o comprobante, desglosado en compras exentas, compras gravadas y el impuesto pagado. Considera este Tribunal que los requisitos contenidos en los incisos xiv a xvii del artículo 5 de la resolución DGT-25-2014 corresponden al mínimo de información que debe contener el registro contable de compras, conforme a lo dispuesto en el inciso b) del numeral 15 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 14082, que se encuentra vigente desde el 30 de noviembre de 1982. En razón de lo anterior, no resulta razonable que la empresa actora pretenda justificar el no cumplimiento de esos requisitos, en que “… estas cantidades no estaban disponibles a nivel del número de artículo por cada factura de compra (…) Estamos en el proceso de analizar si y cómo podemos modificar nuestro sistema para almacenar los artículo anotados en el punto 7 anterior, sin embargo, aún no hemos concluido esto (…) Aunque es factible modificar y preparar nuevos informes, en casos como el presente, donde los datos no se almacenan en el sistema, es muy complejo, si no prohibitivo en cuanto a costo y tiempo modificar el sistema para hacerlo…” (traducción oficial de la declaración jurada visible a folios 43 y 44 del expediente físico de la medida cautelar número 14-010699-1027-CA); toda vez que el monto total de las compras por factura o comprobante y el impuesto pagado, constituyen un requisito que se encuentra vigente desde el 30 de noviembre de 1982 –fecha en que entró en vigencia el Decreto Ejecutivo 14082- y que en los términos del artículo 15 de ese mismo Decreto, es uno de los datos que cómo mínimo debe contener el registro contable de compras, de aquellas personas físicas o jurídicas que están inscritas –como en el caso de la empresa demandante- como contribuyente del IVA (folios 1 a 3, 107 a 109 del expediente judicial), por lo que, no puede alegar desconocimiento de aquel y ampararse en supuestos problemas informáticos para justificar una supuesta ilegalidad de la norma. En cuanto a la inclusión del ISC y a otros impuestos específicos, la empresa sustenta sus alegatos en que de acuerdo a la certificación emitida el 18 de diciembre del 2014 por el Contador Público Autorizado Germán Antonio Morales Martínez, se indica que: “…2. Que con vista a los registros contables de la empresa Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, no existen registros contables individualizados de las sumas que se cancelan por concepto de Impuesto Selectivo de Consumo e Impuestos Específicos. Lo anterior en razón de que estos rubros forman parte del costo de la mercancía. 3. Que por ser Nombre113922 de Costa Rica una empresa importadora y comercializadora, los impuestos Derechos arancelarios (DAI), Impuesto Específico Bebidas No Alcohólicas, Impuesto Selectivo de Consumo, Procomer, Timbre Archivo Nacional, Timbre Asociación Agentes de Aduana Ley 7017, Timbre Contadores Privados de Costa Rica y Ley 6946, forman parte del costo de las mercancías…” (folios 14 a 18 del expediente físico de la medida cautelar número 14-010699-1027-CA). En ese sentido y sin perjuicio de que en el inciso b) del artículo 15 del Decreto Ejecutivo 14082, se establece que en el registro de compras debe consignarse el monto total de las compras por factura o comprobante, desglosado en compras exentas, compras gravadas y el impuesto pagado, es menester resaltar que el inciso 13) del artículo 18 del Decreto Ejecutivo 14082 establece que en las facturas que emita el contribuyente o declarante, deberá consignarse como mínimo –entre otros- el monto del ISC, cuando el vendedor sea también contribuyente del indicado impuesto y el monto de cualquier otro tributo que recaiga sobre mercancías o servicios gravados. Aunado a que el artículo 19 del mismo Decreto Ejecutivo 14082, establece que “…La base de imposición en el caso de importaciones o internaciones de mercancías, se determina adicionando al valor aduanero, Aduana de Costa Rica, calculado según las disposiciones legales vigentes en materia aduanera, lo efectivamente pagado por el importador por concepto de: (…) b) Impuesto selectivo de consumo. c) Cualquier otro tributo o recargo que se aplique a la importación o internación…”. En consecuencia, si el propio numeral 18 inciso 13) establece que el ISC se consigna cuando el vendedor sea contribuyente de ese tributo o de otro impuesto específico, el cumplimiento de los requisitos xiv y xv del artículo 5 de la resolución DGT-25-2014 se encuentra amparado a lo dispuesto en los artículos 15 inciso b), 18 inciso 13) y 19 incisos b) y c) del Decreto Ejecutivo 14082. En razón de lo expuesto, este Tribunal considera que los incisos xiv a xvii no adolecen de un vicio de nulidad absoluta, pues no resultan contrarios a lo dispuesto en los artículos 99 párrafo 2º, 168 del CNPT; 8 párrafo 2º de la Ley 6826; 6 de la LGAP; 15, 18 inciso 13) y 19 incisos b) y c) del Decreto Ejecutivo 14082.

VIo.- RESPECTO A LA VIOLACIÓN DE LOS PRINCIPIOS DE JERARQUÍA DE LAS FUENTES, RAZONABILIDAD Y PROPORCIONALIDAD, DE LOS INCISOS XXII Y XXIII DEL ARTÍCULO 4, Y LOS INCISOS XX A XXVII DEL ARTÍCULO 5 DE LA RESOLUCIÓN DGT-25-2014. En primera instancia, es menester resaltar que si bien es cierto, conforme al principio de que las personas están obligadas a contribuir al sostenimiento de las cargas públicas conforme a su capacidad tributaria, la Administración para facilitar la verificación oportuna de la situación de los contribuyentes, podrá requerirles la presentación de los libros, los archivos, los registros contables y toda información de trascendencia tributaria, y para tal efecto, podrá establecer directrices respecto a la forma cómo deberá consignarse dicha tributaria; también lo es, que el ejercicio de las potestades que al efecto le conceden los artículos 104 y 109 del CNPT, deben ejercerse conforme a derecho en los términos previstos en los artículos 99 y 168 del CNPT, 6 de la LGAP, a fin de garantizar un equilibrio entre la eficiencia de la Administración Tributaria, y la dignidad, la libertad y los demás derechos fundamentales de los contribuyentes que sean aplicables (artículos 8 de la LGAP y 172 del CNPT). A partir de lo anterior, este Tribunal analizará si lo dispuesto en los incisos xxii y xxiii del artículo 4; xx a xxvii del artículo 5 ambos de la resolución DGT-25-2014 dictada por la Dirección General de Tributación a las 08:40 horas del 11 de junio del 2014, resultan o no contrarios al ordenamiento jurídico, conforme a los siguientes parámetros: i) Principio de Jerarquía de las Normas (artículos 6 de la LGAP; 2 y 168 del CNPT). Cabe recordar que si bien el párrafo 2º del numeral 99 del CNPT establece que la Administración Tributaria puede dictar normas generales para efectos de la aplicación correcta de las leyes tributarias, también lo es, que deberá hacerlo dentro de los límites fijados por las disposiciones legales y reglamentarias. En ese sentido, las resoluciones y directrices generales de la Administración Tributaria, serán de carácter interpretativo de las leyes y reglamentos, pero no podrán ser innovativas de situaciones jurídicas objetivas (artículo 168 del CNPT). Asimismo, las citadas resoluciones y directrices deberán ajustarse a las fuentes primarias, y no podrán suplir los reglamentos que de esta materia únicamente pueda dictar el Poder Ejecutivo, conforme a lo dispuesto en los artículos 140 incisos 3) y 18 de la Constitución Política, y 168 párrafo 2º in fine del CNPT. Con base en lo anterior y en lo que interesa al caso concreto, el párrafo 2º del numeral 8 de la Ley del Impuesto General sobre las Ventas (Ley 6826), establece que “…Los contribuyentes y los declarantes deberán llevar registros contables en la forma y las condiciones que se determinen en el Reglamento.” (el resaltado no es del original). En consecuencia, el legislador supeditó a que fuera mediante la vía reglamentaria, que el Poder Ejecutivo en ejercicio de las potestades conferidas en los incisos 3) y 18) de la Constitución Política, emitiera el reglamento necesario para ejecutar lo dispuesto en el artículo 8 párrafo 2º de la Ley 6826, en cuanto a la forma y condiciones en que los contribuyentes y declarantes del Impuesto General sobre las Ventas, deberán llevar sus registros contables. A partir de lo anterior, el artículo 15 del Reglamento a la Ley 6826 (Decreto Ejecutivo número 14082, vigente desde el 30 de noviembre de 1982), establece que: “…Toda persona o entidad inscrita como contribuyente o declarante del impuesto está obligada a llevar y a mantener al día un registro de compras y otro de ventas; tales registros deben contener como mínimo la siguiente información: a) Fecha y número del documento que respalda la operación; b) Monto total de las compras por factura o comprobante, desglosado en compras exentas, compras gravadas y el impuesto pagado; c) Monto total de las ventas por factura o comprobante, desglosado en ventas exentas, exportaciones, ventas gravadas y el impuesto cobrado; y ch) El total mensual, en ambos registros, de los montos anteriores…”. Si bien es cierto, el artículo 15 antes transcrito establece que los registros de ventas y compras que deben llevar toda persona física o jurídica inscrita como contribuyente o declarante del Impuesto General sobre las Ventas, deberán contener como mínimo los requisitos allí estipulados; también lo es, que ello no implica una autorización para que la Administración Tributaria imponga otros requisitos en cuanto a la forma y condiciones para llevar dichos registros, mediante una vía normativa jerárquicamente inferior al reglamento ejecutivo, toda vez que la Ley 6826 en el artículo 8 párrafo 2º determina que esa es la fuente normativa a utilizar, para tal efecto. En razón de lo anterior, considera este Tribunal que los requisitos contenidos en los incisos xxii y xxiii del artículo 4 de la resolución DGT-25-2014 -que obligatoriamente deberá contener el registro electrónico de ventas de mercancías y servicios, bajo apercibimiento de que en caso de no cumplirse, podría acarrear la imposición de las sanciones establecidas en el CNPT (artículo 8 de la resolución DGT-25-2015)-, resultan contrarios a lo dispuesto en los artículos 140 incisos 3) y 18) de la Constitución Política; 6 de la LGAP; 2, 99 párrafo 2º y 168 del CNPT; 8 párrafo 2º de la Ley 6826 y 15 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 14082. Ello por cuanto, impone que en los registros contables de ventas se incorpore obligatoriamente el número de nota de autorización de la Dirección General de Tributación o de la Dirección General de Hacienda, para la venta sin Impuesto de Ventas (IVA), Impuesto Selectivo de Consumo (ISC) o algún otro impuesto específico; así como, la fecha de vigencia que cubre dicha autorización, a pesar de que el inciso c) del numeral 15 del Decreto Ejecutivo 14082, establece –en lo que interesa- que lo que debe indicarse es el monto total por ventas exentas por factura o comprobante. Considera este Tribunal que contrario a lo que sostiene la representante del Estado, este requisito no sólo constituye un aspecto innovativo y no interpretativo del inciso c) del artículo 15 del Decreto Ejecutivo 14082, sino que además, no se ajusta a la fuente primaria, toda vez que suple al reglamento ejecutivo que constituye la norma a la cual el Legislador subordinó la determinación de la forma y condiciones en que los contribuyentes y declarantes deberán llevar los registros contables de ventas. Ello por cuanto, incluye -bajo apercibimiento de incurrir en una falta sancionable- la obligación de indicar el número de la nota de autorización o exención del IVA, ISC u otro impuesto específico y su fecha de vigencia, a pesar de que –se insiste- el inciso c) del artículo 15 del Decreto Ejecutivo 14082, establece –en lo que interesa- que lo que debe indicarse es el monto total por ventas exentas por factura o comprobante; sin perjuicio de lo irrazonable y desproporcionado que resulta solicitar una información que ya consta en los archivos de la Administración Tributaria, tal y como se analizará en el aparte ii de este considerando. Por último, el hecho de que en la Traducción Oficial de la Declaración Jurada suscrita por Laura Santana (Vicepresidente Senior de Tecnología de la Información de PriceSmart Inc.), se indique respecto a la adaptación de los sistemas informáticos de la empresa Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A., a fin de incluir los requisitos contemplados en los incisos xxii y xxiii de artículo 4 de la resolución DGT-25-2014, que “…creemos que podemos comprometernos a tener este sistema funcionando apropiadamente para almacenar e informar sobre los datos requeridos a partir del 1º de mayo del 2015. Sin embargo, ninguna posibilidad razonable de hacerlo antes de esa fecha…” (folios 1 a 23 del expediente físico de medida cautelar número 14-10303-1027-CA), no tiene la virtud de convalidar las violaciones sustanciales al principio de jerarquía de las normas, que se han analizado con anterioridad. Por las mismas razones antes expuestas, este Tribunal considera que los incisos xx a xxvii del artículo 5 de la resolución número DGT-25-2014, también resultan contrarios a lo dispuesto en los artículos 140 incisos 3) y 18) de la Constitución Política; 6 de la LGAP; 2, 99 párrafo 2º y 168 del CNPT; 8 párrafo 2º de la Ley 6826 y 15 del Decreto Ejecutivo número 14082, toda vez que también se impone el cumplimiento obligatorio de los mismos, en los registros electrónicos contables de compras de mercancías y servicios, bajo apercibimiento de que en caso contrario, el contribuyente o declarante podría imponérsele las sanciones respectivas. En ese sentido, el inciso b) del artículo 15 del Decreto Ejecutivo 14082, establece que lo que debe consignarse es el monto total de las compras por factura o comprobante, desglosado en compras exentas, compras gravadas y el impuesto pagado; mientras que los incisos xx a xxvii del artículo 5 de la resolución DGT-25-2014, innovan la fuente primaria y suplen al Decreto Ejecutivo, al imponer el deber de incluir la siguiente información: número de declaración única aduanera (DUA); fecha de la DUA de importación; partida arancelaria; detalle de la partida arancelaria; nombre de la aduana, nombre de la agencia aduanal o el agente de aduanas que realizó el trámite de importación; número de identificación del agente de aduanas o la agencia aduanal que realiza el trámite de exportación; valor de las mercancías reflejado en la DUA. Con el agravante de que el caso de incumplimiento, a los declarantes o contribuyentes podrán imponérsele las sanciones respectivas previstas en el CNPT, a pesar de que los requisitos fueron creados mediante una resolución de alcance general y no por medio de un reglamento ejecutivo como establece el numeral 8 párrafo 2º de la Ley 6826, y sin perjuicio de la violación a los principios de irrazonabilidad y desproporcionalidad al solicitar una información que ya consta en los archivos de la Administración Tributaria, tal y como se analizará en el aparte ii de ese considerando. En consecuencia y por todo lo expuesto, se declara que los incisos xxii y xxiii del artículo 4, y los incisos xx a xxvii del artículo 5 de la resolución DGT-25-2014 dictada a las 08:40 horas del 11 de junio del 2014, adolecen de un vicio de nulidad absoluta, toda vez que resultan contrarios al principio de jerarquía de las fuentes. ii) Principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, y su incidencia en el derecho del administrado a que no se solicite información que emita o posea la Administración Tributaria. Sin perjuicio de lo analizado en el aparte anterior, estima este órgano colegiado que los incisos xxii y xxiii del artículo 4, y los incisos xx a xxvii del artículo 5, ambos de la resolución DGT-25-2014 dictada a las 08:40 horas del 11 de junio del 2014, también resultan contrarios a los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad y al derecho contenido en los numerales 171 inciso 8) del CNPT y 2 párrafo 1º de la Ley 8220 (Ley de Protección al Ciudadano del Exceso de Requisitos y Trámites Administrativos), por las razones que de seguido se exponen. En primera instancia, cabe indicar que contrario a lo que afirma la representante del Estado, la Ley 8220 no sólo aplica en aquellos supuestos en que el administrado se dirija a un ente u órgano público en ejercicio de sus derechos de petición y pronta respuesta, información y/o acceso a la justicia en vía administrativa (párrafo 2º del artículo 1 de esa Ley); sino que también, tal y como se desprende del párrafo 1º del numeral 1 de ese mismo cuerpo normativo, se aplica como deber correlativo de la Administración Pública para el ejercicio efectivo de ese derecho, en cuanto a los límites y alcances que deben observar los entes y órganos de derecho público, al tiempo de establecer, publicitar y ejecutar los trámites y/o requisitos que deba cumplir el administrado –ver artículo 4 y siguientes de la Ley 8220-, en este caso, la forma y condiciones en que los contribuyentes y declarantes del IVA deberán llevar los registros contables de ventas y compras. Por ende, resulta procedente la aplicación en la especie del artículo 2 párrafo 2º in fine de la Ley 8220 –que establece: “…De igual manera, ninguna entidad, órgano o funcionario público, podrá solicitar al administrado, información que una o varias de sus mismas oficinas emitan o posean…”-; que en todo caso, tiene en el inciso 8) del numeral 171 del CNPT, una norma semejante para materia tributaria, a saber: “…Derecho a no aportar los documentos ya presentados y recibidos, que deberían encontrarse en poder de la administración actuante salvo razones justificadas…”. A partir de lo anterior, considera este Tribunal que resulta irrazonable y desproporcionado, que en los incisos xxii y xxiii del artículo 4, y en los incisos xx a xxvii del artículo 5, ambos de la resolución DGT-25-2014, se solicite información que fue emitida y/o que consta en los registros de la Administración Tributaria y/o Aduanera, como sucede con los relativos al número de autorización o exención para la venta sin IVA, ISC o algún otro impuesto y la fecha de vigencia de la misma, pues incluso en el mismo inciso xxii del artículo 4 de la resolución DGT-25-2014, se indica que dichas notas de autorización son extendidas por la Dirección General de Tributación o la Dirección General de Hacienda (folios 89 a 95 del expediente administrativo; 4 a 15, 117 a 128 del expediente judicial). En igual sentido, respecto a los requisitos relacionados con el número de declaración única aduanera (DUA); fecha de la DUA de importación; partida arancelaria; detalle de la partida arancelaria; nombre de la aduana, nombre de la agencia aduanal o el agente de aduanas que realizó el trámite de importación; número de identificación del agente de aduanas o la agencia aduanal que realiza el trámite de exportación; valor de las mercancías reflejado en la DUA. Ello por cuanto, de los artículos 86, 88, 103, 104, 106 y 107 de la Ley General de Aduanas (Ley 7557), y de la resolución DGA-203-2005 dictada por la Dirección General de Aduanas a las 09:00 horas del 22 de junio del 2005 denominada Manual de Procedimientos en el Marco TICA (Contiene Ingreso y salida de Mercancías, Vehículo y Unidades de Transporte, Procedimientos de Tránsito Aduanero, Procedimientos de Depósito y Procedimiento de Importación Definitiva y Temporal) (imágenes 1 a 396 del CD de prueba admitido en la audiencia preliminar), se desprende no sólo que esos datos deben constar en la Declaración Única Aduanera (DUA) registrada en el sistema informático del Sistema Nacional de Aduanas (TICA) u otro sistema autorizado; sino que además, esos datos deben ser proporcionados por las autoridades aduaneras, a otras dependencias oficiales, en los términos del numeral 107 de la Ley General de Aduanas (Ley 7557). En este punto cabe indicar, que el hecho de que el registro de la DUA en el sistema informático del Servicio Nacional de Aduanas, no conlleve avalar el contenido de esa declaración, ni limite las facultades de comprobación de la autoridad aduanera (artículo 88 de la Ley 7557), al punto de que la declaración aduanera auto determinada será sometida a un proceso selectivo y aleatorio, para determinar si corresponde efectuar la verificación inmediata de lo declarado (artículo 93 de la Ley 7557); no implica que la información contenida en el sistema informático del Servicio Nacional de Aduanas, no sea veraz, dado que conforme lo establecen los artículos 89 a 92, 98, de ese mismo cuerpo normativo, cuando exista rechazo de una declaración aduanera, los errores podrán corregirse en el plazo de tres días; asimismo, el declarante podrá en cualquier momento solicitar la corrección de la DUA, o desistir de la declaración a un régimen antes del levante de las mercancías, o bien, hacer las correcciones o ajustes, cuando en el proceso de verificación se determinen diferencias con la DUA. Por último, tampoco se motiva en la resolución número DGT-25-2014 que existan razones que justifiquen solicitar al contribuyente o declarante incluir información emitida o que conste en los archivos de la Administración Tributaria o Aduanera (considerando II aparte d de esta sentencia), tal y como lo establece el inciso 8 in fine del artículo 171 del CNPT, sin perjuicio de que se utiliza una fuente normativa de menor jerarquía, a la que establece el artículo 8 párrafo 2º de la Ley 6826 para determinar la forma y condiciones en que deberá llevarse el registro contable de ventas y compras. En consecuencia y por todo lo expuesto, este Tribunal declara que los incisos xxii y xxiii del artículo 4, y los incisos xx a xxvii del artículo 5 de la resolución DGT-25-2014 dictada por la Dirección General de Tributación a las 08:40 horas del 11 de junio del 2014, adolecen de un vicio de nulidad absoluta, pues resultan contrarios a los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, y al derecho contenido en los numerales 171 inciso 8) del CNPT y 2 párrafo 1º in fine de la Ley 8220. La declaratoria de nulidad absoluta de dichas normas tiene efectos erga omnes, salvo derechos adquiridos de buena fe y situaciones jurídicas consolidadas. A partir de que esta sentencia adquiera firmeza, deberá ser publicada íntegramente en el diario oficial La Gaceta, con cargo al Estado, pues fue la Dirección General de Tributación la que emitió la resolución número DGT-25-2014 dictada a las 08:40 horas del 11 de junio del 2014.- VIIo.- SOBRE LOS PRESUPUESTOS Y EXCEPCIONES DE FONDO. Este Tribunal llega a la conclusión de que la actora cuenta con suficiente legitimación activa para participar en este proceso conforme al artículo 10 inciso a) del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, ya que al estar inscrita como contribuyente ante la Dirección de Grandes Contribuyentes Nacionales, para el Impuesto General sobre las Ventas, entre otros, debe cumplir lo dispuesto en la resolución DGT-25-2014 dictada a las 08:40 horas del 11 de junio del 2014 por la Dirección General de Tributación. Además, la acción se dirige correctamente contra el Estado, tal y como lo dispone el inciso 1) del numeral 12 del citado Código, dado que la Dirección General de Tributación es la autora de la resolución de alcance general objeto de este proceso. Por su parte, el interés se mantiene actual, en el tanto la conducta cuestionada sigue surtiendo efectos en la esfera jurídica de la demandante y requiere de una resolución jurisdiccional que la resuelva. Finalmente y por todo lo expuesto en los considerandos IV y V de esta sentencia, se acoge parcialmente la excepción de falta de derecho planteada por la representante del Estado, únicamente en cuanto a la pretensión principal de nulidad absoluta total de la resolución DGT-25-2014 de las 08:40 horas del 11 de junio del 2014 y respecto a la pretensión subsidiaria de nulidad absoluta parcial de los incisos xiv a xvii de artículo 5 de esa misma resolución. En consecuencia y por todo lo expuesto en el considerando VI de esta sentencia, se rechaza la excepción de falta de derecho en los demás extremos y se declara parcialmente con lugar las demandas interpuestas por Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A. contra el Estado, en los siguientes términos, entendiéndose por denegada en lo que no se indique de manera expresa: 1) Se declara que los incisos xxii y xxiii del artículo 4, y los incisos xx a xxvii del artículo 5 de la resolución DGT-25-2014 dictada a las 08:40 horas del 11 de junio del 2014, adolecen de un vicio de nulidad absoluta, pues resultan contrarios a los principios de jerarquía de las fuentes, razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, y al derecho contenido en los artículos 171 inciso 8) del Código de Normas Procedimientos Tributarios y 2 párrafo 1º in fine de la Ley 8220; 2) La declaratoria de nulidad absoluta de dichas normas tiene efectos erga omnes, salvo derechos adquiridos de buena fe y situaciones jurídicas consolidadas. 3) A partir de que esta sentencia adquiera firmeza, deberá ser publicada íntegramente en el diario oficial La Gaceta, con cargo al Estado, pues fue la Dirección General de Tributación la que emitió la resolución número DGT-25-2014 dictada a las 08:40 horas del 11 de junio del 2014.- VIIIo.- SOBRE LAS COSTAS. De conformidad con el numeral 193 del Código Procesal Contencioso Administrativo, las costas procesales y personales constituyen una carga que se impone a la parte vencida por el hecho de serlo. La dispensa de esta condena sólo es viable cuando hubiere, a juicio del Tribunal, motivo suficiente para litigar o bien, cuando la sentencia se dicte en virtud de pruebas cuya existencia desconociera la parte contraria. En la especie, no encuentra este órgano colegiado motivo para aplicar las excepciones que fija la normativa aplicable y quebrar el postulado de condena al vencido, ya que si bien es cierto, se desestimaron las pretensiones principales de ambas demandas y parcialmente la pretensión subsidiaria de la demanda originalmente planteada bajo expediente 14-010699-1027-CA; también lo es, que este órgano colegiado determinó que los incisos xxii y xxiii del artículo 4, y los incisos xx a xxvii del artículo 5, todos de la resolución DGT-25-2014 dictada a las 08:40 horas del 11 de junio del 2014, adolecen de un vicio de nulidad absoluta, pues resultan contrarios a los principios de jerarquía de las fuentes, razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, y al derecho contenido en los artículos 171 inciso 8) del Código de Normas Procedimientos Tributarios y 2 párrafo 1º in fine de la Ley 8220. Por ende, se imponen ambas costas al Estado, extremos que se liquidarán en la fase de ejecución de sentencia.-

POR TANTO.

Se acoge parcialmente la excepción de falta de derecho planteada por la representante del Estado, únicamente en cuanto a la pretensión principal de nulidad absoluta total de la resolución DGT-25-2014 de las 08:40 horas del 11 de junio del 2014 y respecto a la pretensión subsidiaria de nulidad absoluta parcial de los incisos xiv a xvii del artículo 5 de esa misma resolución. En consecuencia, se rechaza la excepción de falta de derecho en los demás extremos y se declaran parcialmente con lugar las demandas interpuestas por Nombre113922 de Costa Rica, S.A. contra el Estado, en los siguientes términos, entendiéndose por denegadas en lo que no se indique de manera expresa: 1) Se declara que los incisos xxii y xxiii del artículo 4, y los incisos xx a xxvii del artículo 5 de la resolución DGT-25-2014 dictada por la Dirección General de Tributación a las 08:40 horas del 11 de junio del 2014, adolecen de un vicio de nulidad absoluta, pues resultan contrarios a los principios de jerarquía de las fuentes, razonabilidad y proporcionalidad, y al derecho contenido en los artículos 171 inciso 8) del Código de Normas Procedimientos Tributarios y 2 párrafo 1º in fine de la Ley 8220; 2) La declaratoria de nulidad absoluta de dichas normas tiene efectos erga omnes, salvo derechos adquiridos de buena fe y situaciones jurídicas consolidadas. 3) A partir de que esta sentencia adquiera firmeza, deberá ser publicada íntegramente en el diario oficial La Gaceta, con cargo al Estado. 4) Son ambas costas a cargo de Estado, extremos que se liquidarán en la fase de ejecución de sentencia.- Nombre113722 Sergio Mena García Giovanni Marchena Jara PROCESO DE CONOCIMIENTO DECLARADO DE PURO DERECHO ACTORA: Nombre113922 DE COSTA RICA, S.A.

DEMANDADO: EL ESTADO (Procuradora María del Rocío Solano Raabe) Nombre113722 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A