← Environmental Law Center← Centro de Derecho Ambiental
Res. 00052-2017 Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección V · Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo Sección V · 12/06/2017
OutcomeResultado
The absolute nullity of subparagraphs xxii and xxiii of Article 4 and xx to xxvii of Article 5 of Resolution DGT-25-2014 is declared, with erga omnes effects, for violating the hierarchy of sources and the principles of reasonableness and proportionality.Se declara la nulidad absoluta de los incisos xxii y xxiii del artículo 4, y xx a xxvii del artículo 5 de la resolución DGT-25-2014, con efectos erga omnes, por ser contrarios a la jerarquía de fuentes y a los principios de razonabilidad y proporcionalidad.
SummaryResumen
The Administrative Litigation Tribunal partially upheld PriceSmart de Costa Rica S.A.’s lawsuit against the State, annulling several provisions of DGT-25-2014 issued by the Tax Authority. The company argued absolute nullity due to failure to follow the consultation procedure under Article 174 of the Tax Code and partial nullity for violating hierarchy of sources, reasonableness, and proportionality in the electronic record requirements for sales and purchases. The Tribunal rejected total nullity, finding that although the Administration breached certain publicity duties, UCCAEP timely submitted observations without alleging defenselessness. However, it annulled, with erga omnes effects, the requirements to include tax exemption authorization numbers and validity dates in sales records (Art. 4, xxii, xxiii), and customs data such as DUA, tariff heading, and customs agent in purchase records (Art. 5, xx–xxvii). It held these requirements innovated primary sources, supplanted the executive regulation, and were unreasonable for requesting information already held by the Administration.El Tribunal Contencioso Administrativo declaró parcialmente con lugar la demanda de PriceSmart de Costa Rica S.A. contra el Estado, anulando varios incisos de la resolución DGT-25-2014 de la Dirección General de Tributación. La empresa alegó nulidad absoluta por incumplimiento del procedimiento de consulta del artículo 174 del CNPT, y nulidad parcial por violación a la jerarquía de fuentes, razonabilidad y proporcionalidad en los requisitos de registros electrónicos de compras y ventas. El Tribunal rechazó la nulidad total, pues aunque la Administración incumplió ciertos deberes de publicidad, la UCCAEP presentó observaciones sin alegar indefensión. Sin embargo, anuló con efectos erga omnes los incisos que exigían incluir en los registros de ventas el número de nota de autorización de exención de impuestos y su vigencia (xxii y xxiii del artículo 4), y en los registros de compras datos aduaneros como DUA, partida arancelaria y agente aduanal (xx a xxvii del artículo 5). Consideró que estos requisitos innovaban la fuente primaria, suplían el reglamento ejecutivo y resultaban irrazonables al solicitar información ya en poder de la Administración.
Key excerptExtracto clave
Consequently, this Tribunal 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 Tax Authority on June 11, 2014, at 08:40 hours, are vitiated by absolute nullity, as they contravene the principles of reasonableness and proportionality, and the right contained in Article 171(8) of the Tax Code and Article 2, first paragraph, in fine, of Law 8220. The declaration of absolute nullity of said norms has erga omnes effects, except for rights acquired in good faith and consolidated legal situations.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.
Pull quotesCitas destacadas
"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."
"This requirement not only constitutes an innovative and non-interpretive aspect of subparagraph c) of Article 15 of Executive Decree 14082, but also does not conform to the primary source, since it supplants the executive regulation, which is the norm to which the Legislator subordinated the determination of the form and conditions in which taxpayers and filers must keep sales records."
Considerando VI, ap. i
"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."
Considerando VI, ap. i
"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."
"It is unreasonable and disproportionate that subparagraphs xxii and xxiii of Article 4, and subparagraphs 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."
Considerando VI, ap. ii
"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."
Considerando VI, ap. ii
"La sola publicación en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta [...] no garantiza per se el pleno cumplimiento del deber de publicidad."
"The mere publication in the Official Gazette [...] does not per se guarantee full compliance with the duty of publicity."
Considerando IV
"La sola publicación en el Diario Oficial La Gaceta [...] no garantiza per se el pleno cumplimiento del deber de publicidad."
Considerando IV
Full documentDocumento completo
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:
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:
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
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;
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).-
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:
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:
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\"> </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\"> </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, 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.-
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.-
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;
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).-
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:
…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).-
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)*.-
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.-
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;
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:
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:
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
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;
DEMANDADO: EL ESTADO (Procuradora María del Rocío Solano Raabe) Nombre113722 , JUEZ/A DECISOR/A
Document not found. Documento no encontrado.